High Score Low Rank???? [Archive]

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:21

Posted by Pat Major.

Other on team #468, Explorer, from BSA/Baker.

Posted on 3/13/2000 10:20 PM MST

Congratulations Chiefs, you were great. Do you have the number of point that your robot scored, including points for the other teams in your 7 qualifying matches. We were competing for the first time. In our 7 matches we scored 80 points ( I wonder how many of the top 16 teams scored 80 points in their 7 matches) we thought that was pretty good. Are allies scored 21, are opponents 47 and 41. (robot points only)
It did not get us ranked in the top 16 teams. I guess it's the luck of the draw. I would like to see FIRST change their 'socialize scoring system', and give individual that do well credit. How about top 4 team scores and the top 4 individual scores make the
top 8, or the top 8 team scorer pick partners from the top 8 individual scores.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:21

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:21

Posted by Pat Major.

Other on team #468, Explorer, from BSA/Baker.

Posted on 3/14/2000 5:38 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: High Score Low Rank???? posted by Patrick Seeney on 3/14/2000 5:13 AM MST:

: our team scored a total of 174 points, and we were the 15th rank team, i believe rochester, the number one team, scored 281 points. So that is how it went there.

: Pat
I'm sorry I wasn't very clear. I'm wondering how our team would have ranked if the scoring was, you received the points that your robot scored not three times the loser score. If there was normal scoring did we do well at 80 points scored by our robot in seven matches ( not counting human scorers)

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:21

Posted by Nate Smith.

Other on team #66, GM Powertrain/Willow Run HS, from Eastern Michigan University and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 3/14/2000 10:26 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: High Score Low Rank???? posted by Pat Major on 3/14/2000 5:38 AM MST:

While there are pros and cons of any ranking system that FIRST chooses to use, I hope they do NOT change it this year...I'm remembering back to the confusion of them testing a new alliance selection system at the GLR(the last regional) last year. I say that we live with what we've been given this year...in general, it seemed to work well at the GLR this year(good teams who may not have ranked in the top 8 themselves were not overlooked), and for those of us who have spent time memorizing the rules(yes, myself included for certain parts), it's just another thing to confuse the strategies that we have worked so hard on this season...

Just my two cents...

Nate

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:21

Posted by Pat Major.

Other on team #468, Explorer, from BSA/Baker.

Posted on 3/14/2000 2:37 PM MST

In Reply to: No Changes at this point, PLEASE! posted by Nate Smith on 3/14/2000 10:26 AM MST:

: While there are pros and cons of any ranking system that FIRST chooses to use, I hope they do NOT change it this year...I'm remembering back to the confusion of them testing a new alliance selection system at the GLR(the last regional) last year. I say that we live with what we've been given this year...in general, it seemed to work well at the GLR this year(good teams who may not have ranked in the top 8 themselves were not overlooked), and for those of us who have spent time memorizing the rules(yes, myself included for certain parts), it's just another thing to confuse the strategies that we have worked so hard on this season...

: Just my two cents...
Nate,
I agree, I would not suggest that scoring be changed mid stream. We all knew the system of scoring when we started, and knew that it was done to keep the game exciting. I believe that is a very important goal, I don't think the suggestions I made would have much effect on the excitement factor. I would like your opion on this. I just think that FIRST should look at a change for next year. I think everyone knew that what happened to us could happen to any team. Believe me once it happens
to you, you feel it's your duty to speak up, so it doesn't continue to happen to other teams (in other years). To be honest I don't know if the 80 points (regular scoring, not tripling the losers score) our robot scored would have put us in the top 5 the top 10 or the top 20. If anyone out there had more points than 80 please let me know My gut feeling is it would have been the
top 5. I wonder if anyone from First is keeping track? If not maybe they should in the next regional just to see how often this happens. Remember this is our first year, we are a small team we didn't have money for more that one meet, so this was our one shot. I don't know who the proper person is to contact to make my feelings known. I thanks the Chiefs for providing this
forum. Maybe someone can give me a contact, or maybe someone will contact me. To all readers please be aware that our team had more fun than you can belive, we think FRIST is the greatest thing ever, and we'll be back. I hate to look like the bad apple in the barrel by writing this, but it needed to be said, maybe now I will be able to sleep.
Thanks
Pat

: Nate

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:21

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/14/2000 6:34 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: No Changes at this point, PLEASE! posted by Pat Major on 3/14/2000 2:37 PM MST:

I am far from knowing what is in the hearts of men, but I did talk to a few FIRST folks after the Great Lakes Regional.

Here is my impression of FIRST's opinion on the competition.

FIRST is VERY happy with the outcome of the competition.

Basically, they believe they have found a format that allows teams with a HUGE variation in skills & resources to co-exist.

Teams that have large budgets, teams with no budgets, teams with 20 engineers, teams with no engineers, they all have to compete and more or less get along with each other on Friday and Saturday. FIRST really wants to encourage this getting along together thing.

