Stronghold rant...

[CalTran]

I suppose if we're all airing grievances, next year please don't make me look at both sides of the score board if I'm curious about one alliance. (I'm looking at you, Red-defenses-breached-on-the-Blue-side-of-the-board. -.-)

[kyle_hamblett]

Stronghold was definitely a great transition from Recycle Rush. I see this game as having a fairly low skill floor where rookie teams/low resource teams can still help their alliance out, with the skill ceiling being extremely high and allowing for some of the most entertaining matches at the highest level of play. While the theming of it was a little cheesy, it was a fun game.

[cj3958]

Originally Posted by EricH

You should know what happens when you make the gripe I've bolded...

If you're out in SoCal in late September, I think I've got a ref shirt with your name on it. Otherwise, I suspect any local offseasons that are short on ref-power would be more than happy to put you on the crew. I assume that you know the game at least as well as the refs do in order to make that statement.


That being said, I did see some "odd" calls. Whether or not that means the reffing is "terrible" is up to the viewer, I suppose.

Can we please stop this "you can't blame the ref" culture. I know they have an impossible task and it is very hard to make every call right, but there are definitely times where people can say that the refs screwed up and made a lot of bad calls. That isn't to say they aren't trying, or they weren't prepared, but it is to say that the refs are not as good as would be expected of a normal sport. The GDC can design games that are easier to ref or require more training etc. to fix this problem. Also, some people are not in the position to just "get up and grab a ref shirt", for example they may be actually competing, or have a day job. Just because someone criticizes a group as a whole doesn't mean they can do better themselves. I can't play professional football but I sure as hell can say that U of M's kicker screwed up on the last play of the game vs. MSU and tried to kick the ball instead of falling on it leading to a MSU win on the last play of the game.

Please stop allowing anyone to even have a discussion about the quality of reffing, because it clearly needs to be talked about.

[David Lame]

Thoughts on stronghold.

I have been in three years. This was my favorite game. However, as a spectator sport, Aerial Assist was much better.

The obstacles provided some great engineering challenges, but by the end of the season, they were just dull to watch. Teams either did them, or didn't do them, and there wasn't really any tension associated with the effort. One of the great disappointments for me was the "sally port loophole", which was that you could drive backwards through it, do a momentary flick to lose contact, and then drive forward, with no real loss of time. One of the great engineering challenges of the game suddenly became a triviality.

I think if they had been a little bit harder, and worth a little bit more, that would have made a better game. In the initial stages of design, it seemed like we could try and decide to do a "sapper bot" that concentrated on the obstacles, with boulders as an afterthought, or a "tower bot", that put its effort into shooting. In the end, everyone was able to be the sapper bot, and it was pretty much a given that there would be a breach, so the deciding factor was always being the best shooter.

The tortugas were fun, though, especially at the beginning of the season.

I, personally, liked the "themed" game. I would like to see more of them.

Overall: Very nice game. Four out of five stars.

[ATannahill]

Originally Posted by cj3958

Also, some people are not in the position to just "get up and grab a ref shirt", for example they may be actually competing, or have a day job.

Did you ask the refs at your events if any of them had a team competing or had a day job or had college classes to attend? I will be dumbfounded if more than 5% of FIRST Stronghold refs can say no to that question.

I am not going to say that refs are infallible, but I will say that they do a thankless job for no money, often at expense to them, and never get to hear the end of people that have never done the job trying to get them to do even better. For every match that CD gripes about, I expect there are 50 that garner no complaints[1], 98% success is pretty good for volunteers.

[1] I might try tracking this next year.

[cj3958]

Originally Posted by rtfgnow

Did you ask the refs at your events if any of them had a team competing or had a day job or had college classes to attend? I will be dumbfounded if more than 5% of FIRST Stronghold refs can say no to that question.

I am not going to say that refs are infallible, but I will say that they do a thankless job for no money, often at expense to them, and never get to hear the end of people that have never done the job trying to get them to do even better. For every match that CD gripes about, I expect there are 50 that garner no complaints[1], 98% success is pretty good for volunteers.

[1] I might try tracking this next year.

Sure. Fine. They all have day jobs. But who isn't thanking them? Everyone realizes they are important and necessary. Sometimes it sucks dealing with them when you disagree on a ruling, but so what? people still realize that at the end of the day they are doing their best, and an important part of the game.

But you are ignoring the other points I made. Why are we not allowed to talk about refs as a whole on CD? If anyone anywhere makes an even SLIGHTLY critical comment towards referees, the automatic first responce is "hur dur well if you are so talented why don't you do it...". It is very unproductive to never be able to talk about refs at all, even when we are not talking about a perticular ref or a perticular instance.

