My only change- go back to the best of 3 eliminations. I know 2 rounds in FIRST's eyes is better than 3 and that the format this year assured that the eliminations were the same as the seeding game. But it was real disappointment to battle back from a first round loss, win the second round and then have everyone sit there waiting for the judges to tally the scores, do the math and decide then who won. It worked both ways for us at various time this year but I think it really detracted from the game. It should be win the round or lose the round.
As for the favoritism expressed towards stackers in the thread above- well the name of the game WAS stack ATTACK. It wasn't "see how big a stack you can make in 2 minutes". We tried a game like that in 2001 and everybody or or less panned it. Obviously the stack building didn't work well for most and robots that could attack or defend stacks did.
The ATTACK and KOH part of the game is what made the game exciting to watch this year. I'd say we need more of that, not less. Testing the mettle of one robot against another seems to be what the public and most teams want. That's why we are told each year to "build robust robots".
WC
