Quote:
Originally Posted by StephLee
I definitely see your point. I do, however, see a higher incentive to "cheat" in this situation than in the collusion shutout, and a wider gap between the winner and loser if cheating does occur. Thus, I as a strategist would be less willing to try this strategy if I know or suspect that my opponent has the capability to outscore me.
|
That is very true. But then from an audience standpoint, a collusion shutout won't be very popular. It would be boring, and for those who don't know how seeding works (e.g. a spectator just walking in like somebody's parents), it will really confuse them. With respect to the audience, an intentional tie will be more entertaining, because you might not know if somebody made a mistake, cheated, or got a penalty, which would change the outcome of the match.
From a scouting perspective, that pretty much tells me almost nothing about the robost. Sure, I can see that it's scoring, but I can't see how well the driver reacts under the pressure of a defender. I can't see how well the bot in the middle of the field is at tracking down balls and avoiding the other or causing the other to lose a ball. I can't see if the defensive bot is good at its job. The only thing it really tells me is whether the human player with the trident is fast or not.
Sure, the intentional tie doesn't really either, but I think it'd be a lot less boring to watch. Not to mention then I can at least see both alliances' human players in action.