FIRST was also happy with the excitement of the Elimination Rounds. I have to admit that, at least in the case of the Great Lakes Regional, these rounds were full of exciting clips worthy of the evening news.

SO...

I believe that FIRST is very happy with the system they have this year.

I know that there are a number of teams that really were hurt by the luck of the draw in the seeding rounds. But, this is always the case.

The question I guess is did this system have more or less than last year's system?

Also, can a better system be defined that has the attributes that Dean & Woodie & the FIRST gang want to keep?

All good questions.

Joe J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:21

Posted by Pat Major.

Other on team #468, Explorer, from BSA/Baker.

Posted on 3/14/2000 8:46 PM MST

In Reply to: My read of FIRST folks... posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/2000 6:34 PM MST:

: I am far from knowing what is in the hearts of men, but I did talk to a few FIRST folks after the Great Lakes Regional.

: Here is my impression of FIRST's opinion on the competition.

: FIRST is VERY happy with the outcome of the competition.

: Basically, they believe they have found a format that allows teams with a HUGE variation in skills & resources to co-exist.

: Teams that have large budgets, teams with no budgets, teams with 20 engineers, teams with no engineers, they all have to compete and more or less get along with each other on Friday and Saturday. FIRST really wants to encourage this getting along together thing.

: FIRST was also happy with the excitement of the Elimination Rounds. I have to admit that, at least in the case of the Great Lakes Regional, these rounds were full of exciting clips worthy of the evening news.

: SO...

: I believe that FIRST is very happy with the system they have this year.

: I know that there are a number of teams that really were hurt by the luck of the draw in the seeding rounds. But, this is always the case.

: The question I guess is did this system have more or less than last year's system?

: Also, can a better system be defined that has the attributes that Dean & Woodie & the FIRST gang want to keep?

: All good questions.

: Joe J.
Joe,
Thanks for the insight, this being my first year I have no history as a reference. If this was better than past years, it makes me feel better knowing that the system as a whole is benefiting. I did talk to one of your teammates early on Friday and he voiced concerns about the new scoring system. It would have been a pity if your team had been stuck in our position, a lot of people would have missed the great performance you put on, my head is still spinning from watching you remove those balls from your
opponents goal and put them in yours. I think with your versatility you have less of a chance to end up where we did. I can't see you not going all the way to the top every time you compete. I do hope there is someone out there that can give you some competition I didn't see any at GLR. Could you do team 468 a great big favor and let us know how we would have ranked against you if you scored your 7 matches using regular scoring ( not three times your opponents score) and include any points you scored for you opponents (we assume you would have scored those points for yourself) Not that we could ever come close to you head to head. It would be nice for our team to be able to just think about the fact that if the scoring was different we would have ranked up close to the Chief. That would be a great consolation to us.
Hope to hear from you, you can post, or email me at: maj@tir.com
Thanks and Good Luck
Pat

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:21

Posted by Chris.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/15/2000 6:47 AM MST

In Reply to: My read of FIRST folks... posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/2000 6:34 PM MST:

I think this year's game has definitely helped getting all of the teams to talk to each other and get along well. However, I still have a major problem with the game:

My problem is that the qualification game and the elimination game are almost two different games (even though the rules are the same). Robots that do well qualifying may be bad elimination teams and teams that are great elimination teams may be very poor qualifiers. (This was also true last year, but to a smaller extent).

It seems to me that the qualification rounds should determine the teams that are the best elimination teams. This is especially true due to the alliance selection process. Regardless of what anyone says, reputation is still more important than reality. This causes many more deserving teams to be passed upon so that teams with a bigger reputation can be picked. This kind of bothers me. (I guess whenever humans are selecting teams, this is going to happen - see UNC in this year's NCAA tourney.)

The one thing I can say is that I can see how FIRST wants to emphasize offense. However, if that is the case I would prefer to scrap the eliminations and do a modified round robin tournament. In this scenario, the teams are divided into small groups that play a round robin. The team with the most Q.P.'s in each group at the end advances. All of the advancing teams then get broken up into groups again and another round robin is played. The most Q.P.'s advances again. Eventually, you will have a winner. This scenario would be a logistical nightmare, but at least it keeps the game the same through the entire competition.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:21

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/15/2000 7:49 AM MST

In Reply to: Two Different Games posted by Chris on 3/15/2000 6:47 AM MST:

Chris,

I agree with you about it being two different games. But, this has always been the case with FIRST to some degree. It used to be 1 on 1 from the quarter-finals on while the game was 3 teams at a time in the early stages of the tourney. Last year it was 'score score score' -- until the elimination rounds and then it became 'get the double and have more triples.' Again, this resulted in two very different games. This year is not really all that different in that respect.

