Quote:
Originally Posted by JABot67
I don't understand why people get mad over "scorched earth". The only reason I would get mad is if there was a specific team I wanted to pair up with. BUT the good thing about scorched earth is that NONE of the other really really good teams have really really good partners either. In fact, if I am outside the top 2 seeds and I know that the top seeds are not going to pick me, I absolutely want scorched earth to happen. I want a non-power to seed first and split everyone up.
67 would have been a goner in 2008 GLR if 66 hadn't seeded first and broken up alliances such as 217+33, 217+27, 27+33 and the like. Instead the "scorched earth" policy made for some of the most exciting elimination matches I've ever seen because all 8 alliances were solid contenders.
What's wrong with "scorched earth"? It's a great strategy in my opinion, and I want to see it MORE often at the Championships. All of you naysayers that would hate to see it, well all I can say is this: If it happens you can be sad, but I will sit back and get some quality entertainment out of my Saturday afternoon!
|
I've never been part of a Scorched Earth play, but i've witnessed it, and is it exciting! It's much better to see from a spectator's point of view than one alliance blowing everyone away. It's part of the magic that is FRC. If I were in a "scorched Earth" play and on the receiving end, I would probably be more excited than angry, just because of the intense action that I would encounter. It's a strategic challenge now, every alliance is about even, and the ones with better strategy and execution will win.