Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Dillard
So if a team chose a design that limits their points without a change, they're bad strategists and it's tough but not unfair if no change is made. But if you chose a design that can't take advantage of a potential change in points that has been in the rules since day one and the GDC does make the change, then you're a good strategist and it's tough and unfair?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..............
|
At the very least, the design that can't take advantage of a potential change in points that has been in the rules since day one at least decided to go with the scoring that is supposed to take place in 80% of the game that can't be changed. A 30 point climb could also be worth 20 by the rules.
I also
never said the rule change would be
unfair. I implied it is needless because the implied intent of the rule, balancing the scoring of the endgame to maintain the importance of teleop, is seen as largely unnecessary by all but a small minority of people who put all of their eggs into the climbing basket, and making a move like this points adjustment to acquiesce this minority would be unwelcomed.
Quote:
|
Everyone says the "fixing the game clause" was put because of 2011's minibot imbalance. Can anyone cite a source for that or is that just why Chief Delphi thinks it was put in?
|
Minibot scoring was weighted heavily in 2011 by the opinions of a lot of people. This provision was added to the endgame in 2012 and 2013. The reasoning isn't something that will likely ever be admitted by the GDC, but it's a pretty slam-dunk assumption.