OCCRA
Go to Post 32% of the teams in any division will be or could be in eliminations. And any one of those could be YOU. If you aren't ready, you will be eliminated. If you are ready, you greatly increase your chances of winning. - EricH [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Off-Season Events
CD-Events   CD-Media   CD-Spy   FRC-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 6 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #166   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-16-2012, 01:01 PM
BX MARK's Avatar
BX MARK BX MARK is offline
Registered User
AKA: Mark
FRC #3542 (S.P.E.E.D.)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 60
BX MARK will become famous soon enoughBX MARK will become famous soon enough
Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

I think it would be interesting if you balanced the balls on the bridge instead of the robots. Maybe 4 points per ball on the bridge to make it more desirable than shooting hoops?
__________________
2011-2012 Team 3542 S.P.E.E.D.
2010/2011Bedford Express Captain
Reply With Quote
  #167   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-16-2012, 01:35 PM
CalTran's Avatar
CalTran CalTran is offline
Missouri S&T Sophomore
FRC #2410 (BV CAPS Metal Mustang Robotics)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 1,681
CalTran has a reputation beyond reputeCalTran has a reputation beyond reputeCalTran has a reputation beyond reputeCalTran has a reputation beyond reputeCalTran has a reputation beyond reputeCalTran has a reputation beyond reputeCalTran has a reputation beyond reputeCalTran has a reputation beyond reputeCalTran has a reputation beyond reputeCalTran has a reputation beyond reputeCalTran has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Skype™ to CalTran
Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

I don't think there is any team, except for the catapults, who could possibly pull this feat off...I'm sure some teams could figure a way out with some modification over the summer, but that seems rather difficult in current configurations.
__________________
"You know you've been in robotics too long when you start talking to your tools." "Well, you've been in robotics CLEARLY too long when they start talking back"

Team 2410 thinks KISSing is amazing! Keep It Super Safe!

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. Practice is when everything works but you don't know why. On our team, theory and practice comes together. Nothing works and nobody knows why.
Reply With Quote
  #168   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-16-2012, 05:29 PM
biojae's Avatar
biojae biojae is offline
Likes Omni drives :)
AKA: Justin Stocking
FTC #5011 (BOT SQUAD) && FTC#72(Garage bots)&& FRC#0399 (Eagle Robotics)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Lancaster
Posts: 276
biojae is a jewel in the roughbiojae is a jewel in the roughbiojae is a jewel in the rough
Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

Quote:
Originally Posted by animenerdjohn View Post
If you want minibots why not a mini-bridge with extra points if your minibot balances on the mini bridge
Why not go nano-bot?

This is a FTC bot that releases a smaller bot to score the magnet ball.
Crazy.
__________________
FTC Team 72 - No site
FRC Team 399 - http://www.team399.org
2010 Rockwell Collins Innovation in Control Award - (Use of the CAN bus, among other reasons) Phoenix, Arizona!
Reply With Quote
  #169   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-16-2012, 10:21 PM
Chris Hibner's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Chris Hibner Chris Hibner is offline
Eschewing Obfuscation Since 1990
AKA: Lars Kamen's Roadie
FRC #0051 (Wings of Fire)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1997
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,403
Chris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond repute
Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

I just had an idea that I think would be very interesting. It would allow a triple balance during qualification matches AND allow a co-op bridge balance.

Here it is: allow alliance bridge balances at any time during the match. If you balance for 3 seconds, the balance is good. The referees would count the balance like a ref during a WWE match (big arm wave: one! two! three! give something like a touchdown signal, and then it's official - the balance is good). Then the teams can then unbalance themselves and continue the match. Balances score just as they would during an eliminations match - 10 for one robot, 20 for two robots, 40 for three robots. The co-op bridge only counts during the end of a match. If the alliance chooses to balance at the end of the match, regular rules apply (i.e. you don't have to balance three seconds before the end of the match).

