Petition: Change Elimination Rounds

[Todd Derbyshire]

Due to the support I have gotten in my other thread about the changing of the Elimination Rounds to a best of three format I have decided to have a petition here on Chiefdelphi. Please only sign the petition if you are against the petition please post in the related thread. Thanx

Dear FIRST,
We believe that the scoring of the elimination rounds purposes some malicious scenarios in this year's upcoming game. Acts of malicious violence to take "elite" bots out of a round to better an alliances chances against easier opponents is a dilema that I believe is more real than surreal. This is clearly not in the spirit of FIRST. However this can be prevented by a return to a best of three matchs where teams can build and repair and not make it an assassination process. I thank you for your time and consideration
Sincerely
Todd Derbyshire

[Rob Colatutto]

...or we could not change the set up of the game, because its a new idea, and it has to be tried out. its also pretty cool how you can come back and win if you lose the first match

looking at this....'elite' robots, as you say, is that in the spirit of FIRST? that the rules should be changed for a 'better' team so they don't get beat by an undergod team as some refer to a newer team as.

[Joe Matt]

Disagree. TOO MUCH depends on luck here. It's not a coin toss, it's FIRST. Start an online petiton using one of the online petition services.

[Bduggan04]

I'd like to be the FIRST to say, I can't believe you want to change the game to better suit you! There are going to be rules you don't like. There always are. There are rules to prevent malicious damage. Maybe you should petition to ensure they're enforced well instead.

[Bduggan04]

Originally posted by Nataku
...or we could not change the set up of the game, because its a new idea, and it has to be tried out. its also pretty cool how you can come back and win if you lose the first match

I agree. I think teams could really capitalize on this rule.

[Brandon Martus]

Originally posted by Todd Derbyshire
Due to the support I have gotten in my other thread

I saw 1-2 people agree, and 8-9 people say 'no, dont petition'.

I don't have an opinion. I just moderate. I just thought I'd throw that in there, though.

Oh -- and you should've made this a Poll. It'd be easier to count votes. Next time...

[Melancholy]

...except from a vending machine.


Be open to new things. If it doesn't work out this year, I'm sure it'll go back to the old way. Ever year, the competition is very well thought out. There's always a reason for everything, even if it isn't exactly clear at first.

[Gope]

Say you have teamA and teamB

in match one teamA wins 50 - 10
teamA gets 70 points
teamB gets 10 points

in match two teamA looses 49 - 50
teamA gets 49 points (total of 119)
teamB gets 148 points (total 158)

although in match one teamA completly dominated and in match 2 teamA only lost by 1 point(compare that to the 40 points teamB lost by) teamA does not advance.

I must say, put my name on the petition list, any rule which alows an inferior alliance to advance over a superior alliance is one I will not and cannot agree with.

[Rob Colatutto]

but you all calling them inferior and superior alliances is exactly what FIRST doesn't want. who said any alliance can't beat another that has better bots. one alliance could be all great bots...but not be able to work together. and then there could be an alliance of rookies, who all work great together, are you saying its wrong for the rookies to advance?

[Gope]

I'm saying that with teamA having an actual 39 point spread over teamB then teamA should advance.

But with this rule teamB has a EP point spread of 39 over teamA.

that is the opposite of fair. this certaintly wouldn't go over well in the world of sports(which dean says we are competing with), and it will make alot of people who are usda the world of sports very mad(that means we dont compete with sports well)

i can go on and on about how this rule is bad

[Rob Colatutto]

i can recall dean and woodie telling us many times that "this game is not fair". if the other team can beat you, then you deal with it, they won. theres no saying that one teams alliance parter won't be working one match, which could explain why they had 0 points the first time, and this way it gives that team another chance to win in the next match and move on. the rules can't be changed to bennifit your team

[Melancholy]

This is a game where the rules change every year. Every sport has it's own rules. The best team is the team that wins, according to the rules, not according to last year's rules.

I could be great at baseball. The world's best player ever! Well, that would be the case if baseball didn't require you to hit a ball, and throw a ball, and run fast, and all you had to do is add up the number of people who make it home... Rules are rules.

[Skabana159]

It was never said that an alliance which has better bots is the superior alliance. It was simply stated as "the better alliance," whether this means better bots, drivers, teamwork or all of the above.
This rule has a strange dual nature. While your own score does matter, as opposed to last year where it didn't, your opponents score matters twice as much as yours does. Maybe this suggests that an alliance shouldn't attempt to defeat it's opponent 50-10.

Of course, we have to remember, "This competition is not fair." I say keep the rule. It will be fun to see how team's strategy differs between qualification rounds and elim's.

[indieFan]

Originally posted by JosephM
Disagree. TOO MUCH depends on luck here. It's not a coin toss, it's FIRST.

Well, while you're at it, why not be allowed to pick who you are allied with throughout the entire competition, not just the Elim. Rounds? Why stop at just the ER's when whether or not you even make it to the ER's is based on luck to a considerable degree.

That bit of sarcasm off my chest, I say leave it as it is.

indieFan

[Gadget470]

A champion should be reliable and able to follow the structure of the game. (Ammendment to a previous comment).

The game's objective is to have the closest score possible between the alliances to achieve the greatest score. The team able to have the score be 50 v 49 should be crowned champion of the matches because it's completing the objective and not being 100% dominant.