I guess its not that I don’t like the 2 out of 3 method, it’s just that I don’t like the fact that it was changed from what was used during the season.

I have to admit that it was more exciting, but it seemed that there was much less strategy…

This is the cool part about 'un-official' tournaments.
We can modify some rules and see how it changes the game.
We thought about a weight increase to let teams put stuff back on their robots that maybe had to come off during those final days.

For 2004, maybe we should post a 'What Rules to Modify" forum before the IRI and see what the competing teams think.

There are positive and negative points for both scoring methods. With best 2 out of 3, there was much more annihilation of the opponents' boxes and made the game a basic king of the hill match, with not much strategy at all, but it did give a good show with shoving matches. With highest qual points after 2 matches, much more strategy was involved, moreso in the first match than the second. It made teams think and strategize more and not just go out and trash the opponents, which is not the point of the game. It seemed that in the second match, though, if you were ahead by enough, there was no way the other team could win, but with best 2 out of 3, you at least have a chance no matter what the score was after the first match. I would say I am partial to both kinds of scoring.

It really wasn't an innovation to bring the "best 2 out of 3" back for the IRI. Granted, it is a good idea, and we all wanted it back. But... keep in mind that this same format was used successfully at Battlecry this year, so it is not like we at IRI were taking a big risk. We saw that it worked at Battlecry, so we figured that it would work for IRI.

Andy B.

How many Offseasons this year will use the FIRST Elimination Round Method as opposed to the Best 2 of 3 Method? It will be interesting to see.