View Single Post
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-16-2015, 05:19 PM
Siri's Avatar
Siri Siri is offline
Dare greatly
AKA: 1640 coach 2010-2014
no team (Refs & RIs)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 1,588
Siri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via ICQ to Siri
Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery View Post
Do keep in mind the intent of the minibots in 2011. It was expressively permitted, and awarded, to share minibots in LogoMotion. Woodie made comments about a "minibot economy." Beyond that, minibots were not necessarily even meant to be built by FRC teams. Tetrix parts were required for a reason, and they stressed that minibots were about integrating FRC and FTC together during kickoff.

The minibot was very much a distinct item from the rest of the robot in 2011. It wasn't simply an "assembly."
I think this example is really the crux of the issue. The GDC had an intent in 2011, and they designed the game to make it strategically beneficial to teams to execute on that intent. Or...they thought they did. I don't know how common trading minibots or collaborating with FTC was elsewhere, but it was certainly a universal truth that fewer Tetrix parts meant higher scores. The ability to clone also left the top tier teams who'd done all the R&D with a very bad taste in their mouth (and way less money in their wallets).

This year, the bad taste is coming from the 'boat anchor' robots for other team's ramps. I'm not arguing that this is or isn't inspirational or GP or in the spirit of FIRST: what a team gets out of that experience must be very much its own. (And related to hopefully well-meaning but functionally unregulatable Alliance professionalism.) But if the GDC wanted to avoid this, they shouldn't've made a game that had, from the start, clearly, painfully, obviously, 'here, we'll even make it easier to get four extra points if you take them off the field'-style diminishing returns for a 2nd pick of a dual powerhouse alliance.

Now that the GDC has set the game design--and I don't even really blame them for not foreseeing this if they didn't--stop with the over-legislating. (2013 G27 anyone?) This is a community concern now. And FIRST HQ has fostered a good one, in my humble opinion. Let the game play. You will make mistakes in life that you can't save people from. Luck be with you if this turns out to be the worst of them.
__________________
Reply With Quote