Quote:
Originally Posted by LeelandS
Tyler hit the nail on the head. I hate to be so course, but if you don't think you can triple balance, I strongly suggest you find a way to win without triple balancing. It's not "favor towards one type of robot." It's an element of the game that has always existed, and is now being expanded.
|
I haven't formulated a value judgement on Rule 3 yet, but I disagree that it's always been a element of the game. Ok, maybe the element was, but the molecule wasn't. Triple balancing
with one alliance of your selection (or gracious acceptance) has always been a
element molecule of the game. Triple balancing with 8 (8, right?) random alliances was not. By my view, 1 by selection to 8 by random is not an expansion, it's an inherently different thing. In fact, they're inherently different strategic design issues.
That's not to say I disagree triple balancing with 8 randomly assigned alliances will likely be harder for everyone--even those geometrically/CoG capable of accomplishing it. Nor do I disagree that many teams there, long and wide, are quite capable of doing amazing things on offense during that time. I'm not sure I consider this change a "slight tweak", though.
As confirmation, does the lack of relevant comment mean that the refs will call triple balance defense the same way it was at Worlds?