|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
2012 MSC
So who's excited for MSC this year. I know I am especially after witnessing Troy.
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2012 MSC
The things that are going to happen at this tournament...definitely worth taking a break from college for
.I really hope there are multiple teams with flawless coop records here to make it really interesting. I know that's what Troy was! |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2012 MSC
It'll be a Coopertition competition more than anything else.
![]() |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2012 MSC
Atleast the first two days...
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2012 MSC
I think it is more like an "Avoid not being able to balance on Coopertition bridge" during qualifying rounds. When most teams can balance on coopertition bridge, it will not be a deciding factor towards the seeding. It will be back to WLT.
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2012 MSC
Unless you are on on the field when it goes bad. Then you instantly drop relative to the rest of the field.
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2012 MSC
Quote:
I hope you're correct when it comes to win/loss records. Can't say I'm a fan of seeing undefeated teams in 10th place. |
|
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2012 MSC
With co-op happening more, and it swinging back closer to WLT I see some interesting things happening.
I see it shifting more towards the lesser scorers on the alliance doing co-op, in an effort to win the match, possibly resulting in less reliable co-op robots and a failure to do so, hurting everyone on the field. |
|
#9
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: 2012 MSC
Quote:
As far as undefeated teams being ranked 10th, I don't inherently have a problem with it. Going undefeated and being ranked 10th tells me there is a strategy issue (qualification strategy, that is). I'm sure there are plenty of teams that would have fewer losses if they valued winning above the co-op bridge. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2012 MSC
A wild card at MSC should be alliance bridge capability. I expect to see a *lot* of "6 bridge" matches...
|
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2012 MSC
I refer to these affectionately as Triple Doubles and i wish that was an actual term in the manual even if it gave no bonus
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2012 MSC
Our team is officially excited! It's going to be a long 1.5 (and counting) days of work...
Last edited by DjScribbles : 09-04-2012 at 16:34. |
|
#13
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: 2012 MSC
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2012 MSC
Why? There are plenty of robots that can balance just as well as the top scorers at MSC. Why not let them balance?
That's like saying, "We want to balance with YOU, not your perfectly capable alliance partners, because since we are going to be unable to score in the last 30 seconds we want nobody on your alliance scoring either." Alliances will have to weigh the benefits and disadvantages of choosing to co-op with their top scorer. |
|
#15
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: 2012 MSC
Quote:
Ensure both sides get an equal and fair opportunity to win the match on hybrid/teleop points through the first 1:45 or so of the match. Ensure the 2 best teams go to the bridge to get the critical 2 CP. Disadvantages: ???? I'd hate to be a higher seed putting the acquisition of 2 CP in the hands of others, no matter how capable you think they may be at balancing up to that point. If lower seeded bots are "perfectly capable" of balancing, they are also perfectly capable of going to the alliance bridge to be a part of the ubiquitous "triple doubles" you expect to see at the competition. Last edited by Travis Hoffman : 11-04-2012 at 19:55. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|