Quote:
Originally Posted by gblake
I think Jason was suggesting that implementing the OP's suggestion of active cooperation, rather than passive avoidance, would be an excellent way for both alliances to maximize their points.
|
It is, but I don't think it qualifies as improving the game. Did the early-90s 49ers teams play football "better" than the late-70s Steelers because they had a great offense rather than a great defense? I don't think so.
Sure, offensive play can be more fun for spectators to watch, and I'd prefer to have exciting, spectator-friendly games every year. I think they're better for the program and its outreach efforts. But as a team and an alliance, it isn't always in our best interest to avoid playing defense, even if our opponents say they won't defend us. We may judge our best chance to win a match is by defending. It's FIRST's job as the game designers, not ours as the competitors, to ensure that the spectators are entertained.