New Poll? Or at least discussion...

Posted by Ryan Shanley.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Student on team #191, The X-Cats, from Joseph C. Wilson Magnet High School and Xerox.

Posted on 5/2/2000 2:27 PM MST

I would love to see a pole regarding this year’s new addition to the game: that the winning alliance gets three times the losers’ score. I must admit it added a new demension to the strategy of the 2000 game, but it wasn’t applicable in the most important matches, the finals.

So I’ve been wondering (since many of my team-mates and I have been discussing it) how people feel about the overall influence and/or consequences of adding this nuance to the game, and if it should be kept (or even improved upon), or if Dean should just get rid of it?
I’d love to know how you feel, and maybe we can get a poll started on this.
Ryan

Posted by Andy Grady.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #42, P.A.R.T.S, from Alvirne High School and Daniel Webster College.

Posted on 5/3/2000 8:56 AM MST

In Reply to: New Poll? Or at least discussion… posted by Ryan Shanley on 5/2/2000 2:27 PM MST:

When I first heard about the new point system I was kinda miffed just like everyone else. When they showed us what the game was, it made a bit more sense to me why they did it, and I even liked the idea. But after watching the competition im split in two on this subject. First of all, the new qp point system added a whole new dimension to the game as it was. This years game would have been very simplistic if it was just straight forward scoring. Teams like Wild Stang and their amazing scoring systems would have run all over other teams (not that they didn’t anyway). The new system gave birth to some amazing ideas, like the awsome cherry picker that team 25 came up with, the goal emptying bot from Chaos team 131, and the stunning versitile robot that Chief Delphi had. In my eyes, the fact that the new qp system was at least partially responsible for these clever designs makes up for alot of its faults. Im willing to bet that the competition would have been fairly bland with 300 of pretty much the same type of bot. The biggest problem I saw with this competition (which was a fairly big one) was the fact that good teams were falling very low in the standings because the type of robot they had was more of a defenisive robot or something similar, causing many of them to be overlooked when picks were being made. Of course I don’t think there will ever be a perfect system or perfect game, but i would like to see first try to play with the qp rule a little bit more in the future.
cya,
Andy ‘scratch’ Grady, DWC/Alvirne