View Single Post
  #36   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 19-03-2010, 23:05
Kevin Sevcik's Avatar
Kevin Sevcik Kevin Sevcik is offline
(Insert witty comment here)
FRC #0057 (The Leopards)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,728
Kevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Kevin Sevcik Send a message via Yahoo to Kevin Sevcik
Re: FIRST Rule Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRLedford View Post
You misrepresent my "core opinion", and the title of the thread I why I posted it here.
It is an issue with the game rules that allow ONLY the offensive team to have PRIORITY ACCESS to the balls as they return to the playing field. I critique only the rules for allowing any team that pulls off a decent looper design (like 469's) to gain too much of an advantage over their opponents, often leading to very dominating blow outs. Any competitive game with rules that facilitate more frequent blowouts would be considered (at least by TV sponsors paying for the advertising during such games) a "ratings killer". This means people quickly lose interest in watching such blowout games, especially if there are very many in a relatively short time frame.
So, if you are suggesting that looper blowouts will stimulate the interest of more people in viewing the FIRST competition matches than close scoring matches will, then I assert MORE facts exist to back my opinion on this than yours. It's fine to have an opinion that looper blowouts are what the matches should become AS LONG AS THE RULES ALLOW IT, but I will never agree with your opinion, and until I see the appearance of an effective strategy that can neutralize decent loopers, I will keep thinking this rule exploit is bad for Breakaway 2010.
-Dick Ledford
Dick,

First and foremost, continuing to call this strategy a "rule exploit" probably won't win you any friends or help you persuade anyone to your side of the argument. This strategy isn't an exploit, it's completely valid and well within the rules and was thought up by a LOT of people. There was a whole thread about it a while ago. I fail to see how something that so many people thought of can be an "exploit" in the sense you mean.

Also, I'm confused by the implications of your last statement there. You seem to be saying that a dominant strategy is bad for the game. I've always operated under the assumption that the FRC design process was about discovering and implementing a robot that can win the game. The whole premise is that there are some strategies and designs that are better than others. If you're looking for a game where you're guaranteed a level playing and close matches because everyone's evenly matched, then lobby for FRC NASCAR. Otherwise, you're admitting that some strategies are going to be better than others and you're down to a matter of degree.

If you think that this particular strategy in this particular game is just too dominating, then consider this: A single team out of a field of thousands has managed to make this work this flawlessly. If one robot in a thousand dominating this game is too much for you to handle, then, again, I point you to FRC NASCAR. In the FRC of my experience, there's a dominate robot in the field every single year.
__________________
The difficult we do today; the impossible we do tomorrow. Miracles by appointment only.

Lone Star Regional Troubleshooter
Reply With Quote