paper: Spanking the Children

[pfreivald]

I like this game, as a spectator and a coach, though I agree that the penalties are a bit over-the-top. I do, on the other hand, think they're largely avoidable through prudent design and prudent game play.

On a side note, I saw several instances this past weekend where a human player tossed a ball toward/into an opponent's robot, in what seemed to be a clear attempt to force a technical foul. While I'd hope this would be called as a G14 if it ever happened, with the amount of things the refs have to watch, I'm not sure it would be.

Tricksy tricksy.

[Joseph Smith]

As a newcomer to FIRST in 2011, I've only experienced very good games until this year. In 2011, 2012 and 2013 the strong offensive robots typically won, and teams were inspired to build offensive robots. This year, however, the cards are stacked towards a defensive bot. What's the fun in working hard and building a strong, reliable scoring robot when a box on wheels can draw tech fouls faster than you can pick up the game piece? I feel STRONGLY that this game missed the mark. I hope that either the game is fixed or next year is once again fun to watch and participate in, because if this trend continues I don't know if I want to keep giving it so much of my time and energy.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Jim, nice write up recapping the penalty situation over the years. I agree that there is correlation between games that seem qualitatively "good" and emphasize defensive penalty risk. The past 3 years have been some of the best games to watch. Take the co-op bridge out of 2012 and I think you have the ideal mix of "fun to play" and "spectator friendly".

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

On a side note, I saw several instances this past weekend where a human player tossed a ball toward/into an opponent's robot, in what seemed to be a clear attempt to force a technical foul. While I'd hope this would be called as a G14 if it ever happened, with the amount of things the refs have to watch, I'm not sure it would be.

It was called at Southfield in Week 1. The HP threw the ball into the wrong robot. Most likely it was a mistake, but it was a deliberate action that would have resulted in the other team getting a foul if there was no G14 rule. Then the HP realized what he had done, and reached into the field to try to grab the ball back - 2nd technical.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

It was called at Southfield in Week 1. The HP threw the ball into the wrong robot. Most likely it was a mistake, but it was a deliberate action that would have resulted in the other team getting a foul if there was no G14 rule. Then the HP realized what he had done, and reached into the field to try to grab the ball back - 2nd technical.

Ouch.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Taylor

Let's talk about soccer.
I know we played it in 2010, but I think there are a lot of parallels to the current game.
There are essentially TWENTY players who are actively trying to get posession of a single ball - or prevent others from doing so. There are debilitating and, to the untrained observer, confusing and contradictory penalties. The game is simple to explain, but very difficult to master. There are no shortage of silly and archaic rules (what do you mean, we're not allowed to pick up a ball?) yet it is the single most popular game in the world.
Because the game strategies have evolved and matured.
Because the players decided that there are efficient and elegant ways to beat the physical gameplay, and have implemented them successfully.

It's been a long time since I've played soccer, but I'm pretty sure it'd be less appealing if players not actively engaged with the ball could hope to legally remove each other from competition by charging/pushing/tackling with significant leeway. (Yes, we have G28, etc rules, but one can still hope to completely shut down a player's offense for the match using only legal defense play.) If 16/20 or so players on the field spent their time sparring, it'd be a very different game to say the least.

So, kudos, Jim. We've won events as the primary defender, but I knew a kickoff that this'd be too far. At least offer a viable alternative to playing D so much, particularly since the clearest target often isn't even on active offense themselves.

To Jesse's good point:
* Short term - I think we play the game we've been dealt. I don't see a reasonable fix that could be made this late, but I'm open to suggestions. Minor improvements, but nothing that can change the rational cost-benefit on the amount of time and effort some teams spend trying to disable others. Better scoring/reffing, fouls, field management, etc is something that needed to have been handled from the start (speaking with my ref hat on), though there are some fixes occurring. So, we play. I've got 2+ more ref gigs and 1+ more coaching events, and I'll play the hand I'm dealt.
* Long term - Don't design games that deliberately limit the amount of time per match a team can spend play offense. I genuinely cannot understand how this was considered a good idea. Talk to the head ref advisers earlier. Get advisers that have actually built teams and robots and coached matches. I don't think it's a coincidence that the VRC GDC seems to avoid a lot of these complaints.

[xSAWxBLADEx]

Lol This is a great read! Thank you Jim for putting this together. I am glad we are on the same page on this game, and most of the past games.