[dlavery]

I guess I will speak up on this one too.

First off, the postulate by the original poster is flawed. The FRC Game Design Committee does indeed include significant representation by senior mentors associated with long-term veteran teams, and has ever since the GDC was first formed. Over 50% of the GDC membership (including myself, Vince Wilczynski, Jeremy Roberts, and Aidan Browne) is actively involved with current teams. Other members of the group have previously been involved with teams, even though they may not be currently involved.

With regard to the formation of a "Game Approval Committee," that is a function that (as Rich Kressly notes) also already exists. While not using that particular sobriquet, there is a group that takes a look at the game and rules each year as they are being developed by the GDC, and provides feedback in several different areas.

I am not saying that the ideas of the original poster are not worth consideration, but rather noting that both that particular problem and solution have long ago been addressed and factored in to the current process. The issue is that the meta-problem he describes ("from the perspective of the teams, the game experience should be improved") is much more complex than might initially appear.

There are many, many constraints associated with the design of the game each year that may not be readily apparent. As noted above, many members of the GDC bring their team experience to the group. They are there specifically to use that background when developing the game. But they recognize that as part of the process, some compromises must be made to balance out competing requirements.

Each year, the GDC attempts to design a game that is a "best fit" solution for the constraints (both formal and informal) that are delivered from the teams, the sponsors, the audiences, the FIRST Board of Directors, the venues, the unions, the shipping companies, the available budget, the KOP suppliers, the event managers, the Regional Directors, the FIRST staff, the show producers, the media representatives, the FRC founders, and several other sources. Many of these constraints are self-competing, if not completely mutually exclusive. The net result is that the "perfect" solution space in which all constraints are satisfied and all parties are happy is virtually non-existent.

So, to be blunt, we don't even try for that. We try for a compromise solution that appropriately balances the prioritized needs of all the stakeholders. But we have a (I believe, healthy) recognition that whatever solution is developed, no matter how optimal, will probably never quite be viewed as "perfection" when examined from any one particular customer viewpoint. Each year, we expect that each customer constituency will find a shortcoming in the game when viewed from their particular vantage point, and they will let us know about it. We take that information and listen to it carefully, and factor it into the process - either for the current year, or the next year. We do constantly try to improve the process, we try to reduce the size of the "dissatisfaction space," and we try to respond to the perceived flaws of the overall experience (for the teams and ALL of the FRC customers). But while that is happening, we also ask that everyone recognize that their requirements are not the only requirements.

-dave


.