Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen
What kind of "open forum" would we have if we closed any thread started by someone with an opinion?
|
Word.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen
I agree that it's good that the rules are being enforced consistently. The 30 pointers seem excessive, but they are having the desired effect on play. Basically, I'd like for the penalties to be less serious, but when it comes right down to it, that would make the game what I wanted it to be, and not what it is.
|
Interesting point. I do have to admit that the number of games that end 0-0 is a bit high (we even had one).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen
I do take issue with the characterization of rough play as something inherently bad. FIRST has the same problem that the NFL has - it's a fact that hard hits are more exciting, and make more people want to watch. It's also a fact that hard hits make for broken robots, and neither broken robots nor broken quarterbacks can play the game.
|
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me that PNW was boring, but apparently a lot of other regionals really were boring (just what I heard, can't say either way myself). However, as to your other point, I think rough play is being discouraged in FIRST, because its not supposed to be just about who can push the other robot around, its supposed to be more about who can accomplish the game better. The engineering challenge is the fact that the game changes each year. If "defensive" robots had free reign, then one robot design could conceivably win year after year with minimal modifications. I don't think thats what any of us want.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen
It is, however, entirely possible to make a rough game that is both interesting and not battle bots, and FIRST did that in 2002 and 2003. They have also moved as far as possible away from a rough game, in 2001, and you'll be hard pressed to find people that liked the 2001 game better than either of the years that followed it.
|
Well, 2001 was my first year, and I can't help but have good feelings about that diabolical teeter-totter...
And as for this game, I don't think that it disallows rough play, just restricts it to a certain role in the game that makes it so that a purely defensive robot can not adequately play the game. I think that is a wonderful effect, but there will of course be different opinions on this. As I stated in the original post, some games had a lot of defense. The final game of the final match, where presumably the two best alliances faced off, the loosing alliance had only 6 points, I believe. The winning alliance not only stacked their own tetras, but played defense and effectively prevented their opponents from stacking more than two tetras as well. For these reasons, I believe that defense is alive and well, but it along can not win a game.
Thanks for the interesting discussion Kris!