Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Montois
By dropping the "bad match" you're just penalizing the alliances that did better than you did. Adjusting your strategy for eliminations is important. If your alliance is pushing too hard and making mistakes and scores 45 in match 1 and 195 in match 2, the alliance that creates a more consistent strategy and scores 130 and 128 shouldn't be penalized.
Why shouldn't the alliance that is the most consistent advance? Strategy is what wins and loses events.
|
If FIRST robots were perfect, the control system was perfect, the field was perfect, I'd be inclined to agree. The most consistent alliance should be rewarded. However, that really isn't the case. Unexplained disconnects, while uncommon, still do happen. Control system glitches, particularly since this is a brand new control system, aren't uncommon. And while not all of these hiccups are unpreventable hiccups, there's really no worse feeling in this game than being doomed for the entire rest of your elimination bracket by making one mistake.
It's also worth noting that this emphasis on absolute consistency is a new thing this year. In the past, you could lose a match (the equivalent to making a mistake this year) and still move on. The 2013 World Champions did this in every single matchup, yet I don't think anyone would say that alliance was inconsistent. They had some hiccups, made some strategy adjustments, and persevered. I really don't think this was ever a bad thing.
You're not punishing the "best" alliances by doing this - you're changing what "best" means. "Best" now has a little less emphasis on consistency and a little more emphasis on raising the score as high as possible. This encourages alliances to take risks, to "go big or go home" so to speak, and it makes the eliminations more exciting. Perhaps most importantly, in the quarterfinals at IRI, you won't automatically lose the tournament in the quarters if one of your matches happens to be against a faster can grabbing alliance.
We've all been to regionals where by the last matches, the final alliances are all but a foregone conclusion, and the best alliances can play conservatively to advance. These matches are boring. We've all been to regionals where one of the best alliances gets an unexplained comms issue for 30 seconds, knocking them out of the tournament. We've all been to regionals where the only thing several alliances could do is watch other matches and hope more than anything else that the other alliances mess up. I think we've all experienced the loud cheers when an alliance messes up, as it has drastic consequences. Among the other benefits, this proposal would drastically reduce the impact of a single mistake, make every match more exciting, and hopefully cut back on that incentive to cheer for mistakes.