|
|
|
 You have to start at the bottom to get to the top, usually. - Kyle [more] |
 |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
| View Poll Results: Which Game did you like better? | |||
| 2002 |
  
|
39 | 50.65% |
| 2003 |
  
|
28 | 36.36% |
| I think that they both were really cool. |
  
|
10 | 12.99% |
| Voters: 77. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think the 2003 game was far more entertaining to watch! I would rather have the game require dependence on alliance partners. That was the beauty of the 2001 game. Teamwork made you great.
Perhaps if stacks were illegal to knock down and you were required to have a stack to be eligible to win...then stacking would have been huge. I guess if the game was not head to head, stacking would have been huge too, but I prefer the crash and smash nature of the game. Without the violence, it is just high tech ballet. 2 out of 3 means more FINALS!!! and more finals are good finals (except in exams.) Sum of 2 scoring means that (as happened in the finals at Nationals) if one or both robots breaks or is disabled, then that team has a minute chance of winning. However Sum Of 2 scoring means less time and that is probably a big motivator for FIRST. Eric, 343 
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 2002 game prediction contest!!! | Ken Leung | Rumor Mill | 41 | 31-12-2007 18:18 |
| What changes to this year's game...? | DougHogg | General Forum | 16 | 20-04-2003 15:35 |
| "Rigging" the game vs playing the game strategically - what's the difference? | ColleenShaver | Rules/Strategy | 13 | 15-01-2003 10:33 |
| Ok, so YOU design the 2003 game... | dlavery | General Forum | 157 | 07-01-2003 23:55 |
| i didnt like this years game....please read | archiver | 2001 | 19 | 24-06-2002 03:23 |
Hybrid Mode
