Re: Curie 2010!
 

Here's a youtube link to the exact time when the ball got stuck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un5F088PTyE#t=2m7s

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I guess I'm stuck on the concept that teams are supposed to read rules, then assume that the GDC actually meant to make the rules say something else and play as if the rules were written that way, other than the way they actually were.

I'm reminded of a team that got very mad when they couldn't turn around and score for their opponent since they blocked their own goals (not on Curie). What right would that team have to be mad, when the same "exploiting the ranking system" arguments could be fallaciously applied to what they planned to do?

Re: Curie 2010!
 

While I agree that the GDC is responsible for this, teams should not take advantage of the rule. Just because they aren't breaking the rules doesn't make it any less GP.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Go talk to Don Rotolo about that next time you see him.

Just because you didn't break any forum rules when you posted that doesn't mean that your post was GP. (Or that your word choice doesn't need work; there's a distinct difference between making something less of something, which is what you said, and making something more of something, which is what I'm pretty sure you meant.)

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Also talk to Don about his take on GP and you'll learn a thing or two.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

...and I saw him do it.
With a statement like that, it is small wonder you have so many red reputation dots.
Sage advice from some well-respected participants. Indeed, I would be pleased to have that conversation any time you like. You know where to find me.

Don

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Why?

The new system is great. The best teams seed in the top 8. In the past they did not.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

The new system is really close to good, but it leads itself to being taken advantage of in some cases. If you suspect you can't beat another team you can turn around and score on yourself to improve your seeding score. This aspect is horrible from a spectator standpoint. When you have to sit and write a dissertation to explain to spectators why everyone if scoring on the opposite goals, then the game has lost its "spectator friendliness".

It also does not reward defensive playing. As it stands the way you play when you qualify is not the same as when you play in the eliminations. I think there are some tweaks that can be made to improve these two issues, but I admit I am at a loss to what those things could be exactly. Surely the community can brainstorm something to keep the good and ditch the 6v0 bad.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

The seeding system, imho, will work awesome at an event like IRI where you are almost guaranteed to have a good scoring robot on every alliance playing...

It's when you are playing an alliance that can't score when teams have to "exploit" the scoring for the other team part...

Re: Curie 2010!
 

IRI will have the occasional 6 vs. 0 match as well if they keep the current scoring system. Not every team there is Einstien Quality.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

In regards to Match 100:

I think by now it's quite obvious that the FIRST Community is quite split on the strategy played during that match.

I was often told that when reading the rule-books, I should keep in mind what the GDC ment for the game to have, and not to Lawyer. Now we could have a whole conversation on that, but this is not what I'm trying to get into. Sadly, the tournament set-up is one of those areas where we're not sure about the GDC intent with the game. I have seen posts that say both that the system was not ment to be used in 6v0, and others that the GDC was planning for matches like Q100. Both sides have very strong arguments.

In the end, 1114 interpretaed useing 6v0 as a scenario the GDC designed the rules to allow, and that it was not a whole in the Seeding system.

So I belive we should stop taking hits at certain teams for there own interpreations of the Rules.

I think its perfectly fine (if not awesome:p ) to discuss if 6v0 was an intention of the GDC or not, but I think it would be a good idea if we keep in mind when doing it, that this is something that people have to interpret and have an opinion on. An opinion is an opinion, and an opinion can-not be wrong or right.

My $0.02

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I have to admit, I was a little disappointed when seeing Match 100, but I reminded myself who exactly made the rules. I personally hope that next year there would be something set in place to discourage that kind of strategy, but it was completely legitimate this year and I cannot blame anyone in Match 100.

On the elimination match where the ball got stuck, I remember being down at the driver station, and just looking up at the end only to see a ball between the rail and the wire. I found it hilarious because I never thought it would ever happen. It was definitely an unusual circumstance.

Curie this year was a great division to start my first year of driving. There were a lot of hard hitters in the division, and I had a blast every single match.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Jeff, If you are a first-year driver, then your opponents next year are in for some serious trouble. You guys were awesome. If we ever meet up again, I hope we are wearing the same color again.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Thanks for the comment (sorry for intervening, since it was directed towards Jeff). Myself, both drivers, and the human player were first-year drive team members. Id love to see you guys again next season. Good job at Curie, it was an amazing experience for all of us. =)

Re: Curie 2010!
 

As long as a team's seeding score has some aspect of the opponents score, you will have teams scoring for the other side (if possible...not possible in 2005, 2007, 2008)....