Go to Post While at kickoff I asked Woodie if there were any concerns about missed shots at the center goal hitting the operators or the controls. He handed me a ball and told me to throw it at him as hard as I could... How many times does an opportunity like that come up? - Barry Bonzack [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
View Poll Results: What amount of Cheesecake should be allowed
No Cheesecake 13 3.21%
Replacements/spare parts 60 14.81%
Small Upgrades 137 33.83%
Large Upgrades 51 12.59%
New Component 78 19.26%
New Robot 66 16.30%
Voters: 405. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 28-04-2015, 12:54
Josh Fox Josh Fox is offline
Registered User
AKA: Foxy
FRC #0027 (Team RUSH)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 389
Josh Fox has much to be proud ofJosh Fox has much to be proud ofJosh Fox has much to be proud ofJosh Fox has much to be proud ofJosh Fox has much to be proud ofJosh Fox has much to be proud ofJosh Fox has much to be proud ofJosh Fox has much to be proud ofJosh Fox has much to be proud ofJosh Fox has much to be proud of
Re: Cheesecake: How far is too far?

Quote:
Originally Posted by twetherbee View Post
I was not a fan of the level to which "cheesecaking" was done this year, either. But it had to be done to stay competitive in this year's game. One more reason to dislike Recycle Rush.
Emphasis mine. I think this is the most concrete thing to take away from the discussion.

I'm a fan of cheesecake. If a "better" team can work with a "lesser" team (purely in terms of mechanical ability of their robot) to improve it, I'm all for it. If that happens to be with a relatively simple mechanism? So be it.

I'm very against bad game mechanics.

Last year, cheesecake would have generally meant putting some sort of guide, and often a passive one at that, onto a partner robot. This was necessary because of a poor set of rules that dictated a robot must "control" a ball to complete a pass, which was a fundamental and essential component of the game, instead of simply pushing it or touching it momentarily.

This year, matches were decided in fractions of a second because of an insane amount of importance placed on controlling the cans, and the inability to recover cans once the opposing alliance had them on their side of the field. Obviously allowing teams to recover them once they crossed to the other side would entirely change the dynamic of the game as a whole, but at the root of the issue is that same game dynamic.

If you don't want teams coming in with pre-fabbed mechanisms, maybe don't design tasks that are essential to the game that can be completed with something so simple, or find another way for teams that may have more difficulty accomplishing complex tasks a way to positively contribute (see: defense, pushing game pieces into a lower goal, etc.).

tl;dr don't hate the player, hate the game design
__________________
Team RUSH Alumnus and Mentor, Mechanical Engineer
Reply With Quote
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:15.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi