[hixofthehood]

A "middle" ground????

Yes, yes, yes. If the matches were decided after comparing the two raw match scores and seeing whose was highest, it would be much more interesting.

Of course, this leans more towards the 2 out of 3 Match Play rounds.

It's a good thing I searched before I posted, or I would have started a thread about this.
~~

The game of STACK ATTACK is exciting, fun, beautiful, and variable. I love strategizing for it, and the combined aspects of human playing, autonomous mode, and remote-control periods made the game incredibly cool.
But in a game as variable as this, it can all come down to just one second or one half inch in just one match. Just one match can eliminate an alliance. Then the second match is full of despair, hopelessness, and boredom. This ruins the spectatorness and doesn't leave the losing team with a sense of loss, in my experience.
Last year, when we lost in the final, third match of Nationals, I really felt like we had lost, because the other teams had beaten us twice. This year at our regional, I felt as though one match had sealed our alliance's fate (and it had), and that we had not been given a chance to lose properly.
That might sound strange, but it is just...well, I suppose I am having difficulty expressing my feelings. I do not want to sound bitter, or as though I felt we should have won or want to complain.

When the last match of the finals ended with the winning team losing, I was just disinterested, that's all. I don't think it should be allowed to happen. It's not right. It's boring, and that's not what robotics competitions are. They are awesome and captivating.

I think FIRST should reconsider this aspect of the game even before Nationals. What would be the harm in changing it? I do not expect anything, but I guess I have a .04% hope that maybe it could happen. Bring the suspense, thrill, and fulfillment of the second elimination round back. Make the winning team win more than once. The Super Bowl is not played in two possessions.

Congratulations to FIRST for designing an amazing game, but I consider this a flaw not too late to be corrected.