|
#226
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 301 points! and could have done more
Yes, we're setting an example to the younger teams that having fun is more important than winning. We, both alliances, decided that we wanted to try to beat a standing challenge, and have fun doing it, because we both knew that the 2nd match would end just like the first.
|
|
#227
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 301 points! and could have done more
My issue with this challenge is that it gave teams two competing goals: One to try and win the regional and the other to get more money for next year.
There is no way anyone can argue that not playing defense will increase the chance of an alliance winning. Given the sheer amount of downtime in this game, there is almost always some defense to be played to lower the opponent's score. As a result, encouraging a team not to play defense for a cash reward directly pits "winning the match" with "helping our program for next year". These two goals should not be opposing. All the teams in this match that we have heard from on Chief Delphi are very insistent that this decision was completely voluntary, to play as they decided to. I won't second guess their decisions; I respect the choices they made. But if I were in their shoes, I would not like to be forced to choose between trying my best to win the match and $500. If I were given this challenge, I would vehemently oppose playing any way but the way that gave me the best chance to win. I would hate giving up the chance for $500 and I'm sure I'd take some heat from fundraisers on my team as well as potentially less financially fortunate members of my alliance. Quote:
Quote:
There is also the issue of a slippery slope with challenges like this. What if the challenge was $500 if one alliance could hold the other to 0 points in teleop? Would it be OK to simply not try to score in the finals in an attempt to raise $1000 in two final matches? Why is this different from 6v0 of 2010? In Breakaway, 6v0 was created by The Tournament, definitely part of the manual, and the game. It created a conflict between winning a match and winning a regional. Unlike this challenge however, it did not create a conflict between winning the regional and fundraising. It did not give a competitive advantage to better funded teams who needed the money less. It did indeed put teams in a tough situation where there is a decision teams have to make that they should not be forced to. Last edited by Grim Tuesday : 24-03-2014 at 17:16. |
|
#228
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 301 points! and could have done more
Do you honestly think that if I asked in the official Q&A if providing challenges with monetary rewards to teams that have the potential to alter match play is legal they would say yes?
|
|
#229
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 301 points! and could have done more
Dont let them get to the inbound position, dont let them truss, dont let them shoot. You guys barely even touched them.
|
|
#230
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 301 points! and could have done more
Read my last post, and his post.
: : |
|
#231
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 301 points! and could have done more
Well you obviously know red would win the Autonomous period but you could of still had 60 and Gila monsters play def on 842. You guys had a good bot and could of ran the field with doing truss shots and high goal shots and 1 assist. Yes your alliance wasn't a powerhouse but there is always a chance as long as you try.
|
|
#232
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 301 points! and could have done more
Quote:
And there are times for fun, and times for doing your best. Regional finals - is times for doing your best (which is usually more fun than anything else, by the way). To me, losing while doing your best, is better than winning this challange. |
|
#233
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 301 points! and could have done more
Its not beating a dead horse if that is gonna keep being his response to "they did better." I can guarantee you that if they had played more/better defense the MOV would have been reduced by a lot more than 3.
|
|
#234
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 301 points! and could have done more
Quote:
|
|
#235
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 301 points! and could have done more
It is beating a dead horse. We're choosing different metrics on how the blue alliance performed. Either is valid, this argument is going nowhere. Ergo, dead horse.
|
|
#236
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 301 points! and could have done more
Quote:
|
|
#237
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 301 points! and could have done more
If you think we are using different metrics then you are basing your metrics of "winning" off of the $500 challenge instead of actually winning the match.
|
|
#238
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 301 points! and could have done more
Quote:
Subnote: I had a feeling that it would come off as arrogant. My apologies, but I still think that we had the advantage. |
|
#239
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 301 points! and could have done more
No. You are using margin of victory. I am using the ratio between scores. Different metrics.
|
|
#240
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 301 points! and could have done more
Quote:
I cannot find his post, but I believe that earlier the driver from team 60 (Blue), said that the last match was the best match that he had played that day. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|