Should the GDC consider eliminating <G14> in eliminations?
In the OKC regional, <G14> was applied to alliances four times in the elimination matches. That meant the offending alliances lost two supercells and an empty cell in their matches. In spite of three <G14> violations, the #1 alliance was able to win the event.
Here are some observations that lead me to believe that applying <G14> in elimination matches is just not good for the game:
In elimination matches, ranking scores no longer apply so there is other motivation to keep the score close other than <G14>.
In low scoring matches, trying to avoid <G14> can cost you a win if the opponents scores one or two super cells near the end of the match.
At OKC, I observed occasional significant upward and downward real-time score fluctuations. Accidental super cell tallies were apparently entered by the score keepers, which were corrected (sometimes after the match was completed).
In the elimination rounds, the objective is to win and margin of victory isn’t a matter of GP, it’s about effectiveness, skill and luck. Why should a team hold back at this point in the competition.
What happened in other regionals - did anyone lose trying to avoid a <G14> violation?
What I said, looking at the webcasts on Gameday, was something to the effect of: “We were all wrong.”
We thought that <G14> wouldn’t be an issue, mainly because SCs would be ignored, or because scores would be higher. We thought that teams would willingly take a <G14> to ensure a win.
After Week 1, we were shown wrong.
1114 scored on themselves to avoid it. They lost in QFs for other reasons, but I think a Super Cell helped after it was scored on one of their partners.
217, who said that they WANTED <G14> violations (at least, Paul Copioli did), used SCs quite a bit.
Super Cells were a huge factor in several events, and many matches. More teams lost because SCs were scored in the last few seconds than I care to remember.
<G14> is NOT a minor rule, like we thought it was. It will have a major effect, unless the later events step it up a notch or three.
Note: I was mainly watching Midwest and New Jersey, with a bit of DC elims.
This is good discussion and everyone should share their opinions, BUT -
FIRST will NEVER change a rule that impacts the game this much, thus late into the competition season. (my opinion)
Thoughts -
As with most years, their are really 2 different strategies for winning between the seeding and the finals matches.
During the finals you cannot chance anything less than a 30 point lead, because if 2 supercells are scored against your alliance at the end of the game, it might swing the score enough to go from almost assured victory to a narrow defeat.
During seeding matches, it doesn’t kill you if that happens because its not a win or go home situation, so you don’t necessarily need to be overly worried - unless you know that the other teams just cannot score very many points, and even if they do win on a last second supercell luck shot so what, no big deal.
Just my 2 cents worth,
Mike Aubry
I agree with Mike, this rule should not be changed after some events have already played using it. They could drop it for Atlanta if they wanted, but probably wouldn’t. I suspect this one will be top of the hit list at IRI.
But NOBODY knows how <G14> works, especially in elims. A very respected and knowledgeable colleague of Mike and I, also working at the event, came up to me and asked about it. His exact words, “I’m just asking, because I don’t know.” My wife who was a queuer was told by one of the kids that his mom said it didn’t apply in finals - well, there’s a good source of info for you.
We had > TRIPLE scores in QF 1-1 and QF 4-1 at Traverse City. When the <G14> was applied to their next matches, that left the alliance with zero super cells and two practically useless empty cells. When the guy at the outpost exhausted all his ammo in auto, he had nothing left to do but lean back in that comfy chair and watch the rest of the match. In both cases, the alliances advanced to the SF anyway. One of them carried a > Double Score <G14> into the first SF match.
Personally I don’t like the rule that much, but their not going to change it.(and having played one week it wouldn’t be fair to change it. I watched most of the weekend on gameday, but I wasn’t actually at a competition.At the beginning my team decided that our strategy would be to ignore the rule as far the current match was concerned and accept the penalty. We figured that if we blow out a team x3 we wouldn’t need our super cells. Now we are thinking differently since we saw the game played. But anyway this adds another dimension to the game, since it probably isn’t going anywhere it’ll be fun to play and use the rule as part of your strategy.
