Posted by Peter VanWylen, Student on team #107, Team ROBOTICS, from Holland Christian High School and Metal Flow Corp..
Posted on 3/28/99 12:49 PM MST
In Reply to: WHAT problem? posted by Daniel on 3/28/99 12:28 PM MST:
: Ok, maybe I'm just a bit slow here, but I don't see a problem. I see no cases where a team would be so uncompetitive to choose a predetermined alliance partner when they could pick someone better. Every one of the top 8 seeds should choose the partner that best compliments their particular robot. In the same respect, a lower than top 8 team who has a secure place in the finals (due to skill or reputation or whatever leads a team to being picked), would decline a highly seeded robot only if a lower seeded robot would make a better alliance partner. Not simply because of some pre-arranged "deal". The reason FIRST allows the top seeds to pick first is because they earned it. But perhaps after merely 4 QMs the fourth seed is the best robot. Well, that allows someone to decline seed number one. It is a great rule.
: I also saw a message talking about how someone might get a "free ride" so to speak. Well, why would a great team like Beatty decide to team with a freeloader? Shouldn't they go with the best of the best? Besides, FIRST has done a great job at making strategy VERY key this year; A team with three great robots and a flexible strategy will most likely win over a team of two great robots that doesn't have much choice on how they play their 2 minutes. I just think this is a lot of talk that will never be backed by actions. Maybe I'm just slow but I don't see the problem at all.
: FIRST made us an AWESOME game. Why don't we stop being so pessimistic?? They deserve appreciation, not deprecation!
: -Daniel
This doesn't only involve choosing a bad team because of pre-made alliances. It could also involve un-pre-made allinaces, that are determined through talks during the .5 hour break after Qual. matches.
See messages for an explaination:
message 670 ---
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/wwwboard/messages/670.html
message 655 ---
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/wwwboard/messages/655.html
also see followups to such messages