View Single Post
  #39   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 31-03-2014, 13:24
Lil' Lavery Lil' Lavery is offline
TSIMFD
AKA: Sean Lavery
FRC #1712 (DAWGMA)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,656
Lil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Lil' Lavery
Re: Missed Inbounder Assists

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karthik View Post
2012 was fairly issue free as I recall. 2008 definitely had issues with missed hurdles, especially in those weird cases where balls didn't make a full lap. 2010 has issues in matches where DOGMA penalties came into play. Nothing nearly as bad as we've seen this year, probably a function of how overburdened the referees are this year compared to past years.
I was considering 2010's DOGMA penalties to be a separate issue, but given that they were generated via the automated scoring system, I can see how they're related. I think the scoring system by itself was good at tracking score as far as I can recall. Once or twice there was an issue with multiple balls passing in quick succession, but I think that was an issue experienced less than once per event.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karthik View Post
This was not an issue in 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2011, which all had games where you could get a very good approximation of the score just by glancing at the field. That combined with some real time scoring for display purposes only, made all four of those games incredibly spectator friendly. To me, this type of setup is something we should be striving for.
For an individual on a team, especially ones who are well versed in the rules, I tend to agree (with the exception of some 2007 matches). For a layperson, I'm less convinced. 2004 and 2005 were staightforward enough that most could get a good handle on the score once they learned the point values. 2007 and 2011 I don't think were nearly as easy. While it would be obvious in a blowout, there were too many modifiers and too many endgame points to make it obvious who held the advantage in matches were both alliances were competitive. It was easy to see who held the longest row in 2007, but the exponential scoring didn't lend itself to quickly tabulating score for most spectators, and it would rarely be obvious if an alliance's lead was substantial enough to overcome the potential points of the end game. The diminishing returns on lower rows and the doubling value of ubertubes led to a similar issue with 2011.

Granted, nothing will ever be worse than 2001 for spectator friendly scoring. That game was a nightmare to try and explain and calculate scores.