Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman
PRO: - 67 (W)
- 68 (W)
- 234 (W)
- 341 (W)
- 868 (SQ)
- 907 (W)
- 3940 (W)
- 4334 (W)
NEUTRAL: - 33 (W)
- 359 (L)
- 548 (L)
- 829 (W)
- 1640 (SW)
- 2056 (L)
CON: - 48 (L)
- 340 (L)
- 461 (L)
- 744 (L)
- 772 (L)
- 2168 (L)
- 2337 (L)
- 3193 (L)
- 3310 (L)
- Secret Unnamed Team (L)
|
This list says it perfectly! Notice a trend? You can't deny it! Those for the rule change are all wide bots, while those against it are all long bots. This would be similar to the MLB extending the salary cap. All the Yankees fans would be totally for it (because they could afford it), while the Astros fans would be totally against it (as they couldn't afford anyone else). You would be giving an unfair advantage to certain teams, and that's what the IRI planning committee is doing here, whether it was their "intent" or not. Not a tit for tat example but hopefully you get my idea.
I can only speak for my team, but back in January, we had a quite lengthy discussion on whether to go wide/long. We eventually decided on long (but with weight distributed back so we could overhang). We came to this conclusion as you could only balance two robots for both qualification alliance bridges and coop bridges.
I LOVE the point Evan brought up
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRI Website
"We are considering some minor rules changes to the 2012 FRC game, Rebound Rumble. These changes will only be slight tweaks and will not be significant. Our intent is to make a slight change that may improve the game, but not make a change that will encourage teams to alter their robot."
|
So they pretty much did the exact OPPOSITE of what they said they were going to do. Rule #3 is in no way a "slight change". "Minor" rule changes wouldn't have teams question the reason why they built the robot they did.
After talking with Justin, and reading Tyler's post, I'm in complete agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holtzman
We're long. We're not worried. There will be many matches where all 3 of our opponents devote 40 seconds to attempting to triple and fail. We will continue to score undefended while our partners double. [/url]
|
Triple balancing is HARD. Teams could barely perfect it by Finals Match 3, and that was after trying it up to 8 times before then. You have to nail a triple with two teams you may never have done it with before. Justin made a good prediction that teams are going to realize how hard it is, and after many failures by a lot of alliances, teams are just going to stop trying for the triple balance during qualifications, and go back to the double. Many alliances died by the triple balance; attempting the triple when only needing a double, or just failing at the triple for a loss throughout the season(148/33 and 67/2826 for example). The triple balance during quals at IRI will be high risk for little reward. There are going to be so many great scorers there, the extra 20 points won't be that significant and in my opinion won't make the difference in too many matches.
Sorry for the rambling, IRI will be fun no matter what.
Mike