The strategies could be interesting.
__________________
-
An ounce of perception is worth a pound of obscure.
Reply With Quote
  #170   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-16-2012, 10:29 PM
P.J.'s Avatar
P.J. P.J. is offline
Working Towards A Yellow Shirt
FRC #0910 (The Foley Freeze)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: US
Posts: 180
P.J. is a glorious beacon of lightP.J. is a glorious beacon of lightP.J. is a glorious beacon of lightP.J. is a glorious beacon of lightP.J. is a glorious beacon of lightP.J. is a glorious beacon of light
Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hibner View Post
Here it is: allow alliance bridge balances at any time during the match. If you balance for 3 seconds, the balance is good. The referees would count the balance like a ref during a WWE match (big arm wave: one! two! three! give something like a touchdown signal, and then it's official - the balance is good). Then the teams can then unbalance themselves and continue the match. Balances score just as they would during an eliminations match - 10 for one robot, 20 for two robots, 40 for three robots. The co-op bridge only counts during the end of a match. If the alliance chooses to balance at the end of the match, regular rules apply (i.e. you don't have to balance three seconds before the end of the match).
While I do think this would be interesting, speaking as a referee I'm a little wary of something like this. It inherently invites controversy. "Our bridge was balanced, the ref counted wrong." and stuff like that. Just a concern of mine with this idea.
__________________
P.J. Lewalski
Team 910-The Foley Freeze -- Student 2007-2010, Mentor 2012-Present

Referee-Traverse City District, Troy District, MARC, IRI, Kettering Kickoff (2011) Kettering District, Waterford District, West Michigan District, Northville District, Troy District, Kettering Kickoff, WMRI (2012) Waterford District, West Michigan District, Troy District, Bedford District, FRC Championship-Curie, Michigan Science Center Invitational, Kettering Kickoff, WMRI, Bloomfield Girls Robotics Competition (2013) Centerline District, Kettering District, Howell District, Buckeye Regional, Waterford District, Lansing District, FRC Championship-Curie, MARC (2014)
Reply With Quote
  #171   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-17-2012, 12:45 PM
Chi Meson's Avatar
Chi Meson Chi Meson is offline
"Strange and Anti-charmed"
AKA: Brian Chidley
FRC #2168 (Aluminum Falcons)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 232
Chi Meson has much to be proud ofChi Meson has much to be proud ofChi Meson has much to be proud ofChi Meson has much to be proud ofChi Meson has much to be proud ofChi Meson has much to be proud ofChi Meson has much to be proud ofChi Meson has much to be proud of
Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

I've been looking around, but can't find where to begin the application process. Has it begun? Or do you need to be invited to apply?
__________________
TEAM2168.org
2014 Regional Championship: SF & Innovation in Control award; 12th overall in New England
2014 Rhode Island District: F, Innovation in Control award
2014 Groton District: QF, Creativity award
2013 Connecticut State Championships: F (2168, 230, 2064)
2013 BattleCry@WPI: QF, Awesome Offense award
2013 WCMP, Curie Division: QF (4564, 103, 2168)
2013 WPI Regional: W (2168, 3280, 3044)
2012 NYC Regional: #1 seed, SF
2012 NU Connecticut Regional: #1 seed, SF
BattleCry@WPI 13: #2 seed, Victors (1519, 2168, and 125)
Reply With Quote
  #172   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-17-2012, 01:53 PM
Wetzel's Avatar
Wetzel Wetzel is offline
DC Robotics
FRC #2914 (Tiger Pride)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: DC
Posts: 3,436
Wetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Wetzel
Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi Meson View Post
I've been looking around, but can't find where to begin the application process. Has it begun? Or do you need to be invited to apply?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Fultz View Post
IRI 2012 is July 20 - 21. Same location as 2011.
Details on timing for applications, invitations, fees, etc. will be coming soon.
Not yet available.

Wetzel
__________________
Viva Olancho!
Reply With Quote
  #173   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-17-2012, 02:22 PM
pathew100 pathew100 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Pat Murphy
FRC #0862 (Lightning Robtics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 161
pathew100 is a name known to allpathew100 is a name known to allpathew100 is a name known to allpathew100 is a name known to allpathew100 is a name known to allpathew100 is a name known to all
Send a message via AIM to pathew100
Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.J. View Post
While I do think this would be interesting, speaking as a referee I'm a little wary of something like this. It inherently invites controversy. "Our bridge was balanced, the ref counted wrong." and stuff like that. Just a concern of mine with this idea.
There are sensors built into the bridge that provide feedback that it is balanced. (pretty neat!) It shows up on the scorekeepers display and the head ref panel (I believe)

