Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemo
This year's game took the "defense bot" strategy off the table for teams that otherwise would have settled for a box on wheels. Hopefully that caused some teams to challenge themselves in healthy ways.
#1. I prefer to watch games that are dominated by offense.
#2. I want the incentives in the rules to significantly favor offensive strategies.
#3. I like a scoring mechanic that doesn't severely penalize an alliance for letting a less effective robot try to execute their offensive strategy.
I mention #2 and #3 are because it sucks when teams show up with manipulators and get told by their alliance partners not to use them. Sometimes the incentives are setup that way.
|
I agree strongly on all points. On #1, I guess it's a matter of preference, though one might observe that the NFL, for example, seems to think that's what
their fans want, given rule trends around the passing game. #2 may be just a restatement of #1, even if other points may made for it.
I'm really glad to see #3 mentioned though, because IMO it's one of the uglier sides of FIRST, and unfortunately all too common.
It's one thing (and painful enough) for a team to decide itself to turn to defense because the scoring mechanism they worked all season on isn't working well, but quite another to be told by alliance partners to play defense simply because it better serves the alliance. It is hard for this not to come across as a direct insult to a machine a young team has worked hard on, meant so or not.
While maximizing alliance score may be the best interest of the higher ranked teams competing for seeding spots, it frequently isn't for those lower down. Their best shot may be to make a good showing of some unique capability that might cause a captain to pick them for eliminations, or to demonstrate that the failures that dropped their ranking have been corrected and they're now underrated, and a good "sleeper" pick. Finally, if you're completely out of the running, what's better for enjoyment and experience, running your robot to the best of its capabilities and learning what you can, or "taking one for the team" to help partners you may be playing against the very next round anyway?
The sad part is that it's young teams most likely to be in this position, and most likely to succumb to this sort of pressure. They want to be GP, but haven't yet learned to assert, or even fully evaluate, their own team's best interests. Young teams are also the ones that most need encouragement, and using them as cannon fodder isn't particularly encouraging.
It should go without saying that the above applies exclusively to qualifications, not eliminations, for several good reasons.