All I can say in this type of thread is this- sometimes the most open mind is the one which can admit it's closed.

if your team is making a plan to give opponents a negative score, you are wasting your time, effort, and money.

There is **NO** advantage to intentionally giving out a negative score. Don't even bother challanging that.

Elimination rounds follow the same point system as qualifications

Round 1:
Red: 30 -- Winner
Blue: -15

Red EP: 0
Blue EP: 0

Round 2
Red: 30 -- Winner
Blue: -50

Red EP: -70
Blue EP: -50

Guess what? Blue advances.

The only way you will have a positive [QP, EP] score is when your base score is more than double the absolute value of your opponents negative. But regardless of your score, your [QP, EP] will be significantly reduced as opposed to winning by 1 or 2 bins.

My thought, go ahead and build with the intention of giving negative scores to opponents. That's one less team to worry about for the finals

OK very good but now here is why your wrong. Team A has say a stack of 2 on its side, along with 2 containers on the floor, with 30 seconds left to go. They have a score of 4 Team B has a stack of 3 containers with 3 on the floor giving them a score of 9. Both teams have one bot on the top of the hill. Team B wins, UNLESS the remaining bot from Team A can go over and do its lift thing to the tune of 9 SHU's.

Team A then takes the win with a score of 43 to 7. That is how a team uses negative points in the finals to win.

I am not going to say this should happen, or will happen. I am only saying the posibility of it is out there. Anyone that says you CAN'T use negative points to win needs to take a look around.

Umm.. 43 to 7? I'm not seeing any negative numbers here. Giving a team fewer points could be a good thing, as long as you make it fewer by as little as possible. There is NO reason to make another team's score negative. None. Heck, you're better off just knocking over their stack and pushing everything outside the scoring zone. At least that way you don't loose QPs/EPs.

As for scenarios: we could sit here all day and throw scores around. The truth of the matter is that this game is far simpler than it was before update #3. If you want to flame me for the previous sentence, don't waste thread space. Send me a PM and I'll explain. And explain. And then explain some more.

Heres a nice analogy

At work, if your boss gives you a part to draw in CAD, and you do not like some of the dimensions, you cant petition or beg to change them to something easier. You have to deal with it.

still
 

first makes the decisions....PERIOD !
BUT...
the scoring is too complicated, not complicated enough to be not understood....but......certainly it does not do what Dean said it would...make it easier.......LAST YEAR WAS EASIER THAN THIS YEAR !...and how is the crowd supposed to know whats going on ? i dont think they will have the announcer explain SHU's to them.....

Re: still
 

at least your team wasn't around for the wonderful scoring of the 2001 game

Hey DJ how would you like them to keep the scoring the way it is now but to ADD the time multiplier scoring they did in 2001? Wouldn't everyone just love that? :P

Whats is the matter with all you people? If you can build robots than you should be ABLE TO MULTIPLY....

I dont see what the big deal is???

Somebody please explain?

Thats what i was wondering. I was being sarcastic in the earlier post to DJ. I like the rules the way they are.

(Yawns) you know, the rules.......if you can get inside their minds....its all twisted and dark. They always throw us at least one curve ball.

Re: Re: still
 

Hahahaha ... I've been thinking that when reading all of these "change to rules" posts ... 2001 scoring ... ::shudder:: :D

- Katie

that game was definately twisted. I think the only good think out of that year were the friends I made on other teams, especially 179. ;) :cool: