My biggest complaint is with the game itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T3_1565
I myself never had a problem with diversity in the last two years, yet with what may be the most popular game in FIRST (Aim High) every robot looked the same, yet people didn't care, and it was the game most talked about. Also there were only three ways to score in that game as well, same with 2005, same with 2004 (I may be wrong about 2004, I wasn't around for it  ) so talking about how one dimensional this game was, isn't right. The game that had the least ways to score was last year, not this year, and every other game before that, only had three ways to score anyways (whether it was worth a lot or not).
Edit: 2002 also only had three ways to score!
|
The issues I don't think is with the number of ways to score, but rather with their relative worth.
In 2004: You could score 50 points either by hanging on the bar, or by getting 10 balls in your goal, or by getting 5 balls and a cap in your goal. Teams could be competitive with just one method, or with a combination of them.
In 2006: You could score 3 points by shooting high or 1 point by going low. There were a number of very good dumper robots that made significant point swings for their alliance. The ramps at the end were a nice touch, making it really worth a significant amount if you could get all 3, but not completely worthless if not all the robots could get up.
In 2007: You could score points on the rack or with ramps, and you had a choice of the potential payoff of 256 point rings, or a mostly undefendable 60 points. Both scoring methods were extremely important and had very equal weight.
If you look at games like 2005 and 2008, there is clearly one method of scoring that is much more effective than the others.
2005: Sure you could put tetras underneath, but that took almost as long, was worth 1/3 of the points, and was overshadowed when someone put one on top. The 10 point bonus at the end was typically worth too small a percentage of points compared to the effort it took to make sure all 3 robots were back behind the line.
2008: Even the best lap bots couldn't compete with an above-average hurdler, and while a few herder robots were clearly very good (58 and 173 come to mind), they also were overshadowed by high-power hurdlers. Looking at the alliances on Archimedes (which I watched) and on Einstein, none of the non-hurdling robots were running fast laps. Even 148, arguably the best lapper of the year played, defense.
I also agree with Tom Bottiglieri that penalties this year were a little outrageous. There was not a single match on Einstein that did not have penalties. That shouldn't happen at world championships. Maybe in one or two matches, but not in every single one of them.