Quote:
Originally Posted by Oblarg
This might not be what you're intending, but this reads an awful lot like "screw what other people think, my opinion is the correct one."
That's not a particularly productive view to have.
I, for one, like this game quite a bit. There are issues, yes, but the fundamental design is the best FIRST has had in a long while. FRC has gone too long with three robots playing in parallel rather than three robots playing as a team.
|
What do you consider the 'fundamental design' to be? Is it the simple, high-level description absent of all rules? Is it the full rule book?
I certainly understand and agree with the many claims that foul point values are completely out of whack for most infractions, that rule enforcement is arbitrary and varied, and that a team's performance is very closely tied with the capability of randomly assigned alliance members. I think the decisions that led to the implementation of those rules were flawed, but will concede that others can disagree and I have no irrefutable evidence that supports my position.
However, the field does not work and the referees are not able to credit teams appropriately for accomplishing rudimentary game tasks. Can anyone reasonably refute either of these claims? Fundamentally, FIRST did not provide a product that lives up to the expectation they set at kick-off. The result of a survey should not dissuade FIRST from understanding that and taking corrective action; and I do not necessarily believe that it will.
There are, in my opinion, too many people in FIRST that use the notion, true as it may be, that "it's not about the robots" as a get out of jail free card and as an excuse for poor performance. I'm getting pretty frustrated by that.