|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#91
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
I don't have much of an opinion on whether or not IRI should have four team alliances, but I do have this opinion. If there are four team alliances, all four teams should be required to play at least one match per round. Maybe it isn't particularly GP to feel this way, but to me, you should not be able to say you "won" an event like IRI without playing any matches in the elimination rounds.
|
|
#92
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
Quote:
The point of my anecdote: Even as a 2nd pick who never played in the eliminations, having that 3rd pick allows alliances flexibility in their strategy. Very rarely can an alliance of three robots dominate so much that they can run the same strategy against anyone and still play the game they want to. Just imagine what golf would be like if every player only got a driver, an iron, and a putter. IRI gives players that extra club to work with. Last edited by Chris Marra : 24-04-2008 at 16:04. |
|
#93
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
Quote:
|
|
#94
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
Quote:
|
|
#95
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
Quote:
Will that be an invitational also? VVVVV |
|
#96
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
Quote:
IRI wants to have the best of the best compete, I understand that, and requiring the 4th partner to play could water down the quality of the matches. All I ask is that you don’t put more teams in the uncomfortable position you put us in. If we win an award we want to earn it not have it handed to us by others. Possible solution: Have each alliance pick a 4th partner as their backup, if the backup is called to play they are part of the alliance if they are not called in they are not part of the alliance. I would also propose that just because the 4th partner is called in to play, it does not preclude any of the other alliance partners from playing in any remaining matches. If the 4th partner is used it is a 4 team alliance, if not it remains a 3 team alliance. |
|
#97
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
Quote:
|
|
#98
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
Quote:
|
|
#99
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
I really like Pat's suggestion. It is a compromise between "don't have to play" and "you must play". If the alliance decides to use their back-up, then the back-up is part of the alliance. If they chose not to use them, then the back-up is not part of the alliance.
|
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
Go ahead and change the rules. Even the alliance selection. But please try and figure out some way to get rid of those bumps along the center wall. Maybe recess the steel plates into a sub floor if there is one. And about those supports hanging down from overpass.......
![]() |
|
#101
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
Quote:
Regardless, though, the use of any "Let me stash your team out of the way where you can't contribute to the success of another alliance, and oh, by the way, we don't even have to share the victory with you officially, nyah nyah nyah" methods doesn't sound like much fun for the backup team stuck in such a situation. Other than the IRI planners having to pay for the extra trophies, I don't see the downside of positively recognizing a team for serving as the backup role in an alliance, regardless of the reason they were put there. I agree completely with Rick Oliver - even the seldom (if ever)-used 12th man on the basketball team or the once every 10 games pinch hitting specialist gets to celebrate the victory equally with teammates who have much more active role on the team. Let's be careful not to treat these 4th teams as pieces of meat or pawns in a game implied to be both played and won by superior personnel. Has anyone bothered to quantify the overall sentiment of the IRI alliance teams who actually participated in the "pick your own backup" plan last year? Are people suggesting that the planning committee should modify the rules to cater to a minority few who did not prefer them? Just a-wonderin' if anyone's considered the big picture. Last edited by Travis Hoffman : 28-04-2008 at 11:40. |
|
#102
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
Quote:
I agree as Captains, teams get to choose their team mates, strategy, etc., but I do not agree that they should leave someone on their alliance out of the action. I'm pretty sure a "dominating" alliance should be able to under ANY circumstance. Your 4th robot is NOT a backup bot, it is your alliance member. Pavan . |
|
#103
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
Quote:
That's clearly not how 494 felt last year as the 4th team, as mentioned above. I'd be careful about making blanket statements either way. The reason for the 4th member being there should be clearly considered and defined before a ruling on their usage is made this year. There are other ways to create a legitimate back-up pool and add more teams to the eliminations. There may or may not be other ways to add flexibility to an alliance. As a personal side note, I enjoy the forced flexibility of only have a 3 team alliance. While you might not always have the ideal robots to fit into a counter-strategy against your opponents, the creativity forced upon you is one of the coolest parts of the eliminations, imho. Teams have to push their limits and attempt new and creative strategies to use their alliance's strengths to defeat their opponents, rather than just plugging in the members that will let them have an ideal alliance for the situation. It changes it from an the elaborate mixture of "rock, paper, scissors" to an actual match of strategy and skill. Rather than who can play game X better, it becomes who can out-think and out-perform the opposing alliance. |
|
#104
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
Quote:
I continue to beleve that the IRI folks made a well reasoned adjustment and I hope that we see it again this year; perhaps without the reference to "back up" ![]() |
|
#105
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
Remember, the 3rd selection was a "pick your own back-up" round from the get go. It was designed so teams could pick the robot they wanted as a back-up. at no time was it stated that the robot had to be used. If the question is, "do you want to pick your own back-up agian this year?", then my answer is "yes". If the question is, "Do you want to have a 4 alliance team where all robots must be used once?, then my answer is "no".
I have no strong feelings about if the "back-up" gets a trophy or not as I see the merits of both arguments. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 2007 Indiana Robotics Invitational | Chris Fultz | Off-Season Events | 453 | 03-09-2007 15:03 |
| Indiana Robotics Invitational. (I.R.I.) talent show | 234smidget | Off-Season Events | 30 | 27-06-2007 11:55 |
| 2004 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational) | Chris Fultz | Off-Season Events | 147 | 24-04-2007 23:33 |
| Hoosier Havoc 2 - Indiana Robotics Invitational: May 5th | archiver | 2001 | 0 | 24-06-2002 03:34 |
| Indiana Robotics Invitational - few openings available | archiver | 2000 | 2 | 23-06-2002 22:53 |