Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik
On the one hand yes. On the other hand, I've specifically stopped helping with BEST robotics and stopped pointing people in their direction because their game designs are perennially silly, overly complicated, and not very fun to play or watch. I'd rather spend my time on and point people at VRC that has entry fees and kit costs than at the free-to-teams BEST simply because their game designs are so lacking. I'm not saying FRC is there yet, but it's not impossible for them to get to that point.
|
This. I think a lot of people are overlooking issues like this.
For instance--and I'm not implying this is what Kevin meant--there's been a lot of 'vocal minority' explanations floating around. Let's posit for a moment that this is true, and the general majority has no abnormal issues with the game.
While this postulate is certainly a positive, it overlooks the importance of that particular vocal minority. I don't say this as a back-patting method. If you woke me up on 3 January 2014 and said that Jim Zondag is going to write 'Spanking the Children' on this game, that Karthik would stop MCing Ontario*, that I'd personally know of multiple key and certified volunteers considering not participating as much next year, that my very-veteran head refs were going to warn us of the hardship, that they'd rightly need a vent valve to relieve the pressure of the question box and later apologize for a wrong call that ended an elim run, that we'd stress personally about possible missed assists and fouls, that top coaches and strategists would be unusually upset over by game quirks, that refs would stay up nights with a competition-Thursday team update...If you gave me a list of half of the top mentors and volunteers that have expressed uncharacteristic concerns about this game on CD or elsewhere, I would have been terrified. Not because I'd trust them that there's a problem(s) with the game, though I would worry, but because FIRST objectively relies on much of this vocal minority. These are our district organizers, our volunteer coordinators, our head referees, our FTAs, the volunteers, mentors and students that make the grassroots level (and above) work.
I suspect I've just opened up a can of flames. To be clear, I have the utmost respect for every one of these people. I'm not saying we're going to have a mass exodus here or that anything about it is somehow shallow, though I wouldn't blame anyone for leaving. Nor am I implying that anyone is somehow better or possessing of a more valid opinion than someone else. FIRST does need key volunteers though, and I'm worried by even the few (but unprecedented) number of discussions I've personally heard about people not returning. As Mr. Sevcik's BEST example indicates, continuing at this level is fundamentally jeopardous to FRC's volunteer base. We need to understand what's going on here to prevent it from continuing to erode this support.
---
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe
What about having your partner pin the ball against the wall? Or one strategy we've talked about is drop the ball in front of the low goal and have your partner push it in for the assist and the point. I understand it's easier said than done, we're making sure to ask the refs during the drivers meeting what they are going to consider an assist so we can attempt to think about some easy ways box bots can help generate assists.
|
Offensive trapping still is not being called consistently. It's not just that different referees see it differently (a flaw of the game, not so much refs), but because we are deliberately told to look for different things at different events. Seriously. Dear GDC:
change the wording of G12d. I am not attempting to shield my ball by pushing it against my alliance partner or against the low goal. You answered the Q&A. Enforce it that way. garrgh.
*EDIT: I've since been informed that this one in particular may not be directly game-related