|
Re: What do you think about <G14> in eliminations?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH
Think about it. All the Week 1 teams played under one set of rules. If you remove a rule that hurts teams (or add one that hurts teams), you WILL get the Week 1 teams OR the non-Week 1 teams "screaming" at you that you're unfair, biased, that everyone should play under the same rules, the other group has it easier, etc., etc. And there's a fair chance that half the other group will join in to complain with the complainers.
Do you really want that? Do you think the GDC really wants that?
|
I don't think it is particularly unfair to tweak this rule, since the match results from Week 1 don't carry into Week 2 and beyond. Winners in Week 1 were determined with rules that applied to all the teams in those competitions.
If the GDC decides to modify a rule, it would apply to all teams in subsequent regionals. This is far less frustrating for teams than changing the game pieces for Championship versus what was used in the regionals (remember the much softer Poof Balls for Aim High in Atlanta?)
__________________
"There's never enough time to do it right, but always time to do it over."
2003 AZ: Semifinals, Motorola Quality; SoCal: Q-finals, Xerox Creativity; IRI: Q-finals
2004 AZ: Semifinals, GM Industrial Design; SoCal: Winners, Leadership in Controls; Championship: Galileo #2 seed, Q-finals; IRI: Champions
2005 AZ: #1 Seed, Xerox Creativity; SoCal: Finalist, RadioShack Controls; SVR: Winners, Delphi "Driving Tomorrow's Technologies"; Championship: Archimedes Semifinals; IRI: Finalist
2007 LA: Finalist; San Diego: Q-finals; CalGames: Finalist || 2008 San Diego: Q-finals; LA: Winners; CalGames: Finalist || 2009 LA: Semifinals; Las Vegas: Q-finals; IRI: #1 Seed, Finalist
2010 AZ: Motorola Quality; LA: Finalist || 2011 SD: Q-finals; LA: Q-finals || 2013 LA: Xerox Creativity, WFFA, Dean's List Finalist || 2014 IE: Q-finals, LA: Finalist, Dean's List Finalist
2016 Ventura: Q-finals, WFFA, Engineering Inspiration
|