Refs are doing god's work, but that doesn't mean that we cant have a discussion about ways to make them better or say that overall, as a whole, not talking about any particular places they may have screwed up, the reffing quality was not up to par(IMHO) this year considering it is a competition trying to call itself a real sport worth of varsity letters etc etc etc. There could be many reasons for this, 99% of which I would blame on the GDC and the training system, not on the refs themselfs, but presently I cannot even express that opinion on CD.

What I am trying to say is in its current state, there can be no constructive criticism of referees as a whole on CD recently and this is a problem.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by cj3958

What I am trying to say is in its current state, there can be no constructive criticism of referees as a whole on CD recently and this is a problem.

I was a first year ref this year, and at the event I reffed at, my former team (2410) and my cousin's team (2335) competed at. I'm also a student at Missouri S&T, and studied the manual more in depth this year than my other college years.
That being said, for the record, EricH was calling out the other poster because his "constructive criticism" was simply "Reffing sucked this year."

Many times this year, and other years, when someone has a gripe about the Referees, is is not constructive criticism. It simply calling out the refs on doing a terrible job, and it really does scare off new refs. I'm contemplating becoming a regular ref, schedule allowing, but sometimes the threads on CD make me contemplate the decision, and I'm sure others choose not to ref because of the public callouts.

[alicen]

Originally Posted by cj3958

Can we please stop this "you can't blame the ref" culture. I know they have an impossible task and it is very hard to make every call right, but there are definitely times where people can say that the refs screwed up and made a lot of bad calls. That isn't to say they aren't trying, or they weren't prepared, but it is to say that the refs are not as good as would be expected of a normal sport. The GDC can design games that are easier to ref or require more training etc. to fix this problem. Also, some people are not in the position to just "get up and grab a ref shirt", for example they may be actually competing, or have a day job. Just because someone criticizes a group as a whole doesn't mean they can do better themselves. I can't play professional football but I sure as hell can say that U of M's kicker screwed up on the last play of the game vs. MSU and tried to kick the ball instead of falling on it leading to a MSU win on the last play of the game.

Please stop allowing anyone to even have a discussion about the quality of reffing, because it clearly needs to be talked about.

emphasis mine. I want to make a few points.
1. Sometimes the refs are to blame for making a bad call. That does not mean all refs were bad, which is how many people come off.
2. Out of the 30+ refs I know, I think ONE of them doesn't have a day job/school/mentor, and that's because he's retired. He's earned that.
3. refs not being "as good as normal sports refs". I'm sorry, but when the rules for football change every year, then I will accept this argument.
4. If the GDC designs games that are easier to ref, they will probably be more boring, like Recycle Rush, to watch.
5. You make a point about saying that a kicked screwed up a play, however, if you were in his shoes (and were skilled enough to be there) can you say without a doubt that in that split second you would have made a perfect decision?
6. I was going to count how many times there were students in the Question Box at my regional, but lost track very quickly because I was busy doing other things. We hadn't hit lunch on Friday before I had counted 6 and missed plenty of others.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a discussion about the quality of reffing, because I personally do think some refs want to be there more than others and know the rules better. What I am saying is instead of just complaining and saying "all refs suck, booo! they should be better!11!" propose a method for making sure they know the rules even better, or help to recruit more refs for your volunteer coordinator!

and because I saw your newest post before I submitted:

There could be many reasons for this, 99% of which I would blame on the GDC and the training system, not on the refs themselfs, but presently I cannot even express that opinion on CD.

What? How can you not bring this up? If this is what you actually think, then it would be responded to differently than "the refs sucked at reffing" (paraphrasing)

[EricH]

Originally Posted by CalTran

I was a first year ref this year, and at the event I reffed at, my former team (2410) and my cousin's team (2335) competed at. I'm also a student at Missouri S&T, and studied the manual more in depth this year than my other college years.
That being said, for the record, EricH was calling out the other poster because his "constructive criticism" was simply "Reffing sucked this year."

Many times this year, and other years, when someone has a gripe about the Referees, is is not constructive criticism. It simply calling out the refs on doing a terrible job, and it really does scare off new refs. I'm contemplating becoming a regular ref, schedule allowing, but sometimes the threads on CD make me contemplate the decision, and I'm sure others choose not to ref because of the public callouts.

This is what I'm getting at. Just so everybody's clear, I disagree with some calls, and I am, in fact, a ref. The difference is this: I disagree with the CALL, but I don't blame the REF. There is a difference. Most CDers will jump straight for blaming the refs.

There's a spotlight, might crop up eventually, from a good long time ago, and it goes something to the effect of "if you're going to say that the call was bad, you better know for a FACT that the call was bad".

Now, I strongly disagree with a couple of calls that were made at Worlds, and the primary disagreement I have is CONSISTENCY. (If you're going to make the wrong call, at least make the wrong call against everybody, see?) But, that's not something I can control. I wasn't reffing at Worlds.

