Game Design Committee Members/Questions

[Corey Balint]

Originally Posted by Amanda Morrison

And since we're on the topic, I'm dying to know - why does knowledge of the game in advance somehow equate that your team will do better that year? I know Dave has his own viewpoint that he will not be directly involved with the build, but where's the advantage?

Do people think that the GDC members order their students to build a certain type of robot because they 'know' it will win? Does game knowledge somehow help your team obtain more sponsorship, or allow you to more time to build your robot? No.

After having been on a GDC myself, I can honestly say that the advantages many teams might view to be present are somewhat, if not totally non-existent. In fact, I truly believe that the best games in the history of all FIRST programs are those that have involved team mentors in the process... they have intimate, first-hand knowledge of what it takes to compete in a yearly game challenge and what makes these games exciting and fun. You wouldn't want a group of people who have never been involved in FIRST creating a game and not understanding the dynamics of the FIRST community and what a good robotics competition entails.

If anything, I think the GDC members respect the rules more than almost anyone else - they MAKE the rules, so why would they not follow them?

(...and furthermore... what good does an accusatory post like this really do?)

It might not exactly guarantee a better robot no, but it gives you more time to study designs and possible flaws in them. I, as well as others, think that is an advantage.
No they don't order the students to do so...but don't you think if they bring their opinion to the table, the kids are more likely to listen to it, knowing they already know details to the game?
It has nothing to do with sponsorship.
No it doesn't give you more time to build, but more time to plan. Keep in mind that most people on the GDC have been doing this for a while now so they will be able to plan things out better.

I don't necessarily agree with that. A change might be a good thing. It seems as if a good amount of people have been displeased with the past 2 games. New blood might be a good thing. A totally different perspective might bring a totally new idea out for a game. I did say previously that feedback would be a good thing still.

To weed out any problems there might be.