Quote:
Originally Posted by pabeekm
This seems to be really unnecessary and very very unfair. Honestly, I can't imagine and don't want to see any kind of situation where teams agree to this.
Punishing teams for defending a valid and fair coopertition based strategy to artificially inflate your own poorer methods, and then rubbing this in their face by using their own better idea and then banning them from ANY possible degree of success in competition AT ALL (because yes, 40 points per match is that huge) is cruel and undeniably non gp.
It'd be like making all teams agree last year to not give the game pieces to the good high goal scorers just so low goal bots can do better; it's not their fault your strategy is poorer, don't punish them over it.
|
You say poorer methods, I say more efficient use of time both in match and during the build season.
How about a modification of the noodle agreement: We each agree to dump 7 noodles (28 pts) and each alliance gets 3 to play with. Then you can use your noodles how you wish with your complicated mechanism you spent time during the season designing and we still both gain a large value.
The marginal value between a noodle dump and a noodle in a bin is 2 pts. I think you could make a new stack (4 pts, opportunity for bin pts) faster than you could stick a noodle in a bin no matter when it happens (noodle in bin before stack, noodle in bin while already on the stack, etc...) The goal is to increase your QS during quals. Taking TNA will increase your score by 40, and also give you opportunity to spend time scoring more and increase it even further. Other than a doublecross, I challenge you to find me a time when it is not advantageous to take the noodle agreement.
Another question for discussion: I suspect many people would say
refusing to cooperate with the yellow totes would be against GP. At the same time, I've heard that
coopertating with noodles is not GP. Both lead to 40 pts for both alliances. What is the difference between them?