Quote:
Originally Posted by Shu
If you do 1 point for a single co-op, then what would prevent teams from going early and balancing the bridge themselves and not allowing the other alliance the chance to get the point.
|
This. I think any time you offer up an opportunity for a team to mess with another one, then it's a bad idea.
Say (under this proposed idea) I am on the coop bridge waiting for my opponent. He continues scoring...so I balance the bridge for 1pt. Then he comes to the bridge to coop, expecting to get an extra point. I stay balanced and upset them for not unbalancing...since I don't think we can get re-balanced with 2 robots in time. Or heaven forbid, they unbalance the bridge themselves and we fail to get re-balanced. Who is at fault and how many people have their feelings hurt?
The same goes for allowing triple balancing or awarding a different amount of points for triples, doubles, or singles on the coop bridge. There is always a way that a devious, but strategic coach can find to take advantage of these proposed ideas.
All these rule changes make it easier to decieve some one, not harder. I would hate for MARC to turn into this type of event because the rules were changed (in hopes of improving the play) without fully understanding the impact of these changes.
I think the GDC knew that if the coop bridge was any less valuable teams could find ways to decide not to do it. At 2Qps, its as good as a win and keeps you up in the rankings even if you lose a match.
The coop bridge in Michigan has been a postive experience all season long. My opinion is either leave it alone, and we all coop together or get rid of it and lets turn up the scoring and see who is really the best in qualification using W-L-T.