Quote:
|
It is time that FIRST teams demand that FIRST games not be designed in the interest of Dean Kamen proving a point to the world. Also I would like to see a little of the focus shift back to the game. After all this is at some level about a robotics competition, at least it was at one point. Now it seems that all I need to do to win an award is have a good business or 7 year plan. What happened to awards like best offensive play or best defensive play? These awards have been abolished as the focus of FIRST shifts away from the game.
|
I don't know about you, but I think it is MUCH more important what people gather from the experience, and the impact it has upon all of the people in attendance than who wins and who loses a match. I don't think the focus ever was on the game, and never should be.
Quote:
|
There should never be a situation which makes it impossible to win.
|
Maybe so, maybe not. You can play the first match in such a manner that if you lose, you still can come back. All that matters is that you play the game with the correct strategy, inherent to any game. Just because the scoring system is not traditional does not mean it is flawed.
Quote:
I think two changes would've made the game a bit better.
A) Getting on top is worth less.
B) Stacking gets you points in addition to being a multiplier in an exponential format or some sort.
With more stackers, it'd be easier to win.
|
First of all, it would never be easier to win. The same number of teams will win and the same number of teams will lose regardless of the scoring system. Second, if all you care about is winning, design a robot that does just that: win. We all have the same rules, and the same number of teams win at the end, no matter what the rules are.
Too many people complain about the rules, but it just seems to me that whatever the rules are, you must be able to conform to it. The rules are ALWAYS fair because we all play by the SAME rules.