[StephLee]

I agree that the best solution is for teams to follow the rules more effectively; however, if this were practical, penalties wouldn't be part of the game in the first place.

I do think having an entire alliance penalized by one robot's erroneous actions is an area that could be dealt with a little more "fairly". I'm hesitant to say fairly, because one could easily argue that being paired with a penalty-happy partner is part of the luck of the draw, and since it could happen to any team, it is not unfair. However, it definitely contributes to the teams' perceptions of unfairness, and thus often takes something away from their experience at a given competition.

I do agree that, with certain games, alternate solutions for awarding penalties than simply taking away points could be considered. This year, however, it wouldn't be very feasible to have an offending robot disabled for a few seconds, with the track as narrow as it sometimes became anyway. That type of penalty, again, would have added a new dimension of strategy - a disabled robot can't recieve an impeding penalty, and what would have stopped an alliance from purposely disabling themselves across a single line at a strategic moment for the other alliance?

My point is, penalties of ANY kind will severely affect the playing style and evolution of any game - and I'm positive the GDC considers this when they're creating a new game.