Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor
But that would be incentive for teams to not use the Coopertition bridge during qualifications. For anybody that has followed Bill Miller's tweets, it's apparent that FIRST Corporate is really excited and hanging their collective hat on the Coop bridge concept, and it may foreshadow similar cross-alliance common-goal opportunities in future games.
|
While this is true, it doesn't change the incentive of going to the co-op bridge. At worst, it makes the co-op bridge more of a "real" decision, because before the only incentive not to go for the bridge was to screw over other teams not involved in the match or to score baskets. Now it's the same, except instead [or in addition to] scoring baskets it's an additional ten points triple.
I don't think it will be a massive game changer, but there are scenarios where not having a triple balance detracts from the game:
- Your team is down by 9 points with thirty seconds to go, the other team has double balanced, and the opposition co-op bot has flipped/disabled/unwilling to co-op.
- It's a winner take all where co-op points won't make a difference, and the difference between score is within ten points. Triple balancing is more exciting than baskets in my opinion.
Because of the dynamic of the triple balance is that it's more risky than the co-op - you could lose a banked 20 points, and a triple is harder to pull off than a co-op in certain cases - and because of the very nature of the seeding system, teams will still choose the co-op. If my team was going to CMP, I would tell them co-op every time, except for very exceptional circumstances [including those highlighted above].
It also helps, because qualifications is not just about ranking, but testing/advertising your robot and scouting/figuring out other robots, and not testing a triple until eliminations can hide some difficulties people may have over-looked.