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.