Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
As FIRST constructed the game, the co-opertition points were part of the method for earning your ranking (and the associated privileges of picking, etc.). I think it's fair to say that most teams optimized their robots to seed high under the original rules—and for many of those, that involved taking advantage of the middle bridge to succeed in qualifications.
Where once there was a qualification game and a distinct elimination game, the IRI rule changes basically amount to playing the elimination game all the time. I'd say that for some teams, that will be a big deal, and that for a select few, it won't matter. That changes the implicit balance of power and gives the strategists something different to think about and the builders something new to build. Was it the intention of the IRI committee to give the teams a new challenge with a short implementation window? If so, they succeeded. (Of course, with FRC, you're told in advance that this is going to happen...with IRI, it seems to have taken us by surprise.)
I don't think I'd have made such a big a change to the way the competition works, but since I don't have a robot there, I'm merely interested to see what happens.
|
I definitely understand why changing the coop points can be major. And were this any other competition, I would agree. But what I'm trying to say is, having the coop bridge in play would be less of a reward for the teams that do it, and more of a punishment for the teams that don't.
When considering the quality of teams going to IRI, I have no doubt that a coop would be attempted every match. And at least 90% of the time, it will work. But for that 10% who couldn't get it right for whatever reason (malfunction, bad luck, etc.) it will be a crippling factor in ranking. Thus, the majority of teams who successfully coop will have an inherent advantage over those that didn't right off the bat. Even if it's just a single failed coop balance, it could cripple a team who otherwise won every match and cooped.