|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#91
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
Sorry Week 1. |
|
#92
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
For instance, let's say a particular matchup brings 217-148-111 against 418-5000-5001 (where 5000 and 5001 represent mythical rookie teams that can only push balls around the field). Even after #16 I would still be correct to instruct my alliance members to not score (for our alliance), to not defend (against our opposing alliance from scoring in their own goals), and only to attempt to prevent anyone from scoring in our goals. It is in our alliance's interest to play like this during the qualifiers, if you know the cards are stacked against you, to prevent a "runaway" from the stronger alliance. This is where this year's game falls apart - where the scoring model inhales audibly. In this year's game I have the strong likelihood to do more damage to myself trying to play, than to sit on my keyster - WTH? I do appreciate the GDC's stance on backing off the ball incursion penalty, and I also appreciate them cracking down on robots that don't pass inspection. However, their bread-and-butter (the game itself) is still sadly and horribly broken. -Danny Last edited by Danny Diaz : 10-03-2010 at 02:20. |
|
#93
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team update 16
did any one notice this?
In the event that BALLS become dammed in the GOAL at the mouth of the BALL COUNTER, I think dammed is ment to be jamed. |
|
#94
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
Although I made it clear in my "don't count points scored for the opposition" poll/thread that I do not like the concept of scoring on your opponents for any reason, because it doesn't really serve any inspirational point, and although I feel teams could still "cooperte" in other, better ways on the field if opposing goal scoring were eliminated, I believe Dean/FIRST feels that this practice is part of their "coopertition" model, and no amount of reasoning will get them to alter that viewpoint. Therefore, all the possibilities you mentioned are definitely still in play. Here's my question - WWPCD? (you figure it out ) in response to this rule change? I think I know, but I'll wait for the answer from the horse's mouth.Most people abhor the notion of pre-match collusion - the *only* *true* 6v0 situation. Of all the scoring in opponent goals strategies - the 5 point bonus will serve as greatest incentive not to do that, since you have the entire match in front of you and anything can happen. I believe this rule change will definitely sway more optimistic folks to pursue victory. However, for pessimist/realist types who know when they're up against a stacked alliance or paired with less than optimal partners, I don't think the 5 points will mean much - if anything, the alliance will wait a bit longer before deciding the hope of winning the match is lost and switching to "lockdown mode". |
|
#95
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team update 16
Well said, completely agree. Well done GDC.
|
|
#96
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Team update 16
To all those saying this doesn't fix everything, what solution do you know of that fixes EVERYTHING? I don't live in that universe (yet).
BUT I will repeat that these 5 point make ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the intent of FIRST is that qualifying matches be played to WIN. Yes, there may be some cases where an alliance may collect more seeding points if they do otherwise, but now teams can clearly point to this rule and say, "No, that was not the intention and we are not going to go down that path." And, if that isn't enough for you, I'd argue that these 5 points covers 80% of the cases where teams will be tempted to go down that path. Dividing the number of cases where throwing a match earns a team more seeding points by 5 is a non-trivial improvement in my book. Joe J. Last edited by Joe Johnson : 10-03-2010 at 08:33. |
|
#97
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
As to the argument of whether 5 points solves this crisis: I don't think it does, but it makes winning more appealing to those who need the Highest qualifying points possible. I can imagine a situations where 6v0 would still be employed, but only for alliances with robots desperate to get easy qualifying points. Could you imagine if robots block their own goals so opponent's can't score on them? Last edited by Tetraman : 10-03-2010 at 08:38. |
|
#98
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
