|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
| View Poll Results: What should IRI do with Co-Op points | |||
| 2 Points. Same value and ranking system as regular season. |
|
59 | 27.83% |
| 1 Point. Different value but ranking system as regular season. Only counts if fully balanced. |
|
61 | 28.77% |
| 1 Point. Ranking based on win-loss. Co-op is tie-breaker for ranking. Only counts if fully balanced. |
|
92 | 43.40% |
| Voters: 212. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#31
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
Here's a sample analysis of how teams would have ranked differently when going by the three different options above. I chose the 2012 Archimedes division and followed the above three options. In cases where there was still a tie after the conditions set about in the options above, I then went by the manual and used hybrid and then bridge points as the tiebreakers. Here are the results:
Code:
Rank Opt 1 Opt 2 Opt 3 1 2826 2826 2826 2 2056 2056 2056 3 2648 3481 3481 4 781 2648 67 5 3481 67 245 6 2590 245 1676 7 195 781 1218 8 67 1676 3997 9 245 1218 839 10 973 2590 2512 11 1676 195 1311 12 1218 3997 359 13 2557 973 1458 14 1403 839 1736 15 4082 2512 2815 16 4334 1403 2648 17 2898 2898 781 18 3997 1311 2590 19 1014 359 195 20 2974 2557 973 21 1756 1736 1403 22 839 1458 2898 23 2512 4082 2415 24 1868 2415 2996 25 1736 2996 1504 26 587 1504 190 27 2415 2974 1796 28 2996 1756 3015 29 1504 190 272 30 1311 2815 692 31 2395 4334 3008 32 359 1868 3947 33 2603 1796 1987 34 190 3015 2557 35 1458 1014 4082 36 956 2395 2974 37 2403 2603 1756 38 2815 587 2395 39 1796 272 2603 40 3015 692 2949 41 2949 2949 2046 42 2046 2046 128 43 2614 1987 1592 44 716 3008 4001 45 272 2403 3927 46 692 128 3476 47 3158 716 1868 48 1875 956 587 49 126 1875 1114 50 2085 3947 4143 51 1987 1592 4334 52 2851 126 1014 53 3008 4001 2403 54 1902 2085 716 55 128 1114 1875 56 234 3927 126 57 4256 2614 2085 58 4403 4143 234 59 1261 234 1261 60 1592 3158 2022 61 3747 1261 1 62 4218 2022 3968 63 4001 2851 236 64 2022 1 4300 65 246 1902 2851 66 1114 3476 1647 67 4143 4256 144 68 1710 4403 247 69 3927 3747 956 70 1 246 2614 71 369 1647 3158 72 1816 1710 1902 73 3947 3968 4256 74 20 236 4403 75 4206 369 3747 76 2638 1816 246 77 3335 4206 1710 78 4356 144 369 79 3410 4218 1816 80 3999 3335 4206 81 1647 4356 3335 82 144 3410 4356 83 2809 4300 3410 84 3968 3999 3999 85 236 1642 1642 86 1306 20 2410 87 3476 2809 1058 88 1642 2410 2809 89 100 2638 4218 90 2410 1058 20 91 4300 247 2638 92 3634 1306 1306 93 1058 100 100 94 3081 3634 3634 95 75 3081 3081 96 3128 75 75 97 1018 3128 3128 98 247 1018 1018 99 3456 3456 3456 100 3585 3585 3585 |
|
#32
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
and i thought i asked a simple "choose one" question ...
![]() |
|
#33
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
I guess I'll be the outsider and say leave it alone. This is the game that was given to us. I want to see it played, the way it was designed, at the highest level.
|
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
I say leave it alone as well. I honestly thing that the coopertition is what makes Rebound Rumble one of the best games in recent years.
The GDC have always been trying to integrate coopertition into the game in a way that makes coopertition crucial to a winning strategy. I realize the point of this poll is to see what we think, not the GDC, but I fully agree with the system they have created. I believe in the tired and true spirit of coopertition, and I think that spirit is greatly emphasized by this point system. Also, perhaps this argument is biased coming from me, as our team always seems to be better at the end game than the actual scoring game, but it allows less capable teams more of a chance against powerhouse teams or favored teams. And even if I was on a different team, I think I'd rather see more flexible and unpredictable matches, as that makes competition more fun. |
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
Quote:
|
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
Quote:
In all seriousness, from the data posted, the top 8 in any scenario does not like it has shifted much. The top 2 are still the top 2, and really, if those two don't change, then the alliances eating each other don't shift too much either. |
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
FIRST did the Co-op bridge to foster coperation between teams. However, I contend that working in alliances is already doing this and is extremely successful. In no other sport do you see teams working together on the field to beat other teams. This is awesome. I believe that because this has now become the "norm" FIRST (and many FIRSTers) have lost sight of the amount of cooperation and teamwork that goes into each alliance, it's now taken for granted. Maybe we should start celabrating that instead of forming new ways to colaborate with other teams.
The above said I would like to play matches where we totally and completely play to win. I hate relying on my opponents for half of my seeding points. (An issue which has been brought up on CD enough already.) I would like to completely get rid of the co-op bridge. However, because that is not an option I voted for #3. Please consider eliminating the Co-op bridge entirely, you would not be sorry. Regards, Bryan |
|
#38
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
Keep it the way it is. I thought this was one of the greatest games to come out of Manchester, from top to bottom. I like to see a little parity and the luck of the co-op balance play into the final rankings. I find it interesting to see the pressure to pick on the first seed and when ego or scouting get to them it makes the upsets that much more interesting.
I would also find it interesting to encourage the co-op behavior deep into qualification matches by keeping the sponsor system. Get sponsors, big and small to pledge $x.xx per co-op point, pennies to bills and give to cancer research, food bank, scholarship fund etc. Guilt people into using the white bridge for every match in the spirit of charity. ![]() |
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
I would still love to see triples throughout qualifications, but some alliances simply not be able to perform this. Giving extra coopertition points to a alliances that puts 3 on the coop bridge poses the same problem. What if a balanced coop bridge was worth 2 coopertition points to both alliances, but if there were 3 robots the alliance with 2 on the bridge gets 20 points. Would make some very interesting fights over who gets to triple with who as its worth an extra 10 point than going to your alliance bridge. Also now you have to do it with a semi-unwilling partner.
|
|
#40
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
Quote:
|
|
#41
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
Quote:
Basically I don't want team's rankings hurt just because of the opposing robots inability to balance. |
|
#42
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
Has anyone considered counting a robot balanced robot on the co-op bridge as a phantom robot for their own alliance bridge? It would help out 3 long robot alliances so one bot would balance to co-op by itself and the other two go for their own alliance bridge. The end result is the alliance bridge would count for 3 robots.
I don't think this should be used in eliminations. This also may backfire as teams try to do king of the hill on the center bridge. |
|
#43
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
I am afraid Raul would bring back the 111 "wedges" from 2003 Stack Attack.
|
|
#44
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
How does 3 work? Is it WLT/CP/Points, or WLT/Points/CP?
If the first, it changes very little. If the second, CP becomes nearly irrelevant. Keep it the same. I vote for #1. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|