View Single Post
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-05-2009, 09:20
Rob Rob is offline
Registered User
AKA: Rob
FRC #0131 (CHAOS)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 304
Rob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond reputeRob has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Rob
Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?

Based on my observations this year and past, I have to agree with Dave. I see no evidence that leveling the playing field has ever been a goal of any game design. As supporting evidence of that observation, I offer Cory's concept that this year did not level the playing field.

What makes successful teams successful is not the resources they have at their disposal, it is the decisions that they make on how to apply those resources.

What I saw coming from the unique playing surface this year was a shift in how these successful teams approached their decision making about propulsion systems. The propulsion system changed from a very mechanical challenge to one that took a bit more thinking and involvement from other areas of the team. It became much more than simply transmissions and wheels. Instead of spending time on custom transmissions and wheels, effort on traction systems and alternative propulsion such as fans was rewarded with on field success.

This is the first year in my 14 in FIRST that I have seen programmers so excited about the design of the drive system. To me, that is the achievement of this game. It did not level any playing field but it did challenge what was considered to be the norm for design and construction of propulsion systems.

Personally, I hope to see more twists in future games that challenge us to look differently at design.
Reply With Quote