On Game Design

[P.J. Baker]

I don't like the idea of extremely hard tasks (hanging this year after climbing steps) nor do I like the idea of easy tasks (ball herding). I don't think hanging is bad in and off itself (I have no problems with scoring a lot of points via one method as long as it's not out of balance with other scoring methods).

I don't accept that herding small balls was easy. Without capping, your HP needed to make 10 shots to offset a hanging robot. Many teams thought they could accomplish this by simply pushing the balls around, but had trouble with it. The only ball machines that I saw make an impact were the catchers or gatherers. I would describe both of these as intermediate tasks

I think that there should be two main methods of scoring that have balanced difficulty and balanced points (think the balls and hanging from 2000 or the balls and goals from 2002). Two methods of scoring gives plenty of opportunity for strategy while not making the game too complicated.

There really were only two ways to score this year since the 2x ball meant nothing without the small balls. There were many tasks (hang, cap, herd, mobile goal manipulation, defense, etc.), which I feel made it more likely that both teams in an alliance would have to contribute for a win, rather than having the "dominant" team in an alliance take over the match. I'll also point out that the 2002 game had three ways to score (robot position, goal position, balls in goal). What it didn't have was very much strategic variety - control the goals and you probably win. I disliked that game, the combination of the "mouse bots" and the fact that a match could be effectively over in the first 10 seconds made it a complete disaster in my book.

As for the idea that most teams don't spend a significant amount of their budget on their robot, I highly beg to differ. Most young teams do not have large financial support. I've been on several of them. Many teams have a budget under $10,000 a year. These are the teams that I think are under a significant disadvantage under the current system that could be rectified. The best way I can think of to make it more fair for these teams is to lower the cost limit.

I hear what you are saying, but the logical conclusion of limiting the build budget is that a very small number of teams (as you pointed out previously) will have a huge advantage. Don't discount the psychological impact of knowing that you simply can not compete with the elite few because they can make parts that you can afford to buy but are not allowed to.

P.J.