As a couch in this year's game, I have to say that I hate my job. I've spent 45 days building the robot, and I want them to count for my winning, not the 2 days of competition. On the other hand, games also should be fun to watch, and a game which involves strategy makes great show for the audience (though in my opinion an amazing robot showcasing is always better). FIRST should work on balancing those ideals, and I think this year they went a little too extreme on the "strategy and communication" side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird
While I didn't really get a chance to read too many posts I will admit this. Even if I hate this years game, it does a good job of making rookie and new teams feel like they are welcome to join the fray.
If you make it too complex for the rookie teams then the amount of new teams signing up will be reduced significantly, if its too simple then this forum will happen.
Its a fine balance and I look forward to seeing what FRC learns from this years game when they put together future games.
|
I don't agree with you, I think last year's game done this job much better. In it 2013 was much easier to complete a basic robot (shooter and 1st stage climber) but also featured challenges for the veteran teams (ground pickup, 3rd stage climbing). This year, on the other hand, most teams could not manege to complete all game challenges successfully due to the harder challenge.
I am not saying that this is not a good challenge, but these are the facts. What I do say is that teams that did manege to complete the challenge could find themselves low in the seeding due to their alliances.