Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryVoshol
I voted for audience appeal. I think we are at a time where, to increase visibility of existing teams and attract new teams and sponsors, we need to have an event that is watchable and easy to understand. Lunacy passed the understanding test - what could be simpler than scoring a ball in your opponents' trailers? But I heard from a lot of people that it was just too disjointed to watch and keep track of who was ahead. There was stuff going on all over the field. Overdrive was simpler to watch; you got the idea of who was faster by watching who was passing.
Several of the other choices contribute to the audience appeal. For example, if the challenge is too hard to build and there are ineffectual robots out there, there is nothing fun to watch.
Of course a challenge has to be given to the teams. If the game is too easy, students won't learn much. If they don't learn, they won't be as inspired. Let's face it, drilling holes, filing and tightening bolts isn't that all inspiring. There has to be something to the game, both mechanically and strategically.
I've heard lots of comments and complaints about design restrictions this year, that not exceeding the bumper perimeter and the explicit bumper rules limited the teams' creativity. But that was part of the point of the game. Just like everyone had to figure out how to work with the provided wheels on the FRP surface, everyone had to figure out how to make their manipulators work inside this year's confines.
|
I also voted for audience appeal, and Gary explained why perfectly, so I won't bother to repeat it. His entire post sums up exactly what I was going to write. I'll admit that the strategy part is my personal favorite- that's what makes games most exciting to me, but overall I think the audience-friendliness is most important and incorporates many other factors.