Ah, I misunderstood your first statement.
I have a new idea, maybe goals that are tied at the end of the match can be owned by both teams.
We noticed that goals currently max out at 10 points unless they’re doubled, and doing that to just 3 goals can bring the match to a disappointing end. One alliance can just load 3 certain goals and bam the game isn’t quite what it could be. I think giving ownership to both teams in a tied goal will encourage the use of all the other goals and all the other balls.
For example: a team can win autonomous, load up 20 balls then the match is just about over, despite missing about 9 balls, even if the other team scores everything they still can’t find a way to win because of the scoring.
I know there are strategies to beat this, but it just seems flawed to me the imbalance of missing many balls vs clearing the field. This was my first idea to fix that.
Having extra balls on the field isn’t inherently good; it happens because the teams competing in LRTs haven’t had enough time to practice the 5 ball strategy yet. By worlds the fields will be cleared regardless. I don’t think such an imbalance in strategy is against the spirit of the game either; the nature of in-person change up renders 2/3 of the goal slots useless which is why you can get only 20 points shy of the max skills score while only touching 1/3 of the total balls on the field.
But on the flip side, if teams tie the big 3 goals, and score everything else, PLUS the fact that teams will likely tie autonomous areas worlds, there will be countless ties.
Yes, but making the other goals count for points won’t really solve anything because teams will just max out the other 2 corners and 2 adjacent edges with the remaining balls, so it will still come down to auton.
I’m not sure we’re communicating the same thing, “making other goals count for points” is confusing me. The offer is to make tied goals (ex: 7 points in each alliance) should count for ownership for both teams instead of neither.
Yes, so people will move to max other specific goals to stop their opponent from getting more rows than them. It adds more strategy, but it is still doable to put more balls in specific goals.
That’s the thing, I’m just gonna say it, the strategy is almost always to load up goals A, E, and I, and doing so restricts all other rows, because those 3 goals alone touch every single row, which means controlling that row would lock every single row from the opponents. Because of this, there can’t be the proper motivation to fill other rows because you simply can’t own them.
So with my proposal, a tie in a goal would result in ownership for both teams, now there is motivation to go for other rows. Currently with no ownership in tied goals, it’s just the same as the other team having ownership, and you can’t create rows there.
Teams will still max AEI, then they’ll move to max C and G with the remaining balls to force their opponent to do that too, and dump the remaining 5 balls in 2 edge goals. This solution is just a bandage for the deeper problem.
But what does scoring in C and G do? AEI locks all the rows so C and G won’t help at all.
Not according to your proposed solution.
It’s not in accordance to my solution. With the current rules, AEI locks all the other rows.
But with my solution, tying the goals won’t just result in CG, maybe they’ll load ABC, ADG, or any of the other rows relating. You don’t need G to make ABC, you don’t need C to make GHI, tied ownership will allow teams to go for every single row in the field. Not to mention if the center is tied, that opens up 4 more rows. Now teams can decide if they want to stop the other rows, or create their own.
It won’t just result in teams loading CG, they’ll load the AEI diagonal (or CEG), then use the extra balls to load the other two corners and one or two of the remaining edge goals.
This is already the decision teams make.
I think we’re actually saying the same thing here.
The thing is, teams can’t make this decision with the current AEI lock, they’re decision is only to score as many balls as possible instead of doing other rows because they can’t earn any other rows. With both alliances gaining ownership, now they have a proper choice of which rows to attack, and really choosing whether or not they want to thwart the opponents or make their own rows.