fundamental flaw with GDC?

[rspurlin]

Originally Posted by antoineft

Is anyone going to tell me that if for example on December 5th, Andy Baker, Karthik, JVN, and a few other select individuals were to get the full game announcement, that they wouldn’t be a huge benefit to its final release?

When I first read this sentence, I read it as these people getting a huge benefit for their teams by getting the game early. In fact, though that is not what you wrote, it is the fear that FIRST has in increasing the number of individuals who know what the game details are. Perhaps you have not yet encountered it, but there are a few individuals involved with teams that are driven to win and would think nothing of starting to work on their robot design in early December. Let me be clear that I am not suggesting that any of the individuals you named are so morally challenged; I think that Andy Baker probably did know at least some details before kickoff since his company supplied the wheels.

I would also be surprised if every detail were finalized that early. From discussions I've had with GDC members, I know they are constantly reviewing the game and trying to balance it the best they can. They do this with lots of feedback, best offered constructively. Perhaps I just don't see enough flaws in this year's game, or previous ones I've been involved in, to warrant another committee.

Having re-read your OP, please offer as constructive feedback, publicly or privately to the GDC, specifically which rules you feel are wrong, what you would propose to change and why. I feel certain they will value your comments and reflect on them as they design the 2010 game. I have no doubt that you have heard other people at regionals complain about rules. About the only prediction I can make with some certainty is that if we allowed your rules to supersede the GDC's version, we would still have complaints. I think your biggest surprise might be that they would come from some of the same people.

[nlknauss]

I completely agree with this statement by Jane and I'm sure many of you often have the same gripes with this. As Dave pointed out, there are so many different factors involved with designing, planning, and implementing the game they need to have a GAC built into the GDC. And really, not every customer is going to be satisfied everyone the first weekend in January because the game changes every year. Year to year, there are different factors and outside influences because the resources change and because ALMOST everything is completely rewritten. We're all pretty much use to the way baseball, football, and hockey are played because the rules and resources of those games have been pretty much the same since we've known them. The FIRST community is lucky to have the experience of a GAC built into the GDC so that we can have a new game every year and keep the challenges coming.

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

I am often appalled by the arrogant assumptions of folks who jump on some sort of band wagon about the game, the game development, or the rules, without studying them, doing some research, or following proper channels.

Hah! This is another good one Cory. It's great having the human element in FRC games because there's always a human element in technology and it adds excitement to the game. We can't always interact with machines through a joystick or game pad!

Originally Posted by Cory

The human player rules are exceedingly simple. If your human player can't follow them and constantly gets penalized, I think that's a human error and not a flaw in game design. It's really not difficult for the human player to NOT get penalized.

[antoineft]

Originally Posted by EricVanWyk

However, you believe that the effect of that cause is still happening. Can we talk more about the effect, without talking about gritty details or making sweeping generalizations? I know it is a fine line.

For example: "I believe that penalties are a recurring shortcoming. The GDC/GAC should work to ensure that accidental penalties are minimized, so that penalties only occur when someone intentionally violates a rule." The example is pie-in-the-sky (we can't install intent monitors on the players) and is by no means perfect. However, it is a more accessible form of "Breaking the plane last year" AND provides a line in the rubric that the GDC can use to determine how well they are weighting your needs.

Wow Eric, I think you hit the nail on the head here exactly. This is pretty much exactly what I am getting at and the very reason I have started this thread this year specifically. I (and others) do see the same recurring problems in games and I'll point to the 2 biggest ones that would have the greatest impact if improved:

1) Reduce accidental penalties (human or robot), its one of the most discussed topics for a reason. A large number of the penalties both this year and in past years were against humans/robots that are absolutely not trying to break the rules in the first place. I don’t think I saw any driver/autonomous code purposely trying to go backwards around the track in Overdrive last year, but how many penalties were there for it?

2) Ensure that the game scoring is easily understandable and evident so that newcomers and spectators can readily understand it. If we want the status of this sport to grow on the world scale and raise it to the level of elite sports (which I believe is entirely possible), this has to be followed. If the values we cherish and uphold in FIRST can be spread, it would seriously make the world a better place! This game is the vehicle we are using to get there so we better make sure it works for spectators.


Many would agree that these issues exist and have existed for a while. So they should be improving over time right? Well I would make the case that they haven’t, and especially in this years game it has gotten worse. So please don’t take this a bash against the GDC, I’m just trying to find a way to improve the situation.


Looks like the consensus is that an added committee would only complicate the matter, and I respect that. Maybe the best way right now to try and fix what I believe is an area for improvement, is to write to FIRST. So that is exactly what I will do! Thanks for all the input everyone.

[Tetraman]

Originally Posted by antoineft

1) Reduce accidental penalties (human or robot), its one of the most discussed topics for a reason. A large number of the penalties both this year and in past years were against humans/robots that are absolutely not trying to break the rules in the first place. I don’t think I saw any driver/autonomous code purposely trying to go backwards around the track in Overdrive last year, but how many penalties were there for it?

So are you saying that if I had the right argument last year, I could go over the line slightly, every time I needed to pull it off?

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree at all. Every sport has a penalty system, and there are always games where those penalties cost the game. And those penalties are usually for the little things that really never actually effect the game.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

So are you saying that if I had the right argument last year, I could go over the line slightly, every time I needed to pull it off?

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree at all. Every sport has a penalty system, and there are always games where those penalties cost the game. And those penalties are usually for the little things that really never actually effect the game.

There are plenty of sports that will allow you to commit otherwise "penalty-worth" offenses as long as they don't result in a perceived advantage for your alliance. The world's most popular sport (soccer) is a perfect example. So if you cross a line backwards to pick up a trackball, it's very different from a momentary violation as your bot tries to resume its course around the track.

Your point that every officiated sport ultimately has some sort of penalty structure and room for human error, though, is well taken.

[Lil' Lavery]

While large amount of penalties (accidental or not) are detrimental, I 100% agree with <G22> last year and how it was enforced. Refs should never have to guess at intent or impact of a situation. Rules should be black and white, gray areas lead to controversy and protests.
I'd much rather have a game with 30 black and white penalties per match than one that's controversial.