301 points! and could have done more

[seg9585]

Originally Posted by Nirvash

And as to people having an issue with this match, nowhere in the rules does it say that you must play with a certain strategy, if anything all the teams did was just Assist each other and have fun.

Never said it was against the rules. I'm just thinking about external impressions. I compare FRC to a major sporting event. What if the primary sponsor of the NFL told all the players in the Superbowl they would get a financial incentive if both teams scored at least 10 touchdowns? Both teams agree and play no defense. No rules were broken but I guarantee you there will be very angry football fans, especially the ones who paid $1500/ticket to see it.

Originally Posted by falconmaster

It wasn't the money, it was the challenge!

In this case, I challenge your team to see how high you can get your scores via penalties. Have your human player run out onto the field. Let a drive coach take up the controls. I wonder how many G40 violations the refs would call if the rule was violated for the entire match duration. I won't give you any money for this activity, but it would be fun to see what point value the FMS is designed to max out at, huh?

[MrForbes]

I see all these people complaining about the FIRST game having perverse penalties for playing defense...then we play without defense, and still people complain.

I give up.

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by dodar

Something doesn't match here.

In AZ a tax credit donation is 400 dollars and the person who donates it gets it back dollar for dollar. We get many tax credit donations annually. Money was the way to get us to pay attention to the challenge. Teams spend way more than 500 dollars on stuff for just one regional. Again you are looking for stuff to win an argument. We in AZ did want we felt was in our best interest and none of us have a problem with it. Is there any AZ person posting here with your POV? Apparently there is nothing we can explain to help you understand our reasoning. We saw another way to play the game and we took it. No regrets. Feel what you want, say what you want, we can't be swayed to your reasoning either....

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

I see all these people complaining about the FIRST game having perverse penalties for playing defense...then we play without defense, and still people complain.

I give up.

Similarly, people complain about poorly constructed robots and the new G27 update, but praise alliances for giving up their timeout so the other alliance can repair their robots. Sometimes the FIRST community is very conflicting and confusing.

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

I see all these people complaining about the FIRST game having perverse penalties for playing defense...then we play without defense, and still people complain.

I give up.

How come you can say stuff simpler than me. You should be a WFA winner. Its that art of communication thing.

[Nathan Rossi]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

I see all these people complaining about the FIRST game having perverse penalties for playing defense...then we play without defense, and still people complain.

I give up.

The same can be said for the G27 update, but that's for another topic.

[nixiebunny]

Originally Posted by seg9585

Never said it was against the rules. I'm just thinking about external impressions. I compare FRC to a major sporting event. What if the primary sponsor of the NFL told all the players in the Superbowl they would get a financial incentive if both teams scored at least 10 touchdowns?

The match in question was the last match of an event with 100 matches played. Your comparison to a sporting event would actually be the equivalent of the two teams making ONE PLAY without defense.

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by dodar

And what was so wrong as to achieve the challenge set forth by FIRST that it had to be modified by a sponsor?

I need some clarification... what exactly was FIRST's challenge?

It seems to me that the collaboration between the alliances in the finals to set a high score was a very "GP" performance, even neglecting the achievement goal set forth by one of our regionals primary sponsors.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by nixiebunny

The match in question was the last match of an event with 100 matches played. Your comparison to a sporting event would actually be the equivalent of the two teams making ONE PLAY without defense.

Actually it would be a better comparison to the 2nd half of a Championship Game.

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by seg9585

Never said it was against the rules. I'm just thinking about external impressions. I compare FRC to a major sporting event. What if the primary sponsor of the NFL told all the players in the Superbowl they would get a financial incentive if both teams scored at least 10 touchdowns? Both teams agree and play no defense. No rules were broken but I guarantee you there will be very angry football fans, especially the ones who paid $1500/ticket to see it.

My response to your first part: We are not paid athletes and the audience was not upset, on the contrary they got more excited. Plus there was no admission fee. Your analogy is not accurate. The money was not there to get us to give up competing, just the method of competing under the GP umbrella. Steve Sanghi is on the board of directors of FIRST.


In this case, I challenge your team to see how high you can get your scores via penalties. Have your human player run out onto the field. Let a drive coach take up the controls. I wonder how many G40 violations the refs would call if the rule was violated for the entire match duration. I won't give you any money for this activity, but it would be fun to see what point value the FMS is designed to max out at, huh?

I don't understand the point of this avenue of discussion. I can't respond to this one.....If you can't see what we were trying to do then I can't help you.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

I need some clarification... what exactly was FIRST's challenge?

It seems to me that the collaboration between the alliances in the finals to set a high score was a very "GP" performance, even neglecting the achievement goal set forth by one of our regionals primary sponsors.

FIRST didnt set up a good portion of the rulebook to govern defensive play just for alliances to completely disregard it by saying we wont touch you if you dont touch us. The game was made to have defense.

Would you consider this "GP" if this was performed during quals to get as many assist points as possible?

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by dodar

Would you consider this "GP" if this was performed during quals to get as many assist points as possible?

Yes.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

Yes.

All I can say to that is wow.

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

I need some clarification... what exactly was FIRST's challenge?

It seems to me that the collaboration between the alliances in the finals to set a high score was a very "GP" performance, even neglecting the achievement goal set forth by one of our regionals primary sponsors.

He is also on the board of directors of FIRST.

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by dodar

All I can say to that is wow.

Me too!