Quote:
Originally Posted by scottandme
The thought was just borne out of the problem that this game dynamic highly disincentivizes picking from the #1 seed, at least at smaller district events. Obviously the game dynamic has been picked apart in many threads already, so no need to rehash it heavily. But having a relatively "flat" field of teams, where the scoring tasks are relatively simple - you're better off with 2 "average" teammates to make a run in elims. We seeded 1st at both events we attended, and that was the last place I wanted to pick from (ignoring the district points, etc).
|
I can certainly see the situation where someone wouldn't want to be picking first, and this is an intriguing idea.
However, I think this part of the post is particularly interesting. For years, the idea of the "Super Alliance" in the first seed has been pretty well set - most of the time, you expect the #1 seed to win, and often they do. This year, that doesn't seem to be the case. At least at the events here in Minnesota, the elims have really been anyone's game, and anyone could come out on top, the alliances were that evenly matched. Part of that might have something to do with the alliance selection order as this thread is indicating, and part of it probably has to do with seeding - a lot of the top scoring robots at an event are not seeding in the top 8 due to the cooperative nature of the game and the random alliances in quals.
IMO, this is a good thing. I
like seeing elims that are evenly matched. I
like seeing close matches where the outcome doesn't feel predetermined. I think it adds energy to the event and makes it more exciting for everyone present (including those teams not playing). I don't joke when I say the Lake Superior elims were the most exciting elims I've ever witnessed, and that includes the two competitions my team has won and the elims I've seen at Champs.