[Martinez]

Originally Posted by Danny Diaz

I have to agree with this. There is still no incentive for an alliance that knows they're not going to win to even attempt to "fight." All they really want to do (even with #16) is to keep the bleeding to a minimum - to prevent their alliance from scoring any points (whether scored by them or by the opposing alliance); there is nothing gained by fighting a battle you know you cannot win.

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). Even after #16 I would still be correct to instruct my alliance members to not score (for our alliance), to not defend (against our opposing alliance from scoring in their own goals), and only to attempt to prevent anyone from scoring in our goals. It is in our alliance's interest to play like this during the qualifiers, if you know the cards are stacked against you, to prevent a "runaway" from the stronger alliance. This is where this year's game falls apart - where the scoring model inhales audibly. In this year's game I have the strong likelihood to do more damage to myself trying to play, than to sit on my keyster - WTH?

I do appreciate the GDC's stance on backing off the ball incursion penalty, and I also appreciate them cracking down on robots that don't pass inspection. However, their bread-and-butter (the game itself) is still sadly and horribly broken.

-Danny

See, that's where FIRST believes their random alliance generator is infalliable, allowing such a one sided match never to happen. Ideally, with the alliance generator in place, blow outs should be rare or never happen. Of course, we all know the truth of that matter.