Quote:
Originally Posted by George Nishimura
But the depth of gameplay was quite shallow. The rules reduced 90% of robots to play one strategy: cycle + 10pt hang.
Aerial Assist is a lot braver. It wants to be dynamic and versatile. It wants more teams to think, talk and coordinate before and during a match (at least more than picking which feeder station to use). It wants to be more like a real team sport. Most teams sports have only one game-piece in play at a time as they cater for both defense and offense. That's what I believe Aerial Assist is trying to do.
|
I'm reminded of a quote from "The Next Iron Chef": "If a dish is creative, but a failure, is it creative, or is it a failure?"
While there's something to be said for a brave, challenging game design with complex strategies that really makes teams think, there's also something to be said for a more straightforward game that lets teams succeed and have fun without throwing up a ton of arbitrary obstacles and gotchas. 2001's 4-v-0 game was probably one of the most out there game designs in FRC history, and it was pretty frustrating and not incredibly fun to watch, especially in the finals.
Also, I feel it necessary to point out that team sports have had decades to work out rules that allow for an even balance of offense and defense with a single scoring object. Heck, it took professional basketball 8 years to come up with the shot clock to make sure games kept moving. With a new game design every year, the GDC doesn't have a lot of time to tweak and twiddle to balance the game. Teams are happiest when they get it right out of the gate and don't have to make large rule changes in the middle of the competition season. I'm pretty sure simpler, less strategically complex games vastly simplify the balancing process and increase the likelihood of getting it right to start with.