Quote:
Originally Posted by magnets
The game is difficult. That's the whole point.
|
"Difficult" is quite the broad term to be using here. This game doesn't disproportionately favor the most capable teams, this game doesn't punish specialization, etc. just because it is "difficult". 2013 was a very difficult year, but it was an extremely balanced game which was essentially won by the teams whom best built within their means and picked good strategies. 2011 was not a particularly difficult year, but it had huge flaws and winning the game essentially mandated a large monetary investment (no, other years did not to the extent that the minibot rules of 2011, and the fragile nature of the motors, did.).
It's hard to pick up game pieces and score them, yes. But you can make a game that's both difficult and good. The game punishes behavior that we should be rewarding, teams building within their means. The game all but mandates that to win you have to try and do everything.
It's hard to be consistent, yes, and the game rewards consistency. Sure, but it doesn't have to end entire tournaments because of a single miscue in a single match. This game basically ends elimination runs as soon as anything goes wrong. I get it - unforgiving circumstances are hard. But quite honestly not every circumstance is preventable, foreseeable, or something a team can do anything about. At some point, it becomes a game of probability - which alliances have enough luck to be evaluated based on their merit? Is that "difficult" or is that just swingyness / entropy?