Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuttyman54
I don't believe FIRST will exercise this clause, as I believe that it is in place only for a scenario like 2011 where one method of scoring is so powerful and so easy for all top teams to do that the match outcome is virtually assured, save for breakdowns or penalties. Changing the minibots points for championships that year would not have affected most teams, because by that point most teams had almost the same system, and it could be very easily adapted. Even then, the GDC would have given serious consideration before issuing the order to change the points. There's always SOMEONE who is greatly affected.
It is NOT a fallback because the game doesn't play exactly like they anticipated. I choose to believe the GDC understands the impact and the backlash that would result if they chose to change the points. Regardless of how the game actually plays, teams made strategy decisions at the beginning of the season based on the point distribution. This clause is for extreme scenarios, and is there "just in case".
|
This is the key, I believe. The rule was added because of the 2011 game, which was massively unbalanced at the highest level of play to an almost unwatchable degree (IMO it wasn't a particularly well-designed game to begin with, but I digress). While they still do change the rules during the season a bit too much for my liking, I don't believe the GDC would actually exercise their option to change the game before the most important competition of all unless the situation was just as dire. You can argue about whether or not pyramid climbing is currently undervalued, but you certainly can't say with a straight face that it's even close to as bad as 2011 was.