Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes
To each his own, but I find it more fun to play games where I can just focus on winning than to play games where I have to focus on maximizing some other metric.
|
Yeah, this is what irks me. I know that these sort of things make FRC uniquely complex and deep for a high school program, but that sort of desired strategic intensity can be achieved without gimmicky backdoor deals between alliances to play the game a certain way. We know this. The 2013 and 2014 games provided ample room to think deeply about strategy and draw up game plans in a way that approached traditional sports, which is clearly part of what many of us enjoy about the competitive aspect of FRC. "_____ Agreement"-type plans just replace the natural strategy of well-designed games with consternation over how best to subvert the 3v3 nature of the competition to move up the rankings. It's not unethical, it's just confusing for less-informed or non-CD spectators and frankly (in my opinion) less enjoyable to watch and play. The alliances that win events and championships should be the ones that together are the best gear placers, shooters, climbers, and defenders, not the best at doing something else. That is the hallmark of an effective game.
TL;DR Strategic depth is not incongruous with games that encourage simply playing with your alliance and against the other one. We don't need other nonsense to get our fill of lateral thinking.