Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me
While this is interesting, do keep in mind that tripling is taking another ball scorer away from the game. If the tripling alliance scores even one less ball on average, than tripling wouldn't have an outcome on the average match.
|
Wouldn't most matches at MSC have all six bots going for bridges regardless? Old way - the third alliance bot went for the co-op bridge while the other two doubled, at about the same time the new way's three alliance bots would be going for the triple.
You're essentially exchanging time spent co-oping for time spent tripling, assuming they both take roughly the same amount of time. Amirite?
It's still all about who can triple faster - who can spend maximum time scoring before breaking away to triple. If your random alliance can't triple, then it's about starting the countdown clock when the opponent breaks away, and hoping to Jeebus you can make up the difference in that time.
Can you allocate TWO bots to scoring during that triple time, and still have time to double? You might have to if the triple alliance is hella fast.
Or you get one bot balanced early as insurance and the other two keep scoring, hoping the triple alliance screws up royally. Or (if it is ALLOWED, which I'm still going to harp about until the IRI folks explicitly define what is legal IRI triple D), the third bot goes and blows up the triple while the other two keep scoring, and one balances late.
It's going to be a lot fun in most random pairing configurations, until it isn't (the no matter what you do, you're hosed scenario I've outlined ad nauseum).
Finally, count me as one who wants the lonely, neglected co-op bridge to be worth something to spice things up a bit more. We haven't had a king of the hill anything since 2004!
Speaking of 2004 - OOOH OOOH CRAZY THOUGHT - let's go retro and give teams the option to play without their bumpers....more room on the bridge...
