Re: Scores
Posted: January 25th, 2020, 3:14 pm
Wow. Congrats!sciolyperson1 wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 2:44 pm
Target distance was 9.85, first run, 0.8cm off. Score of 4.6.
Wow. Congrats!sciolyperson1 wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 2:44 pm
Target distance was 9.85, first run, 0.8cm off. Score of 4.6.
I was sitting behind the team that got 6th place at MIT and they said there raw score was an 8.6sciolyperson1 wrote: ↑January 27th, 2020, 8:31 pm For MIT: Can someone confirm that top 6 scores were less than 2-3cm? I heard about it as a rumor, but my intuition makes me believe that 3cm can't be top 6... maybe just top 3?
That's crazy! I've got more work to do! For the top teams it's now all about speed.sdececco wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 5:50 amI was sitting behind the team that got 6th place at MIT and they said there raw score was an 8.6sciolyperson1 wrote: ↑January 27th, 2020, 8:31 pm For MIT: Can someone confirm that top 6 scores were less than 2-3cm? I heard about it as a rumor, but my intuition makes me believe that 3cm can't be top 6... maybe just top 3?
They made this event way too simple so there really isnt even a skill gap anymore. You see the most random teams winning just because of the RNG behind it. They might as well switch it's spot with ppp and make it an inquiry. big dumbAirco2020 wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 7:49 amThat's crazy! I've got more work to do! For the top teams it's now all about speed.sdececco wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 5:50 amI was sitting behind the team that got 6th place at MIT and they said there raw score was an 8.6sciolyperson1 wrote: ↑January 27th, 2020, 8:31 pm For MIT: Can someone confirm that top 6 scores were less than 2-3cm? I heard about it as a rumor, but my intuition makes me believe that 3cm can't be top 6... maybe just top 3?