Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholsjj
Back to the overall game design for FIRST. I also believe that providing multiple strategic options for teams to focus on in the game is very important. I believe teams would be very scared if they were forced to compete in one specific task against teams such as 67,111,254,469, and 1114(  ). Teams need variability in order to be competitive(IMO). The GDC did a fantastic job this year in particular for providing a game with so many multiple ways to become a valuable alliance partner. Just look at the Division Elims(as well as IRI next month) to get a true sense of how many different strategies were used. |
Now, I'm playing devil's advocate, but I also understand where OP (of the question) is coming from.
Let's say that we took this year's game and removed the climbing portion entirely. Do you believe that there would be much difference in the abilities of the top tier machines? Even a difference between the mid-tier and top-tier teams?
If anything, the strategic *variety* plays to the strengths of resource-heavy teams that can allocate resources to accommodate a majority of strategies.
However, rather than attempt to justify this disparity, I choose to embrace it. I know that my students will play in scenarios in which they are outgunned by teams who didn't have to "stretch" as much (or so it seems), and it's a scenario that my students and I have grown to expect and to learn from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholsjj
The one item I didn't like about this year's game was the cost to build a "close" practice field. To be either a good FCS or pyramid climber teams would usually have to shell out around quite a bit of cash. This isn't a bad thing, but I would personally like a game with an end game field structure that is cheaper to build like 2011 instead of 2012/13.
|
+1 here.
- Sunny G.