I dislike G14 no matter when it is applied, but if it’s going to be applied in the elims I’d have made all G14 violations reset at the end of each round of the elims.
ie: you beat the tar out of your opponent 150-40 in QF1-3. You do not get penalized for SF1-1.
FIRST Q&A says the ONLY matches where cannot be applied are the first match and the surrogate match. The cell modification rule even extends from qualification into the elimination matches!
We took the approach in eliminations (and in qualifiers, for that matter) that G14 didn’t matter, and we wouldn’t think about it. When you get to the eliminations, all that matters is wins and losses, and you don’t have the time to think about trying to keep the score close. Just go out there and compete 100%, all the time. If you get a G14, it means you won, and that’s what matters in an elimination series.
We received one G14 in New Jersey. In qualifying match #31 we were ahead by about 40 points and our HP scored 2 Super Cells and sank them both. Our HP lost both of the Super Cells for the next match. We still won.
In qualification matches G14 doesn’t really matter. For the most part, in the next match they only punish the offending team and even then I only know of one team (ours) that score 2 Super Cells in the Same Match with The Same HP.
In Elims it CAN be a killer if you triple. But that’s only if you need Super Cells to win.
I’m against it in every match, so there you go. And there’s no reason it couldn’t be changed-I highly doubt any teams based their robot design or strategy on it (and if they did, that would be truly sad).
Think about it. All the Week 1 teams played under one set of rules. If you remove a rule that hurts teams (or add one that hurts teams), you WILL get the Week 1 teams OR the non-Week 1 teams “screaming” at you that you’re unfair, biased, that everyone should play under the same rules, the other group has it easier, etc., etc. And there’s a fair chance that half the other group will join in to complain with the complainers.
Do you really want that? Do you think the GDC really wants that?
I don’t think it is particularly unfair to tweak this rule, since the match results from Week 1 don’t carry into Week 2 and beyond. Winners in Week 1 were determined with rules that applied to all the teams in those competitions.
If the GDC decides to modify a rule, it would apply to all teams in subsequent regionals. This is far less frustrating for teams than changing the game pieces for Championship versus what was used in the regionals (remember the much softer Poof Balls for Aim High in Atlanta?)
I refuse to answer a poll with such biased questions. I do not believe that mere consistency is the strongest reason for keeping <G14>, and I do not believe that <G14> prevents teams from playing to the best of their ability.
And can some of you please just stop using the words “violation” and “penalty” when discussing <G14>? You shouldn’t have to resort to disingenuous emotional arguments in order to state your opinion.
What would you call it, then? G14 is clearly, as I see it, a rule that is attempting to create a certain behavior by teams. If this behavior is not properly adhered to, that team suffers a consequence. Other than the fact that the consequences apply in the next match, how is that different than any other rule, where I presume you would have no problem with those terms?
I do agree with your initial sentiments, though. People, please, when creating a poll, just post answers and perhaps “other”. Posters here are perfectly capable of justifying themselves, and they may have reasons you didn’t think of.
Perhaps we shouldn’t use those words because they’re not the correct words. A “penalty” is a 10-point deduction - <G14> is most decidedly not that. “Violation” certainly doesn’t apply, because there is no rule violated. <G14> merely provides an adjustment to be made based on circumstances.
I think it’s presumptive of us as a community to guess what intent the GDC had in creating . Honestly, I don’t think it had anything to do with blowouts, creating GP, or anything like that. Perhaps the GDC merely wanted to see if coaches are capable of calculating scores on the fly, making decisions based off that data, and communicating those decisions to people who may be posted dozens of feet away.
I think it’s been pretty widely accepted that Lunacy is the most strategically intense game we’ve had for many years. <G14> adds complexity to that strategy and forces the human players to be more than hurlers.
That being said, I personally don’t agree with carrying over from quals to elims, I’m not sure I like it in elims, and I’m sure the 2009 CAGE Match (and possibly IRI) will reflect these views. But when we go to the BMR, I’ll happily play by the rules the GDC has instituted.
In both cases, the alliances advanced to the SF anyway. One of them carried a > Double Score <G14> into the first SF match.