Elimination Rounds-Impending Disaster?

[Chris P]

I think it is a good idea as it keeps some of the strategy from the seeding matches. Last year, teams had to show that they can keep matches close in score if they really wanted to do good, and when the elimination rounds came, they threw that away and went straight for power. But now, you seem to have to hold your strategy through the the elimination rounds as well.

Chris

[Amber H.]

I think Skanker said it best here.

[Craig Roys]

I believe the purpose of this could be to eliminate having two different groups of teams -- those built for qualifying rounds and those built for elimination rounds. Don't think of it as unfair, but rather as another challenge to overcome.

Good Luck

If you win both, you move on no matter what...whats the big deal?

[Kris Verdeyen]

If what Gope wrote is correct (the final elim score uses qual points), then it was obviously changed to deal with those who said, "Make the elimination rounds the same as the qualifying rounds." This change requires you to not beat up your opponent to win, the same way that qual points require you to keep the score close in the qualifying matches.

What Gope wrote - that the clearly dominant team lost - is likely the point of this change, not an unintended consequence, and it will make the elimination rounds closer and more interesting.

[Matt Attallah]

I like it. It puts more pressure on what you should have to do to "Earn your spot." Personally, I love it!

P.S.-- Gadget470, Some Guy found out that you where stealing his stuff, and now instead of a little pic, you have a huge pic saying to stop it...

first of all i would like to say to all of those who are arguing about "fairness".... of course life isnt fair but this is obviously something FIRST did to cut back on the time.... and if it is less fair than the previous method, FIRST should know.....


i dont think any of us should judge this new method just yet..... personally i think it could be interesting.... you dont just want to win the match anymore, but you want to completely block out your opponent in the finals... i think i like it

[Sean_330]

It never ceases to amaze me how people love to complain about something before they actually see it in practice. I think that instead of complaining, we should concentrate on the good aspects of the game. FIRST listened to many of our concerns from past years and took action to remedy them. For that they are to be commended. I remember people who said the alliance system would be a disaster the first year it was announced. Alliances worked out well. So, instead of complaining about something we all have no control over, i think we should be open minded, give this year's game a chance and see how it works out. Maybe we will like it better. Regardless of how it works out, I appreciate all the work FIRST does to put these events on!

[Matt Reiland]

Everyone who hates the rule is worried about a robot on your team becoming disabled and then losing all of the points in the second match. Using the same thinking what is to keep the opponents robot from becoming disabled in the second match similar to what happened to your own in the first?

A great robot, capable of winning the regional or national event should: First of all not break, it should be build robustly. Second, if it does break you should have designed sub assembly's that can be swapped out to bring it back into competition very quickly (Such as spare gearboxes)

As for teams being malicious and going out to break you robot, bring it on, every team here should know that there will be big time interaction this year just like last so you better armor up all of the vitals on your robot. (Just look at how the kickoff showed a powerful robot block the other from the stack and from getting on the platform easily dominating the match.)

[IsabelRinging]

Oh shush.

Yes, this rule miiiight work against a robot that's better. That's still very very iffy, though.

But I know you won't be complaining if this rule ends up helping you this season.

When it's obvious that you've built a much better robot and unfairly lost elimination rounds because of this rule, then MAYBE you have the right to complain and whine (I know I would).

Right now, I think we should all just sit down, shut up, and work on our bots. I don't like the rule either, but I think being respected by the other teams for working hard and building a great robot is just as valuable as winning.

[Todd Derbyshire]

Ok first off all major sports except for football have a best of seven series in their "elimination rounds." Lastly I'm not saying the way the game is now unfair cuse I know it is unfair as dean said. I know the game is unfair in the advantage of veterans. I just don't like the idea of spending six weeks on my robot to watch it go down in the finals because it did its job in the first match and totally dominated and then in a close match it loses! What does that message say to the team that totally dominated throughout competition and then lost a match 30-29 in the elimination rounds. In my book a win is a win and for a team to say that they are the national champions this year in my eyes they better sweep. That is why I hope they would refer back to the best out of three format whoever wins a game wins a game. Otherwise let the impending disaster begin and we will all sit back and grin and bear it and totally hate it.

[Nate Smith]

While I'm in favor of keeping the current format of advancing based on EP in the elimination matches in order to keep it being one game throughout, and not two completely different strategies between qualifying and elimination, I do agree with the argument that two matches does not allow for the recovery from a fluke error in one match. So, I propose the following:

1. EP are accumulated throughout each match series (Semifinal & Final) as currently outlined in the rules.

2. Rather than having two matches as a minimum in each series, we have at least three.

3. At the end of these three matches, the alliance with the most EP will advance to the next series. In the event of a tie in EP, the alliance with the most wins in that series will advance. In the event of a tie in win count, a "sudden death" match will occur. The alliance with the most EP earned in this sudden death match will advance to the next series.

What do you all think?

[Scott358]

Enough already. If you're going to "hate it", get out now.

It's a game, which means the outcome has no bearing on the future. Pick something else, like children who have no food, if you want to exert so much energy towards a effecting change.

Again I'll remind you that you only have some much time and energy, use it wisely.

Regards,
Scott358

PS - Maybe one day you be a writter for a news station with grandious headlines like "let the impending disaster begin", but this is enough.

[Chris P]

All in all, the "life is unfair" comment is the best to describe it. It's a challenge so face it

Chris

[MOE]

WELL SAID TODD back to 2 out of 3


MOE