[archiver]

Posted by Nate Smith.

Other on team #66, GM Powertrain/Ypsilanti HS/Willow Run HS, from Eastern Michigan University and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 9/15/99 7:32 AM MST


In Reply to: Tie Scores posted by David Kelso on 9/6/99 6:04 AM MST:



:
: With limited numbers of contests, more discussion needs to go into
: selecting a winner if the final score is a tie. Imagine this year
: if your alliance scored a few hundred points and ending up losing
: due to a 'tie breaker'.

Definitely! In my opinion, there should either be a game that eliminates the possibility of a tie somehow, or at least have the tiebreaker be something that can be easily seen. At the WMRC, one of the alliances in the semifinals literally lost the deciding match by a fraction of an inch. At first glance, it appeared that they had won, but when the height of the machine 'off the ground' was measured, they were just barely under the required 2 inches.

And that gets me off onto another slightly different rant...I feel that while multipliers will always be around in some form, as a way of rewarding a team or alliance for getting their machine to do what is considered one of the harder tasks, they should be easily determined by looking at the field.
Good Multiplier: Central goal in '98...each ball in the goal served as a multiplier...the only time you had trouble with determining if it was or not was when the ball was at the very top of the goal or had been wedged into one side
Bad Multiplier: 'On the puck' definition in '99...what looked like two inches from the player station may not have been in reality. Why not just have it be if the machine was off the ground at all?

Just my thoughts...

Nate