View Single Post
  #55   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2014, 11:51
Siri's Avatar
Siri Siri is offline
Dare greatly
AKA: 1640 coach 2010-2014
no team (Refs & RIs)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 1,613
Siri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via ICQ to Siri
Re: paper: Spanking the Children

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
Let's talk about soccer.
I know we played it in 2010, but I think there are a lot of parallels to the current game.
There are essentially TWENTY players who are actively trying to get posession of a single ball - or prevent others from doing so. There are debilitating and, to the untrained observer, confusing and contradictory penalties. The game is simple to explain, but very difficult to master. There are no shortage of silly and archaic rules (what do you mean, we're not allowed to pick up a ball?) yet it is the single most popular game in the world.
Because the game strategies have evolved and matured.
Because the players decided that there are efficient and elegant ways to beat the physical gameplay, and have implemented them successfully.
It's been a long time since I've played soccer, but I'm pretty sure it'd be less appealing if players not actively engaged with the ball could hope to legally remove each other from competition by charging/pushing/tackling with significant leeway. (Yes, we have G28, etc rules, but one can still hope to completely shut down a player's offense for the match using only legal defense play.) If 16/20 or so players on the field spent their time sparring, it'd be a very different game to say the least.

So, kudos, Jim. We've won events as the primary defender, but I knew a kickoff that this'd be too far. At least offer a viable alternative to playing D so much, particularly since the clearest target often isn't even on active offense themselves.

To Jesse's good point:
* Short term - I think we play the game we've been dealt. I don't see a reasonable fix that could be made this late, but I'm open to suggestions. Minor improvements, but nothing that can change the rational cost-benefit on the amount of time and effort some teams spend trying to disable others. Better scoring/reffing, fouls, field management, etc is something that needed to have been handled from the start (speaking with my ref hat on), though there are some fixes occurring. So, we play. I've got 2+ more ref gigs and 1+ more coaching events, and I'll play the hand I'm dealt.
* Long term - Don't design games that deliberately limit the amount of time per match a team can spend play offense. I genuinely cannot understand how this was considered a good idea. Talk to the head ref advisers earlier. Get advisers that have actually built teams and robots and coached matches. I don't think it's a coincidence that the VRC GDC seems to avoid a lot of these complaints.
__________________
Reply With Quote