Lunacy = Greatest Game Ever

[Akash Rastogi]

I'll start off by saying I respect your and other differing opinions.

Originally Posted by Kyle Love

Also, being a drive trains guy, I didn't like the lack of impressive drive systems. Sure, people still did swerve/crab systems, but I love to see team with similar system being able to push others clear across the field. Also, the absence of mecanum drives and omni wheels made me sad, I love seeing the insane maneuverablity of robots in the past.

The whole part about not using wheels we wanted was the very first thing I almost hated. For a lot of teams there was barely any development of previous drive systems (cept for that wicked pseuo crab).

Entertaining to watch? Yea sure. But for the one robot you could actually pay attention to. There was barely ever a match in which you could tell what was going on on the field overall, unlike 04 and 00. (By the way I liked 00 far more than 04 b/c it was the first event I attended with my brother on MORT =D)

Second, I see sportsmanship and professionalism as something you step onto the field with, not what you come off with. Meaning that if a team "blows you apart" or out of the water then how is that them not being professional? YOU as the losing team should know you played your hardest and that the other alliance did too. I don't see teams being maniacal about beating other teams when they know they can. Hell, at our regionals there are teams who can pummel others without really trying, but when we lose to them there is no distaste, there is no contempt, there is no lack of sportsmanship. We all play as we would in any other sport. If FIRST believes this is not the meaning of sportsmanship then perhaps they should reevaluate what professionalism means as well.

+$0.02

[R.C.]

I wasn't around pre 2005. But I thought 06,07, and 08 were awesome games. I agree with Jeff (from FirstCast) that this game was very boring to watch. The 2008 finals seemed to be more impressive to me. I have a different view on this but not being able to USE YOUR OWN WHEELS! Oh well, can't wait for 2010, it might be the ten year aniversary of 2000?

I also agree with what Kyle Love mentioned earlier in this post. Can you handle the carpet?

[Akash Rastogi]

Lol something that just reminded me of this.

"President Bush; great president? Or the GREATEST president?"- Stephen Colbert

[ShaunT]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Second, I see sportsmanship and professionalism as something you step onto the field with, not what you come off with. Meaning that if a team "blows you apart" or out of the water then how is that them not being professional? YOU as the losing team should know you played your hardest and that the other alliance did too. I don't see teams being maniacal about beating other teams when they know they can. Hell, at our regionals there are teams who can pummel others without really trying, but when we lose to them there is no distaste, there is no contempt, there is no lack of sportsmanship. We all play as we would in any other sport. If FIRST believes this is not the meaning of sportsmanship then perhaps they should reevaluate what professionalism means as well.

To add on to this, consider a situation where you know you are going to lose. Do you really want the other team to sandbag half the match because of an arbitrary rule, knowing that they still have a clear victory? I would feel insulted if I played someone and they didn't respect me enough to give it their best, regardless of the strength of the two alliances or the scores after.

It's almost taunting... as if FIRST is making the victors say "We know we can beat you by so much we need to slow down so we don't get penalized," without even having to say it.

And if a team tries to avoid a G14 but ends up causing a loss due to poor real-time scoring, do you think the rule got the desired effect? It could certainly happen; realtime scores could often be off by more than 20 points per alliance. Also, do not forget 188's strategy in GTR. If they managed to get the triple G14 they might have won the entire event.

Understand that it is not the effect of the rule on this game (which was important, but not completely gamebreaking), but the concept of penalizing teams for being to effective at the stated goal of the game that I have a problem with.