Quote:
Originally Posted by jill399
3- Projection in pits. It usually took me 3 times to read the seeds in Newton because of the lack of quality. One time, after standing for 10 minutes, i gave up trying to find where my team was because i couldnt distinguish an 8 from a 9 or a 6 from a 3. Also, Newton and Curie had two different systems for showing the seeds. Newton showed two pages of scores that divided the 86 teams in half. This is good for teams that know where abouts theyre seeded but when you have 3 seconds a shot to find your team number out of 43, it tends to take a while. But, in Curie, they were showing the seeds one team at a time. Although this gave more time to find your team, it took forever to go back to a number that you may have missed.
|
Agreed entirely. The list of seedings was nearly impossible to read. In addition, the way it scrolled, it was even nearer to impossible to determine who the number 1 seed was, because it was gone in an instant. I liked the way it was displayed last year much better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawger
If FIRST came up with a way of ranking teams from highest to lowest ability in perfect order I think the game would lose an entire dimension of strategy.
|
It's not going to be in perfect order with any system (see: Aces High last year), but it is the most fair to all teams to make the matches completely random. I don't think that any other system can come remotely close to matching that.