|
Considerations for 2003
We obviously have a lot to consider for 2003. I agree that the multiplication of 2 numbers to generate a "monstor score" has bad side effects, but it did encourage the wide range of designs and strategies we saw this year. If you do not reward scoring enough, everybody builds totally defensive machines and strategies that can be very boring. Personally, I would still like to see the importance of winning elevated in the seeding scheme (as it was last year when match scores were much lower). Devising a game where there is no simple, easy solution (like "parking in front of the goal") is not always easy to do. I also hope that the game committee considers some totally different types of games. Contrary to what I've seen in a few of the postings here, alliances seem to be strongly supported by the survey respondants; we are likely to keep some kind of alliance setup, but its nature could change drastically. The committee has talked at length about keeping the same alliance partner(s) all year, starting from kick-off. As soon as FIRST ends, the committee will begin meeting to discuss all these ideas. We should have a game developed before we break for summer vacations. I hope all of you who have given this a lot of thought will come to a few of the committee meetings and get your input before the group.
|