[emeraldstorm]

Originally Posted by CalTran

I suppose if we're all airing grievances, next year please don't make me look at both sides of the score board if I'm curious about one alliance. (I'm looking at you, Red-defenses-breached-on-the-Blue-side-of-the-board. -.-)

This! I hated how one moment I'm checking the status of one team's tower, and have to take a double take for counting, and am now 2-3 seconds behind in scores for the match.

I'm guessing the blue/red tower thing would be obvious to a quantity of people out there, but with so much going on at once, it would be nice to have the simplest, most straightforward scoreboard layout.

[Briansmithtown]

I think we're getting off track with the main point of this post. Everyone will always disagree with the refs, that happens every year. i do admit, They have made mistakes, but they are humans. People say I'm indecisive, but I don't know about that.

[Carolyn_Grace]

Originally Posted by cj3958

What I am trying to say is in its current state, there can be no constructive criticism of referees as a whole on CD recently and this is a problem.

Why do you believe that ChiefDelphi is the place for constructive criticism for referees?

My opinion is there are many other more official ways to handle a poor reffing situation (because, yes, they do exist. Yes, they need to be addressed.)

Here are some suggestions:

1. Question Box at the event. This is the quickest and most official method of questioning a referee.

2. Talking to the Volunteer Coordinator in person about your concerns. Usually the VCs contact information can be found on the event website. As a VC myself, this is extremely great information to know. Sure, I may ask if you want to ref yourself, or if you know of anyone who will (I'm always trying to recruit everyone around me anyway), but I'll listen, I'll note your concerns, and I may reassign the guilty ref to a different position at the next event IF POSSIBLE.

3. Talking to the Head Ref about your concerns. The HR won't be able to explain much about a call after the event is over, but they can listen to your concerns and take them into account for the future.

4. Talking to the Event Coordinator about your concerns. (similar to the VC).

If you absolutely must address it via social media or ChiefDelphi, then don't simply say, "The reffing is poor. This call was wrong." Because that isn't constructive criticism at all. It's acting like a backseat driver. If you truly believe that CD is the media to use and the way to make change, then suggest a solution to go along with your criticism. Otherwise it's not CONSTRUCTIVE, and it's just complaining and whining.

[Scott Kozutsky]

My 2 cents about the game, as an alumni who was not deeply invested in the competition this year (mostly a spectator):

Themed game diminished the "sport" feel that, IMO, FIRST should be going for. I agree it felt like a cheap app.

There was LOTS going on at once and it made it hard to figure out what was actually happening. There was certainly a difficulty curve in watching and understanding matches beyond knowing the rules. Lots of actions scored points (of different values, under different conditions), arbitrary jump in score after breach, unclear scoreboard and fouls made for a hectic game to watch.

Fouls this year were a mess. There were lots of fouls, little consistency and a large grey area. It was borderline impossible to figure out what had been called by watching the match, which is frustrating for spectators, teams and (I assume) refs answering questions. IMO they were also weighed too heavily and swayed too many close matches.

Robots losing comm happened too often.

All robots could effectively participate.

Excellent variation in robot design.

(from what I could tell) It was a great engineering challenge.

Exciting to watch.

[Briansmithtown]

Originally Posted by Scott Kozutsky

My 2 cents about the game, as an alumni who was not deeply invested in the competition this year (mostly a spectator):

Themed game diminished the "sport" feel that, IMO, FIRST should be going for. I agree it felt like a cheap app.

There was LOTS going on at once and it made it hard to figure out what was actually happening. There was certainly a difficulty curve in watching and understanding matches beyond knowing the rules. Lots of actions scored points (of different values, under different conditions), arbitrary jump in score after breach, unclear scoreboard and fouls made for a hectic game to watch.

Fouls this year were a mess. There were lots of fouls, little consistency and a large grey area. It was borderline impossible to figure out what had been called by watching the match, which is frustrating for spectators, teams and (I assume) refs answering questions. IMO they were also weighed too heavily and swayed too many close matches.

Robots losing comm happened too often.

All robots could effectively participate.

Excellent variation in robot design.

(from what I could tell) It was a great engineering challenge.

Exciting to watch.

I agree with just about everything you say. I feel like first should make a game that's easy to understand, and then explain if your at a demo or something. For this game, I feel like you would need to show them the video, and that's too time consuming for a demo. That's why for 2014, you didn't need to go to detail, you could say basically robot shoots ball over trust equals 10 points. Robot shoots ball into huge goal equals 10 points. robot pushes ball into logo equals one point. You don't have to really get into it saying about the Coopertitin part if you really don't want to.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Scott Kozutsky

Robots losing comm happened too often.

That doesn't belong on a list of gripes about the game. What most people call "losing communication" was almost always actually "loose robot wiring". Poor electrical connections caused about 80% of the problems I helped teams with (another ten percent was incorrect networking and firewall settings).