Quote:
Originally posted by Todd Derbyshire
In regards to 1vs1vs1vs1 I don't think the precedent would be standard in the given situation. Think about it you have lets say two teams that go out and try and dominate against a higher ranked team that leaves one team to do whatever it pleases and in the right situation it could be determental pending on the game to leave that robot roaming about free. Also in the free for all type you could have the game turn into a degenerate 2vs2 mercenary type were two teams that are high up in the rankings enlist the services of another robot in the match and square off on each other. This game could be a disaster however (not to take anything away from the current or former champions) but it would put more of a meaning on a true champion.
|
As I've previously asserted in my other posts in this thread, and just so the entire world is clear about how I feel, being a Champion is, in my eyes, completely meaningless.
There exist few circumstances where, if a single team were ignored for the entirety of a match, it would be "detrimental." If you imagine that teams were to gang up against the highest seeded team in any match, it stands to reason that the three lower ranking teams would find it advantageous to take them out of the equation. If one of the three teams is ranked within distance of that top tier team such that they have a chance at overcoming them in the standings, there's still more incentive to single that high-seed out.
Any way you try to slice it, the high-seed teams will draw attention from all three teams. A team that ignores the other three may have the potential to achieve a high score, but the end result is still that the high-seed teams will be at the brunt of the attacks.
Whether a competitive team goes solo and scores a lot of points because they're unbothered or they go after the top-seed team in a 3- or 2 vs. 1 matchup, the end result will still be that they move up in the seedings.
If a low-seeded team is left to go solo and scores a high amount of points, their rank may increase, but that change would be insignificant in the overall standings. A move from 10 to 8 is considerably more meaningful than a move from 40 to 30, or even 20. As this low-seeded team climbs to the top, they themselves will become a target.
A system of alliance partners ensures that the welfare and performance of all competing teams is a concern for everyone. It discourages outright decimation in a competition that encourages friendship and positive relationships.
1 vs. 1 vs. 1 vs. 1 would be finding a new way to repeat the last two seasons, where overpowering a team with force was a better way to win than outsmarting them with design. How can you ever have a true Champion when three lesser robots always team up to take the best of the best down? If anything, it seems to me like such a system would immediately eliminate the true leaders, with a winner emerging from somewhere in the middle. ...just as precedent suggests.