Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH
Do not continue from this point until you define the game and the match.
This is where the people who like the rule change and those who don't like it differ. They have different definitions of the game. Those who like it say that the rule change focuses on winning the match. What match?
First I'll look at the "2:15" match definition. In that match of the game, each match lasts 2:15, and the game is to win each match. People who see the IRI rule change as a good thing will tend to cite the number of what you might call "sub-par" teams in the top 8, fairly high in the top 8, in fact, and the relatively high number of teams who were really good but not in the top 8 as a bad thing. They tend to express the opinion that coop points ruined the game. They play by the Game section of the Manual.
Now, I'll look at another definition. In this, a "match" is about the length of a regional. A game lasts a full season. This is where the people who don't like the IRI change tend to hang out. The game they play is defined by the Game and Tournament sections of the Manual. The game changes every year. This group plays to win events.
In normal play, the two definitions are the same for about 5 hours. Saturday afternoons at a regional or district are full of teams playing to win matches to win events. But before then, there are teams who play to win matches and teams who look at their rankings, knowing that the only way to guarantee a spot in the eliminations is to be top 8. These ranking-watchers know that they can affect their rankings by scoring for their opponent--or, in extreme cases, actively preventing themselves from scoring. Teams like that understand the full game, top to bottom.
IRI is different, however. Normally, the rule change affects the game play as defined by the Game section of the Manual. This year, it affects the game play as defined by the Tournament section of the Manual. Does it penalize teams unfairly? Possibly. But not for sure. Does it take away the meta-game that was discussed during the season? Definitely. Is that meta-game important?
That question is one that each team decided during the season. In my personal opinion, it was very important to play that meta-game well during the season. At IRI, it has no value.
For many sports leagues, there is actually a meta-game. It's called seeding. If you win, you get so many points towards seeding. If you lose, you might not get any--or you might get some based on how much you scored. It is possible, in some leagues, to lose a single game--and yet come out ahead in the meta-game by scoring a lot of points in those losses, forcing your opponents to score even more to beat you.
|
Exactly, as I've said earlier in so many words I dislike the co-op bridge based on principle because it puts teams in situations where they have to choose between winning and ranking high and where winning does not necessarily get you a high final rank. I find that crazy. As others have said, at IRI the co-op bridge would be balanced most matches and would not really affect the outcome of the final rankings to sufficiently justify it as such a major part of the seeding system. As such, even if it did not force teams into the above there is no real reason to include it other than because that is the way it has been for the regular season. So, all other feelings aside, I am really looking forward to seeing some fantastic matches being played and extremely exciting end games at the IRI.
Hope to see you all there!
Regards, Bryan
Edit: Travis, could you please put 33 in Neutral. As I said eariler:
Oh, and because the topic of conversation seems to have shifted towards triple balancing in qualifications. I have to say that I agree that it is not a good rule modification. While the rule does not greatly affect my team I know I would be upset if I built a long robot and this change was made. So while I understand if the rule stays, I hope that a solution can be agreed upon that does not so heavily disadvantage long robots.
Thank you.