A possible process to implement something like this:
  • Referee uses visual inspection of the robots/bridge coming to rest.
  • Once that happens they raise one arm to signal the "start" of the balance period.
  • In their other hand they are holding a countdown timer that that activate when they put their arm up.
  • If the balance is successful, at the end of the timer countdown, they then drop their arm down vertically and point to the bridge/robots to signal a "good' balance
  • If the balance is unsuccessful for some reason, they drop their arm down and sweep it "side to side" to indicate a "bad" balance
Reply With Quote
  #174   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-18-2012, 10:00 PM
nahstobor's Avatar
nahstobor nahstobor is offline
EWCP
AKA: Shan (pronounced Shawn)
FRC #0612 (Chantilly Robotics)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 210
nahstobor has a reputation beyond reputenahstobor has a reputation beyond reputenahstobor has a reputation beyond reputenahstobor has a reputation beyond reputenahstobor has a reputation beyond reputenahstobor has a reputation beyond reputenahstobor has a reputation beyond reputenahstobor has a reputation beyond reputenahstobor has a reputation beyond reputenahstobor has a reputation beyond reputenahstobor has a reputation beyond repute
Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

Triple Balance Co-op is worth 4 co-op points. One robot has to be from the other team.
__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed." - Michael Jordan
Reply With Quote
  #175   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-19-2012, 09:14 AM
Taylor's Avatar
Taylor Taylor is offline
Pink flamingo on the lawn of life
AKA: @taylor1529
FRC #1529 (CyberCards)
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA 46227
Posts: 3,883
Taylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond repute
Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

Quote:
Originally Posted by nahstobor View Post
Triple Balance Co-op is worth 4 co-op points. One robot has to be from the other team.
In light of recent developments:
Triple balance co-op is worth 3 co-op points. Quadruple balance co-op is worth 4 co-op points.
(co-op balancing must feature at least one robot from each alliance, of course)
__________________
Follow @Robot_Chat on Twitter
Sunday 7-8p EST #BotChat

Reply With Quote
  #176   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-12-2012, 10:41 AM
IKE's Avatar
IKE IKE is offline
FF Pure Mi
AKA: Isaac Rife
no team (N/A)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,762
IKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond repute
Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

IRI seeding algorithm:

I was actually a big fan of the 2010 algorithm with a few tweaks applied. I thought it had the highest potential for doing a good sort on teams. Here is how I would do it for the IRI:

Winners seeding points: Winner score + Loser score + Constant
Loser seeding points: 2xLoser score
Tie score: 2xTie Score for all

What about the Co-Op bridge?
Co-Op is worth 10 pts. for a single balance to both sides. Co-Op is worth 25 points for a balance with 1 red and 1 blue member.

I personally think this carries the right balance for teams. The Co-Op gets doubled for both sides of the field. If the other alliance stands you up at the bridge, you can still get substantial points for it.
Close matches will have close qualifying scores. High scoring matches will provide high qualifying scores. There is a general dissincentive for reducing your opposing alliances score (this dissincentive is adjustable by moving the value of the Winning constant up or down).
This system also eliminates the incentive for 6v0 which was controversial in 2010.

I would award the Co-Opertition award to the highest Co-Op score that is not an alliance captain (possibly alliance captain or higher seed than the lowest seeding alliance captian).

I also think that this can serve as a future scoring model for future first games if they want to continue with the "Co-Opertition" aspect. It must be mutually beneficial to both sides, it must be more valuable if both sides participate. It must have some value if only 1 side participates (this should reduce hurt feelings of getting stood up to the prom).

This style of play would work for many first games. Having a common central goal. As it ties into both teams points, with my ranking system, the common goal is a doubler for both teams. This give it equal precedence for the Loosing side (loosers get 2L), and higher precedence for the higher scoring side (winners get W+L, therefore Co-Op scoring is 2x the value of W only scoring).
Co-Op points could be added in real-time to both scores, or Co-Op could be a seperate entity doubled up for each side at the end of the match.

For this years game, I would put the "winning constant" around 25 points. This should be a high enough value for teams to go for the win.

This is apretty big tear-up to the seeding algorithm this year, but I think it would be oworth trying out at a high caliber event.
Reply With Quote
  #177   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-12-2012, 09:53 PM
Ekcrbe's Avatar
Ekcrbe Ekcrbe is offline
Intaker
AKA: Erik Boyle
FRC #0068 (Truck Town Thunder)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: Ortonville, MI
Posts: 257
Ekcrbe has a brilliant futureEkcrbe has a brilliant futureEkcrbe has a brilliant futureEkcrbe has a brilliant futureEkcrbe has a brilliant futureEkcrbe has a brilliant futureEkcrbe has a brilliant futureEkcrbe has a brilliant futureEkcrbe has a brilliant futureEkcrbe has a brilliant futureEkcrbe has a brilliant future
Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

Quote:
Originally Posted by IKE View Post
IRI seeding algorithm:

I was actually a big fan of the 2010 algorithm with a few tweaks applied. I thought it had the highest potential for doing a good sort on teams. Here is how I would do it for the IRI:

Winners seeding points: Winner score + Loser score + Constant
Loser seeding points: 2xLoser score
Tie score: 2xTie Score for all

What about the Co-Op bridge?
Co-Op is worth 10 pts. for a single balance to both sides. Co-Op is worth 25 points for a balance with 1 red and 1 blue member.

