|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Week 2 Strategies
We did actually get blocked from our bridge at Gull Lake in our final match. We didn't notice until too late but managed to win with balls. Alliances will have to have a human player or coach to watch out for this block. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZazWS2kl3Ho#t=116s
|
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Week 2 Strategies
The Coopertition bridge, now more than ever, rewards teams that know how to play the game, leaving in the dust teams who disregard it. However, it rewards teams with mediocre robots that know how to play the game and can take advantage of it. If you take it every match, you can seed quite high and be guaranteed a pick. It also lowers the seeds of good teams that miss it a time or two, making eliminations incredibly exciting to watch because finally, the blue alliance can win. We beat the 3rd alliance at FLR as the 6th, and it was without doubt due to the seeding system. I will write more in depth about impressions for Week 2 Regional tomorrow, when I have more than 12 hours of sleep in the past three days.
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 2 Strategies
Quote:
The red alliance won only three times at Chesapeake- the first seed won its first pairing, then lost to the fifth seed, the 7th seed beat the 6th seed, (7th was red because it was the survivor of the 2v7 match, while 6th won the 3v6 match), and the fifth seed finally won overall. To phrase that in a slightly more readable manner, the blue alliance won slightly more than half the games, and I think you hit the nail on the head when you said it was because of the new seeding system. Several teams on the top 4 seeded alliances had significantly higher standings because of CP, and were actually weaker than many others in terms of strength. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 2 Strategies
Quote:
Also, I would say that in some events it was the case that the blue alliances won (Chesapeake, Oregon, WPI) but for other events it seems like the top seeds are winning as normal. Kettering, Hatboro-Horsham, Chestnut Hill, and especially Waterford (All red alliances won/advanced) are examples of this. |
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Week 2 Strategies
To be fair, they got two robots at the bridge, they just never balanced.
|
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 2 Strategies
Quote:
In response to your second point, yes, red alliances can still win. In the two regional events that I watched bad scouting and good strategy played as much a role as anything else. But three regional events with major upsets says to me that there is a little more unpredictability in who wins a regional. |
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Week 2 Strategies
Yeah, a team seeded low in the top 8 can, with good scouting and strategy, go on to do very well this year. The game puts more emphasis on overarching strategy than any other I have seen.
|
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Week 2 Strategies
Quote:
In response to the treads original question. Everyone should be balancing the coopertition bridge. The fluctuations in rankings when only some alliances do it is a bit disconcerting. |
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Week 2 Strategies
Quote:
If so, what for? I didn't see anything illegal by the blue bot... |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 2 Strategies
Another thing that i didn't like was that penalties were not which was not anounced which makes it hard to weed out the bad drivers in terms of scouting.
another thing that i herd teams were trying was to get teams to throw the matches or told them to not balence the co-op bridge with them when they were aganist the higher seeded teams. which was not GP. |
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Week 2 Strategies
Ultimately there were no penalties called in that match so the ref might have been confused. IIRC
Last edited by MagiChau : 12-03-2012 at 12:03. |
|
#27
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Week 2 Strategies
Quote:
The first problem I have is that GP doesn't necessarily apply to strategy. Not balancing the coopertition bridge is a potentially viable strategy; throwing a match can be a viable strategy, in the right circumstances. Note that we're not talking match strategy here, but competition strategy. However, trying to convince another team to do what is best for your team, especially if you're not in the same match, is one of those things that kind of makes you go, "What are they thinking?" If you're in the same match, on the same alliance, and agree on a strategy that benefits one of the teams at the expense of the others, that's one thing. In that case, the alliance agreed to do it in that match. But in any other match, that's another thing entirely. Note that I'm not going to say it isn't GP, especially because it can be context-dependent whether it's even a good strategy. What I am going to say is, sometimes you just need to play the game like it's supposed to be played and not try to game the rankings, and allow everyone else to do the same. The other issue that I have with this part of the quoted post... well, it's kind of hard to determine what's not GP. There's some discussion of why that is in http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh....php?p=1133905 |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|