Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianBSL
I would argue that the defending robot has a scoring potential of 30, for getting up 12" on the other team's ramps. If you can keep a normally high scoring team's scores much lower than normal due to defense, it amplifies the significance of the ramps.
Perhaps it has to do with how you think about the game - in New England (this is a very broad generalization) we have much lower scoring matches, not because our robots and drivers aren't as good, but because we value defense much more than other areas.
I heard someone on the MARTA train on the way to the airport at 6 AM talking about how disappointed they were in the finals this year, since the scores were so low. They inferred this had to do with bad alliances on the field, I infer it is just playing the game differently. I hate when people say you aren't playing the game the way the GDC designed it to be played. I think the GDC should worry about designing a game, and not about forcing teams to play it the way they want. I much prefer the way this year's finals were to 2005's where it was just a scoring fest to see who could score the most tetra's the fastest, and never getting in anyone's way. The strategy and defense aspect evens the playing field for teams who can't afford the money, space, and time for a full field and practice robots, who will obviously do better in all-out scoring, even if their robot isn't necessarily a better designed robot.
|
Regardless of the ramp score, I was talking strictly in tubes with the prior realization of any team being able to climb a ramp(hopefuly), thus off-setting as Corey stated. As for the people on the Marta, the GDC makes the game... its gets played, done. I personally believe that a different style alliance not shown on Einstein would have been able to trump any alliance shown there. This alliance is definitly able to be formed also, it isn't a conglomeration of 3 top qualifiers.
Your alliance did a great job however. Congratulations on the win.