Yes. You are correct. You can accumulate points faster using goals than rings. My point wasn’t that rings are better than goals. My point is that if you chose to ignore entire parts of the game, and your opponent is better than you at the part of the game you chose to play, then you deserve to lose.
As you said, this isn’t an easy task. Possible? Yes, but that 5th goal is a lot harder than it appears to be on paper. So if an alliance can pull this off successfully, don’t they deserve to win?
Your analysis is correct, if you were down 5-2 on goals. In this case, you have a lot of work to do to come back from that. What I was referring to in my original post was the more likely situation of being down 4-3. In this case, the amount of ring scoring you have to do is much less. If your opponent is only balancing goals on the platform, then:
- If you can’t balance a robot, then you need to score 14 rings to win. This is can be reasonably achieved with both alliance goals.
- If you can balance one robot, then you need to score 7 rings to win. This isn’t even a full alliance goal.
- If you can balance two robots, then you tie without having to score any rings. However, if you can score a single ring, you break that tie.
This is why rings are going to be important.