I personally think this carries the right balance for teams. The Co-Op gets doubled for both sides of the field. If the other alliance stands you up at the bridge, you can still get substantial points for it.
Close matches will have close qualifying scores. High scoring matches will provide high qualifying scores. There is a general dissincentive for reducing your opposing alliances score (this dissincentive is adjustable by moving the value of the Winning constant up or down).
This system also eliminates the incentive for 6v0 which was controversial in 2010.

I would award the Co-Opertition award to the highest Co-Op score that is not an alliance captain (possibly alliance captain or higher seed than the lowest seeding alliance captian).

I also think that this can serve as a future scoring model for future first games if they want to continue with the "Co-Opertition" aspect. It must be mutually beneficial to both sides, it must be more valuable if both sides participate. It must have some value if only 1 side participates (this should reduce hurt feelings of getting stood up to the prom).

This style of play would work for many first games. Having a common central goal. As it ties into both teams points, with my ranking system, the common goal is a doubler for both teams. This give it equal precedence for the Loosing side (loosers get 2L), and higher precedence for the higher scoring side (winners get W+L, therefore Co-Op scoring is 2x the value of W only scoring).
Co-Op points could be added in real-time to both scores, or Co-Op could be a seperate entity doubled up for each side at the end of the match.

For this years game, I would put the "winning constant" around 25 points. This should be a high enough value for teams to go for the win.

This is apretty big tear-up to the seeding algorithm this year, but I think it would be oworth trying out at a high caliber event.
Interesting, but I think the GDC finally came up with a good QS system that makes sense, with equal weight for winning and Coopertition, which is always stressed. I see the people in charge of IRI respecting that.

Plus, if FRC games are to appeal to the masses (which would be nice, right?), then both match scoring and QS have to be simple to explain to anybody--which they are right now.

I know that wasn't entirely related to IRI, but part of it sort of connected, and this was a chance to say it.
__________________
2012 Championship Newton Division Finalists--Thanks 330 and 639 for the Full Court Press!
__________________________________________________
2013 Kettering University District Chairman's Award Winners!
__________________________________________________
2014 Great Lakes Bay Region District Winners--Thanks 288, 4819, and 5166!
2014 Waterford District Chairman's Award Winners!
2014 Michigan State Championship Chairman's Award Winners!
Reply With Quote
  #178   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-13-2012, 12:41 AM
Nawaid Ladak's Avatar
Nawaid Ladak Nawaid Ladak is offline
The Banana People Are Awsome!
AKA: Nawaid Ladak
FRC #0945 (Team Banana)
Team Role: Tactician
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 1,021
Nawaid Ladak has a brilliant futureNawaid Ladak has a brilliant futureNawaid Ladak has a brilliant futureNawaid Ladak has a brilliant futureNawaid Ladak has a brilliant futureNawaid Ladak has a brilliant futureNawaid Ladak has a brilliant futureNawaid Ladak has a brilliant futureNawaid Ladak has a brilliant futureNawaid Ladak has a brilliant futureNawaid Ladak has a brilliant future
Send a message via AIM to Nawaid Ladak Send a message via MSN to Nawaid Ladak Send a message via Yahoo to Nawaid Ladak Send a message via Skype™ to Nawaid Ladak
Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

Here's a simple idea of how to work the co-op bridge. Instead of giving 2 Ranking points for each alliance, it would just double the Hybrid, Bridge, and Teleop points for that match to reflect in the standings

ie a final score of Red 61(18HP+10BP+33TP ), Blue 58(24HP+10BP+24TP) would really show Red 122(36HP+20BP+66TP), Blue 116(48HP+20BP+48TP) for the standings. This way, there is a premium to utilizing the co-op bridge but it doesn't offset the the amounts of Wins and Losses you have.

