[EricH]

Originally Posted by Valley Raider

I did not mean this as a slam against the game design team. The point I am trying to make is that the game rules tend to be over complicated. I am very disappointed that Regonals are being decided by Ref rulings on the field and not by Robot performances. SVR was a great example of this. I think the the game design team needs to work more on the game (I don't know what exactly how much time is spent but I would like to see more).

My comments were extreme but this is a problem. My team designed our robot to comply with the six foot alliance home zone rule, we spend two days working on a solution and then the rule changed. I feel major rules changes like this shouldn't happen.

The GDC has to make the rules complicated because of people who try to find every possible loophole. Sorry, but that's the way it is. They have their own time constraints--full-time jobs, family, travel distance, that sort of thing. So I don't know how they can spend more time.

You designed to comply with the 6' limit. I think you may want a new design process, starting with game analysis. But that's a discussion for another day.

SVR was a case of a ref not calling a clear rule correctly. That's another (beaten to death) discussion.

<G22> has caused 1000's of points in penalties. And I have not seen a single team intentionally drive backwards. I think if this rule had been examined more before the game was created this could have been avoided. That was the point I was trying to make.

I can think of some instances, usually to free a clotheslined robot. I'm sure they examined the rule as much as possible. The problem is that Week 1 (or maybe the preships) is the FIRST time the game is seen played for real. So it's hard to tell what rules will be the penalty-getters. Were you around for 2005's "Kiss of Death" penalty? Slight contact at the wrong place/time, -30 points instantly. That swung a lot of matches. That's how the game was played that year.

I agree some of my claims are ridiculous, but it was in part a rant about penalties changing the outcome of the game. All I want is for when the match is over to be able to look up at the score and not think, ok if blue get two penalties then red wins.

Can/do penalties change the outcome of pro sports? I think so. It's just that the penalty is applied DURING the game, not afterwards. Again, that's just the way it's played here.

What I ask is that after the game is created that people from teams can provide feedback. These can be students who have already graduated but they need to have experienced what is is like to be on the field and know how people on the teams are going to think and play the game. I also feel the referees should have all formally been members of teams. I read the rule book once and often times I find myself knowing more than the referees (I don't want to make is seem like I know everything its just that I have corrected the referees multiple times).

These rules needed to be reviewed before kick off.

Here is my suggestion, when the team review the game and discovers rule <GX> by pose some confusion/excess penalties then create a general post about basically what the rule would accomplish without revealing game clues.

For example a question for <G22> could be.

What do FIRST teams think about a rule restricting movement on the field?
I think that people could have provide helpful information that would have improved <G22. if the was done.

A question for the impeding a hurdler rule could read.

What do FIRST teams think about a rule protecting Robots who are in the process of scoring?

This way team could at least provide a Ya or Na for major game rules. I understand that is some cases this might not work but I think these are two reasonable examples.

I've been thinking about this myself, but there is a need for STRICT game secrecy. So it would need to be much more complicated/vague. I'm working on something, but I don't think it'll work as I see it right now.

The refs being past members of teams... That's something to be really careful with. 1) There are enough out there, but how many are still involved? 2) Of those, how many know the game thoroughly? 3) Many are now mentors. Do you deprive teams of mentors? 4) The inevitable--how do you deal with bias, should a ref be from a team at the event he/she is reffing? This isn't always a problem, but it can be.

Again I don't know everything that goes on when the game is created I just think that more thought needs to go into it, given the dedication to FIRST that so many of us have.

Neither do I know everything that goes into this...but before you say that more thought needs to go into this, try rewriting an old rulebook. Let's say 2005, rewriting the Loading Zone rules/penalties. Oh, and you have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight.