Quote:
Originally posted by Jason Morrella
1. I found one earlier post to be quite important, at least in terms of helping to define the discussion. What everyone is discussing on this thread falls under the definition of "collusion" - not "fixing" or "cheating". I completely understand the views of all the people who are really against agreements - but it seems the emotion involved is causing people to use words which may imply that those who disagree with them are bad people, which is just ridiculous. These agreements are helping teams seed higher, there is no doubt about that, and I very much understand the debate. But "fixing" a match would be fixing who wins or loses and "cheating" would be breaking a rule. Just my opinion - but I think the discussion should be about what teams feel about "collusion" or "agreements", not "fixing or cheating".
|
True, "Fixing a match" would be deciding a winner before the match is played. A better way to describe it is artificial bloating of Qualifying Points. The problem isn't the individual matches themselves. The problem is in seeding. Some teams will not go into finals if they don't seed in the top 8. If a team bloats it's QP's enough, it can possibly make it to the finals, when it shouldn't have.
In a normal match, a team is lucky to get a multiplier above 4. With these agreements, the mulipliers can be huge because human players can stack high stacks and not worry about them falling. People are upset because we are all not playing the same game. If half of a 40 team regional bloats and the other half doesn't, then theres a good chance that the top 20 teams will be the bloated teams.
You say this doesn't affect the finals, but it does. Say Team X is the best team at the regional and chooses Team Y based on Team Y's High QP. Team X may now lose, because of their choice in partners. You can say it's Team X's responsibility to make the best choice, but the agreements now confuse the matter even more.
So then should we all just agree to follow suit? That wouldn't be fair to the bots who's main function is stacking. If all teams just left the other team's stacks alone. The human players can just simply make a big stack in the beginning, then let it stand. There's no need to make any more stacks.
These agreements remove the stacking element from the game. All teams will be doing is hitting the wall, pushing bins back and forth, and playing King of the Hill.
Thank you for your comments, but you seem to be playing this off as a non-issue or just a minor annoyance. No the sky ISNT falling, but this is a bigger problem than you or FIRST seems to think it is.