First off, what an incredible honor it would be to be on the field at the same time as these three teams. Second, if I had an alliance with the three teams above, all with functional drivetrains, I'd be inclined to play it straight - one team defending as best as possible while other two try to manage/push/shoot balls to score - at least for the first part of the match and evaluate from there. Clearly, if you feel that you're THAT overmatched, then clearly you probably don't feel you're a top 8-10 team anyway, so wouldn't you need to show 217, 148, and/or 111 that you're a worthy opponent, therefore worthy of consideration for being chosen by one of these elite teams as an alliance partner? If those three teams are so darned good, one is likely to be the number one seed right? and will pick another one of those teams for the elims, correct? Won't you have to beat them anyway to win the event? I also find it a little humorous that you refer to a mythical alliance of your team with two barely functional rookies (which happens a lot at some events), while you present the 148, 217, 111 alliance as one that we may readily see. I've watched over the web and at events PRAYING for alliances like this to form (so I could sit with popcorn and watch) in seeding rounds for a decade and have only seen the planets align this way maybe 3 times. Thus, the following is WAY overstated IMHO... Quote:
1712 played week one, and if you sat down with each individual student on the team who was in DC with us, you'd probably find out that none of them were too particularly fond of the ranking/scoring system. However, if you'd ask them if they'd do it all over again exactly the same way I think you'd be surprised by the answers. Further, if you'd ask them what they were taking away from the experience, I think you'd hear a LOT of feedback, very little of which had anything to do with the actual matches on the field. I don't believe that my team is special or different from most others in any significant way related to these conversations, either. Let me reiterate that I'm THRILLED that there's an adjustment in ranking/seeding and was hoping for a change all day yesterday as many were, but cmon, is this REALLY something we want to view with this much importance to make such strong statements - even after major adjustments were made? Last edited by Rich Kressly : 10-03-2010 at 08:45. |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Team update 16
Team 5000 coach," I don't think so. My kids busted their butt for 6 weeks. Your not picking us anyway so we are here to have fun and play to win. Now you think your so smart come up with a strategy to win"
By the way, a team that could only push balls(at the time) won Kettering. |
|
#100
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
I will not fault teams for continuing to pursue "lockdown" mode - helping the winner win bigger is still a benefit to the losing team - in effect, the losing team IS pursuing their best interests by doing this - this is how they "WIN" the match when a *real* win is out of reach. It is unrealistic to expect teams to try to WIN under all game conditions when doing so in certain conditions under the existing rules is directly to the detriment of the team. Last edited by Travis Hoffman : 10-03-2010 at 10:19. |
|
#101
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
Last edited by Martinez : 10-03-2010 at 09:40. |
|
#102
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team update 16
Danny,
Thank you for including us in your dream team even if it is mythical as Rich has pointed out. Rich, if it ever happens, you are going to have to bring popcorn for everyone and a really big couch. Travis, I agree that there are other methods to employ which inspire. I however, like the ability to add score to an otherwise upset match. I feel bad for teams that go out and try very hard in a one sided match. I see no honor in winning 234 to zero and no benefit to the opposing team. I firmly believe everyone should have a fun weekend and should not leave with everyone in the country (including the sponsors) knowing they had a (or more than one) zero score match. Just my opinion. |
|
#103
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team update 16
TheFro approves of this update.
It may not be perfect, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than what we had to work with before. Also, we competed in week 1, and the seeding system wasn't very nice to us either, but that's in the past now. We just have to keep moving forward to bigger and better things. Thanks GDC, at least we know that you're out there somewhere... Listening. |
|
#104
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
Along with this I am sure everyone that has been in a regional can point to a match that they were sure they would win prior to the match and then ended up losing. I am not actually criticizing your comments and I understand the logic behind them. But, all of the teams are filled with overachievers I dont think the 'lose big' mind set will be there now that there is a 5 point incentive to win. A team that is low in the ranking will need those 5 points also. |
|
#105
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
Jane Last edited by JaneYoung : 10-03-2010 at 10:03. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Team Update 4 | GaryVoshol | Rules/Strategy | 4 | 22-01-2010 21:45 |
| Team Update #7 | EricH | Rules/Strategy | 21 | 28-01-2009 01:46 |
| Team Update 6 | Joe Ross | Rules/Strategy | 12 | 24-01-2009 03:23 |
| Team Update # 2 | Brett W | General Forum | 1 | 09-01-2003 20:47 |