Quote:
Originally Posted by jspatz1
As I said in a similar thread:
I think it is fair to say that the GDC probably did not foresee all the possible ramifications of this seeding system.
|
More specifically, I think they expected teams to play with honor, integrity, and gracious professionalism instead of just playing to "win".
Winning is an outcome. How many times have we heard Woodie say not to let outcomes dictate your behavior?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspatz1
I talked to both students and mentors this weekend that were discouraged that building a good robot meant less than knowing how to game the seeding system.
|
This just is not true. At one point we were seeded 20th, even though it was clear at the time that we had the dominant bot. (It still seems weird to say that... Weird in a very, very good way!
) We were very confident that we would be one of the first (if not *the* first) robot picked, regardless of where we were seeded at the end of the day -- because we built a good robot.
Of course, that we did not even once try to game the system and still ended up 1st seed -- and the Cooperatition Award -- was just glorious. That the alliance selection followed good robots over high-seeded robots reinforces my point.
I agree with Integral -- this is a cheap tactic that prioritizes a certain low cunning coupled with gamesmanship, instead of cooperatition and gracious professionalism.
Play each game to win. Show off that robot you've worked so hard to build. You won't regret it, and neither will your parents, fans, mentors, or sponsors.
Patrick