|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#46
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: MARC 2012
Wow, that's 37 already! Should be a blast!
|
|
#47
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: MARC 2012
Here is the updated list as of 4/30/12:
48 68 107 123 191 245 280 461 470 494 548 830 862 1675 1718 2137 2337 2612 2832 2834 2851 3096 3175 3302 3322 3357 3547 3548 3641 4395 The following 12 teams are original participants (PLANK-OWNERS) and are automatically in the event: 51 70 226 (did not participate last year)(HAVE NOT RECEIVED VERBAL YET) 240 279 503 910 1023 1243 1504 1528 1732 |
|
#48
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: MARC 2012
Are you considering any rule changes? I would love to see the 2 qualifying points for the bridge go away!
![]() |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MARC 2012
1918 Just sent in our registration. We are looking forward to this awesome event and having a chance to see some good friends again.
|
|
#50
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: MARC 2012
I would love to see the co-op points switched to 1 point if you make it and 0 for anything else. However, that is not my decision. I leave all the rules changes up to my head ref (gary V.)and his team.
|
|
#51
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: MARC 2012
Why go away? The co-op bridge was one of the more exciting things in this game. Last second co-ops were amazing to see. Reducing to 1 co-op point I can deal with, but removing them completely not so much.
|
|
#52
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: MARC 2012
100% agree. FIRST is all about cooperating with you opponents and working together. As far as lessening the point value, the goal was to make it as valuable as winning (so you could ‘win’ even when you lost). If you lessen the points, that negates that to an extent.
|
|
#53
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: MARC 2012
Quote:
Seems to allow teams to control others rankings a little too much. I like doing the co-op, just don't like the impact it has rankings. 1 point would certainly be better than 2. |
|
#54
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: MARC 2012
Quote:
|
|
#55
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: MARC 2012
I am not sure that making it 1pt is going to make things any better. If nothing else, it makes it easier for a team to decide not to do it. Which, if you are on the other side of that decision is still going to effect your ranking. All it does is change the situations in which a team decides to coop or not.
We used the coop bridge with great success this year. We took advantage that winning + coop will move us way up in the rankings and that doing it consistently everytime will lead to great success. In our local districts team s that knew us pretty much agreed we should be the ones to do it, and we had no shortage of willing and capable partners. At MSC, so teams from farther away from metro-Detroit, did not know us so well and we had to have a direct conversation about why we should do it. Everyone at MSC was capable. In St. Louis, it was even worse...we needed to convince most teams that we should be the one coop'ing and then struggle to find an opponent that was capable of performing the task with us. I also saw a lot of teams declining to coop or agreeing and not showing up. We have never experienced that this season, but I can imagine that is probably one of the worst feelings...knowing someone is messing with your ranking for their own benefit (without beating you) or even worse they just lied to you. Making it 1pt, lessens the pain of those lies, but also makes it easier to either decieve someone or just plain tell them you don't want to do it. It definitely changes the dynamic a bit. It still takes the same effort and time to do it. If you are going too...wouldn't you want to get the most benefit from it? I say either leave it as 2pts...or get rid of it all together for off-season events and let us just run up the scores as much as possible... ![]() |
|
#56
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: MARC 2012
Quote:
|
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MARC 2012
I think that the value of the bridge is exactly what first has been trying to accomplish with coop bridge. It allows teams that were not able to play the game well to play in the elimination rounds. How many times in Michigan alone did we see a robot that could not shoot and in some cases even pick up a ball end up as an alliance captain.
It might be fun to make it no value and just run up the score. That would also give us a chance to do some triple balancing in the quals. |
|
#58
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: MARC 2012
I don't have any problem with co-op since we were pretty successful with it all year; in fact, although a little more difficult, we managed to go 9 for 9 on Galileo. However, if you do decide to do away with it for MARC, it might be interesting to play elimination rules (triple balance) for the whole thing. Of course that may open a whole other can of worms...the scheduling gods may put some teams consistently on alliances that can triple while others get doomed to alliances that don't have a chance. My preference would be to keep the co-op...I like to think that most teams at this event would put an honest effort into doing it, or at least be honest in telling you that they don't plan to.
|
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MARC 2012
You'd have to be pretty shallow to either not try to co-op, lie about co-op, or break up a co-op attempt at an off-season event. (IMHO anyway)
|
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MARC 2012
And expect to ever get another invite to return...
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|