Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber
1) We can incentivize that path with things like points, power ups, or just cool visual experiences (Carrot)
2) We can penalize them (death, point loss, waves of enemies) for alternate paths. (Stick)
3) We can force them down that path by not allowing any other options. (Rails)
|
As you probably know though, any design has a combination of these three things. I cannot think of any game that does not have a 'rail' or 'stick' involved.
There will always be the possibility of actions that are:
a) malicious or dangerous
b) unfairly advantageous
Regardless of how many 'carrots' you provide. If we talk on a points per second ratio, and the assumption that point prevented = point scored, there will always be means of gaining points that are not within the original intention of the game.
This is why every rule set has foul/penalties.
I think Aerial Assist is intended to be a dynamic game, with both offense and defense, but the kind that requires good teamwork and organisation. Defensive strategies where one robot can prevent another team from scoring are the main causes for concern.
The fact that there is only one ball and that you rely on your partners is central to the game. Accepting that's not going to change, the rules now need to reflect the need to realize the original vision of a dynamic and co-operation oriented game.
So, the rules they have for achieving those goals:
Incentivize working together on offense/prevent an unbeatable lone wolf:
Carrot
- 30pt for triple assists (3 robots)
- 20pt truss & catch (2 robots)
- mobility bonus (per robot)
- Assist as second ranking
Rail:
- one ball at a time
- one truss per cycle
Incentivise working together on defence/prevent one robot from crippling an alliance:
Carrot:
- two "idle" robots
Stick:
- G12 (possession of an opposition ball)
- Goalie rules
- low goal rule
Protect robots/Prevent robot assassination
Carrot:
- Random qualification partnerships
- GP
Rail:
- Inspection
Stick:
- G27
- G28
- G14
Protect humans/prevent risking human safety
Stick:
- G40
I think the goal for safety-related rules should not be stick-oriented, but be rail-oriented. Reduce the possibility of people being hurt rather than de-incentivise. Otherwise, the general architecture of the game seems pretty balanced. I'm not clever enough personally to see possible improvements of 'stick to carrot'.
How sharp and jaggedy those sticks are is another question.
Then there is another set of possible actions that are not accounted for: inadvertent actions. Basically anything in the hole between what carrot/stick guide you toward, and the rail.
Any FRC rule set is vulnerable to these actions, especially the more interaction teams have with the opposition. How do you judicate for these actions (eg a robot damaging another robot, tipping, hitting the ball out of the field etc)?