Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Diaz
.....For instance, let's say a particular matchup brings 217-148-111 against 418-5000-5001 (where 5000 and 5001 represent mythical rookie teams that can only push balls around the field)....
|
I, personally, would not employ the strategy you outlined after the words above. However I admit that what you describe is a viable strategy that some may and still will employ, including my own team if our strategy/drive folks decide to do so with good reason (albeit not as often as they would have without U16).
First off, what an incredible honor it would be to be on the field at the same time as these three teams. Second, if I had an alliance with the three teams above, all with functional drivetrains, I'd be inclined to play it straight - one team defending as best as possible while other two try to manage/push/shoot balls to score - at least for the first part of the match and evaluate from there.
Clearly, if you feel that you're THAT overmatched, then clearly you probably don't feel you're a top 8-10 team anyway, so wouldn't you need to show 217, 148, and/or 111 that you're a worthy opponent, therefore worthy of consideration for being chosen by one of these elite teams as an alliance partner? If those three teams are so darned good, one is likely to be the number one seed right? and will pick another one of those teams for the elims, correct? Won't you have to beat them anyway to win the event?
I also find it a little humorous that you refer to a mythical alliance of your team with two barely functional rookies (which happens a lot at some events), while you present the 148, 217, 111 alliance as one that we may readily see. I've watched over the web and at events PRAYING for alliances like this to form (so I could sit with popcorn and watch) in seeding rounds for a decade and have only seen the planets align this way maybe 3 times.
Thus, the following is WAY overstated IMHO...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Diaz
However, their bread-and-butter (the game itself) is still sadly and horribly broken. -Danny
|
The exact scenario, with three powerhouses together in a single seeding round, is so rare that, in my mind, there's no way to conclude that anything is "horribly broken." Heck, even before update 16 with a ranking/seeding formula I really didn't like, I still wasn't ready to say ANYTHING was horribly broken.
1712 played week one, and if you sat down with each individual student on the team who was in DC with us, you'd probably find out that none of them were too particularly fond of the ranking/scoring system. However, if you'd ask them if they'd do it all over again exactly the same way I think you'd be surprised by the answers. Further, if you'd ask them what they were taking away from the experience, I think you'd hear a LOT of feedback, very little of which had anything to do with the actual matches on the field. I don't believe that my team is special or different from most others in any significant way related to these conversations, either.
Let me reiterate that I'm THRILLED that there's an adjustment in ranking/seeding and was hoping for a change all day yesterday as many were, but cmon, is this REALLY something we want to view with this much importance to make such strong statements - even after major adjustments were made?