Quote:
Originally Posted by Abhishek R
That's not true at all...
If you went to the bridge with 1:15 left and then ended up losing the match, you didn't have a good enough lead at that point in the match to allow you to attempt the bridge. Winning should've been priority, then the coop bridge.
While the bridge was flawed, I don't think you can go far enough to say "if blank team couldn't do it then there's something wrong." Many teams were able to complete the bridge and win the match.
Plus you have a match schedule with who you're playing against. Why not talk to the opposing teams in advance for true coopertition?
|
Many teams were able to win and balance, including 254, many times. I am quite positive that 254 talked and discussed the strategy for balancing before the match. You say that winning should have been the priority. Why? It was worth the same as the co-op balance.
What I think is wrong is that 254's bridge balancing and coopertitioning (or coopertating?) skills didn't change from match to match, but their scores did. In some matches, they may have been able to spend only 20 seconds balancing, but in others, they could not have the ability to balance at all. In this sense, their qualifying points do not correlate to the teams ability. I can be the greatest bridge balancer in the world and have opponents who don't have the ability (or choose not to) go on the bridges, win 10 matches, balance zero, and end up with 20 qualification points. Then, I could be a very average robot, with an average bridge skill, and end up with great balancing partners and at the end of the day balancing 7 out of 10 times, and winning 5 matches out of ten, with a total of 24 qualification points. The average team wins, the great team looses. There's no correlation between points and robot ability.
In the match, 254 knew that in order to be in picking position, they needed to balance and win, and they knew that if they gave up balancing, they gave up picking. So, they tried to balance. In the end, they were picked anyway.