Now the question is what would you do if there would be a situation where a team would only earn 1 coopertition point.
__________________
"When you make a mistake, admit it, correct it, and learn from it - immediately."-Stephen Covey
I can still learn from this quote, how about you?

Nawaid Ladak
2003-2006 FRC # 1402: Freedom Force. Scouting
2007 FRC # 1694: RoboWarriors. Mentor
2008-Present FRC # 945: Team Banana. Mentor

Contact me
E-mail: LadakN (at) GMail (dot) com

Twitter / Facebook / Youtube
Reply With Quote
  #179   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-13-2012, 09:06 AM
Gregor's Avatar
Gregor Gregor is offline
The Dark Months of Chief Delphi
AKA: Gregor Browning
FRC #1310 (Runnymede Robotics)
Team Role: Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,980
Gregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond repute
Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak View Post
Now the question is what would you do if there would be a situation where a team would only earn 1 coopertition point.
Eliminate it.
__________________
What are nationals? Sounds like a fun American party, can we Canadians come?
“For me, insanity is super sanity. The normal is psychotic. Normal means lack of imagination, lack of creativity.” -Jean Dubuffet
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -Albert Einstein
FLL 2010 Glen Ames Robotics-Student
FLL 2011-xxxx Glen Ames Robotics-Mentor
FRC 2012-2013 Team 907-Scouting Lead, Strategy Lead, Human Player, Driver
FRC 2014-xxxx Team 1310-Mechanical, Electrical, Strategy
Add me on Facebook
<Since 2011 How I came to be a FIRSTer
Reply With Quote
  #180   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-13-2012, 09:26 AM
AlexD744 AlexD744 is offline
Registered User
FRC #0744 (744 Shark Attack)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 600
AlexD744 has a reputation beyond reputeAlexD744 has a reputation beyond reputeAlexD744 has a reputation beyond reputeAlexD744 has a reputation beyond reputeAlexD744 has a reputation beyond reputeAlexD744 has a reputation beyond reputeAlexD744 has a reputation beyond reputeAlexD744 has a reputation beyond reputeAlexD744 has a reputation beyond reputeAlexD744 has a reputation beyond reputeAlexD744 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

Quote:
Originally Posted by IKE View Post
IRI seeding algorithm:

I was actually a big fan of the 2010 algorithm with a few tweaks applied. I thought it had the highest potential for doing a good sort on teams. Here is how I would do it for the IRI:

Winners seeding points: Winner score + Loser score + Constant
Loser seeding points: 2xLoser score
Tie score: 2xTie Score for all

What about the Co-Op bridge?
Co-Op is worth 10 pts. for a single balance to both sides. Co-Op is worth 25 points for a balance with 1 red and 1 blue member.

I personally think this carries the right balance for teams. The Co-Op gets doubled for both sides of the field. If the other alliance stands you up at the bridge, you can still get substantial points for it.
Close matches will have close qualifying scores. High scoring matches will provide high qualifying scores. There is a general dissincentive for reducing your opposing alliances score (this dissincentive is adjustable by moving the value of the Winning constant up or down).
This system also eliminates the incentive for 6v0 which was controversial in 2010.

I would award the Co-Opertition award to the highest Co-Op score that is not an alliance captain (possibly alliance captain or higher seed than the lowest seeding alliance captian).

I also think that this can serve as a future scoring model for future first games if they want to continue with the "Co-Opertition" aspect. It must be mutually beneficial to both sides, it must be more valuable if both sides participate. It must have some value if only 1 side participates (this should reduce hurt feelings of getting stood up to the prom).

This style of play would work for many first games. Having a common central goal. As it ties into both teams points, with my ranking system, the common goal is a doubler for both teams. This give it equal precedence for the Loosing side (loosers get 2L), and higher precedence for the higher scoring side (winners get W+L, therefore Co-Op scoring is 2x the value of W only scoring).
Co-Op points could be added in real-time to both scores, or Co-Op could be a seperate entity doubled up for each side at the end of the match.

For this years game, I would put the "winning constant" around 25 points. This should be a high enough value for teams to go for the win.

This is apretty big tear-up to the seeding algorithm this year, but I think it would be oworth trying out at a high caliber event.
This! Personally, I liked the 2010 seeding algorithm, if it had just a few adjustments, and I think this makes that work very well.
__________________
Phillipians 4:8 - Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.

God created FIRST as one of many wonderful things to dwell upon (just don't get obsessed ... whoops too late).
www.sharkattack744.com
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:24 AM.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi