Thread: Crazy Idea, looking for comments
View Single Post
  #74   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:56
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Too true...
Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/8/99 12:24 PM MST


In Reply to: Defense---not exactly the best strategy either.... posted by Andrew Trax on 5/8/99 4:04 AM MST:



You don't really disagree. =)

I believe defense was rewarded to some extent through the alliance picking process. A good defensive team tends to get noticed (through those exciting matches I wrote about), and during the choosing, gets picked. I know it didn't happen in every case, but I saw it as pretty common. For example, TKO got picked from a low seed at the Great Lakes Regional. At nationals, there were quite a few defensive bots in the elimination rounds (i.e. 45, 177, 192, etc).

I believe this, but well understand and agree that defense wasn't rewarded enough.

We are in perfect agreement about how this problem could be fixed. The game encouraged the various strategies, so it should follow through and reward that which it encourages. Wins are what really counts in this. Points make a good tie breaker. Or, somehow, winning should be weighed more than the points. Perhaps a certain number of points could be rewarded for a win. I saw that idea in these forums before and I liked it. For example, a team winning with 64 points could be rewarded with the '300-point win bonus', bringing them to 364 points. That way, a high scoring round gets a lot of points, but doesn't make a team unbeatable. People who win all their matches would tend to do very well, and rankings would probably end up very similar to using wins as a tie breaker. However, the one advantage would be that a team that goes 5-1 by some fluke could still stay above a few 6-0 teams that maybe didn't score quite as high each match.

The tripler was invented to give winning a value, but unfortunately all it did was give scoring even more worth.

Giving high scoring such a huge weighting is oppressive. It makes everyone think that the game can only be played one way. That shouldn't be. Encourage WHATEVER WORKS. Defense included.


-Daniel


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.