Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan Rossi
Our alliance (1492, 4183, & 2647) was also offered to put down defense (for just one match) to try and maximize both of the alliance's scores. The reason I was so skeptical about doing this was we had just spent all of our time during lunch beefing up 2647 for defense (adding 2 CIMs, extra weight, and ect.). Though, the offer was very tempting (and looking back I wish we had taken it).
We did end up losing due to 60's excellent defensive play (and 4183 unfortunately losing power in the last 40 seconds of QF4-3).
I would like to personally apologize for not taking the offer, as I was 1492's primary strategist and had a weighted opinion as to if we should've done it or not. I think both alliances could've easily gotten over 200 points.
After watching week one, I wondered if any alliances would try such a strategy (dropping defense for high scoring) I'm actually surprised we didn't see this strategy sooner.
As someone who was watching in person, I can tell you it was far from boring (it was in fact very exciting!).
|
This right here is my problem with the kind of bet that requires a team to give up something. You should not have to feel bad for playing the game the way you designed your robot to do it. I believe this sponsor's heart was in the right place but it's still a very weird direction to move the game.
I also agree with the sentiment offered by seg9585. If the money is what makes it worth it, then does the amount matter?