|
Re: A comment about alliance selection in off season events
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qbot2640
I've read this whole thread, and may have missed someone else suggesting this - but wouldn't a better way to include everyone have just been to use six alliances of three, rather than four of four. Give alliance one and two a quarterfinal bye, then proceed like a full elimination.
I agree with the many who don't have a problem with choosing your own B-team, and I also agree with the many who point out the problems with a no-captains policy. Keep it free - works best that way.
|
We had this system at our offseason competition. It worked really well, and there were no alliances with two robots from the same team, in fact there were a couple of instances of teams playing AGAINST their second robots. We lost to our practice bot in the finals (of course, they were allianced with 1678 and 2122  )
__________________
2011 Sacramento Regional Finalists; 2011 MadTown Throwdown VIP Excellence in Engineering Award; 2012 Sacramento Regional Innovation in Control Award; 2012 Silicon Valley Regional Judges' Award; 2012 CalGames Autonomous Challenge Award; 2012 MadTown Throwdown Finalists; 2013 P0W3RH0U53 PWNAGE Gracios Professionalism Award; 2014 Central Valley Regional Innovation in Control; 2014 Sacramento Regional Innovation in Control; 2014 Curie Division Gracious Professionalism Award; 2015 Sacramento Regional Innovation in Control
|