The thing I do find strange is the method of gaining QP's

One way I try to explain the weirdness is to say it is like playing the entire MLB season keeping score and counting wins but then deciding who gets into the playoffs by the number of bunts a team managed to execute successfully. Then, having decided who is in the playoffs, everyone is swinging for the fences because teams that win advance to the next round.

It makes for a very weird season.

Just my view of it.

Joe J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:21

Posted by Greg Mills.

Engineer on team #16, Baxter Bomb Squad, from Mountain Home and Baxter Healthcare.

Posted on 3/15/2000 9:22 AM MST

In Reply to: Bunting to the playoffs... posted by Joe Johnson on 3/15/2000 7:49 AM MST:

:

Joe is right in that it has always been two different games. One BIG difference with alliances & the draft is that a machine can get into the finals without scoring a point. Before you had to have a machine to score or you didn't advance. It seemed really strange that we made to the #6 seed by scoring points and then the game plan in the finals dictated that we do something that we never planned on - play defense or protect our partners back so that they could score. It turned out to be great strategy because Heat Wave can score points and we were able to keep the other guys from scoring.

A couple of thoughts - I'm not sure how I feel about a #1 seed being allowed to pick another seeded team (although it worked great for us here).

It is very possible and even likely that a machine that has only a few capibilities will determine the outcome of the finals just by being a spoiler. I am not sure that I like a machine stopping another that is a superior machine is terms of abilities because it can just push him in a corner. It is far too easy to just get in the way and prevent a wonderful robot from showing his stuff because two minutes doesn't allow enough time to get around.

After watching this year - far more teams will elect to develop a specialty machine and plan on being picked as the perfect partner - it is a very viable plan.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:21

Posted by michael ciavaglia.

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Interior Systems.

Posted on 3/15/2000 10:16 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: Bunting to the playoffs... posted by Greg Mills on 3/15/2000 9:22 AM MST:

Winning in the qualifying rounds 1-0 will not make you number one seed. Winning in the elimination rounds 1-0 will make you NATIONAL CHAMPS.

I would win all day 1-0 to become National Champs!!

Mike C.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by Ken Patton.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 3/15/2000 10:42 AM MST

In Reply to: 1-0 ALL THE WAY!! posted by michael ciavaglia on 3/15/2000 10:16 AM MST:

Hey Mike-

I've seen your robot! If theres anybody with high scoring potential (and the ability to vaccuum out the opponents bin - we're still smarting from that!) its you guys. I think of you as the 59-20 guys!

Here's how I get 59-20: All the balls in your bin (none in opponents), your opponents hanging on the pole, and you guys on the floor helping your ally get 10 points.

Unless that is, you guys know how to hang too......? As Joe would say, DO TELL! :))

Nice job BTW - Congrats again!,
Ken

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by mike aubry.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chiefs, from Pontiac Central.

Posted on 3/15/2000 9:27 PM MST

In Reply to: don't you mean 59-20?? :)) posted by Ken Patton on 3/15/2000 10:42 AM MST:

Ken,
Thanks for the kind words. We truely do appreciate them, especially from a classy guy like you! But, here's where it get really fun because it's really the 21-20 score that will win the match. (The rest is just insurance) As far as hanging goes, you'll just have to wait and see! When the time is right, there is another surprise in store - we can't let everything show the first time out! This game requires some real strategic thinking, then execution of the plan - and then throw in a little luck! Later, Mike A

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by Brett R..

Student on team #201, Viste-Feds, from Rochester High School and Visteon Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/16/2000 8:10 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: how about the 21-20 guys? posted by mike aubry on 3/15/2000 9:27 PM MST:

Oh my gosh, you mean you have more stuff in there? We were surprised when you dropped your jaw open in the finals (we know what it is we just didn't know you had it). Our drivers say you have a really .. er. complex control system, pedals on the floor, switches galore?

:)

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by Greg Mills.

Engineer on team #16, Baxter Bomb Squad, from Mountain Home and Baxter Healthcare.

Posted on 3/15/2000 1:50 PM MST

In Reply to: Two Different Games posted by Chris on 3/15/2000 6:47 AM MST:

:
The reality is that reputation is very important. That reputation was earned for a reason. The robot is only a part of the alliance partner selection. Does that team have what it takes to make it through a tough bracket? A ready pit crew with available spares, a series of charged batteries, a robust enough design to handle many back to back rounds, an unflappable driving and coaching team, etc? Are they willing to do what the alliance captain wants? Did they have a scouting infrastructure to help with the next pick or to help with strategy?

If I am lucky enough to be in the position of picking - I know some teams that will get high consideration just because I know what they are capable of.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by Chris.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/16/2000 6:31 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: Two Different Games posted by Greg Mills on 3/15/2000 1:50 PM MST:

: :
: The reality is that reputation is very important. That reputation was earned for a reason. The robot is only a part of the alliance partner selection. Does that team have what it takes to make it through a tough bracket? A ready pit crew with available spares, a series of charged batteries, a robust enough design to handle many back to back rounds, an unflappable driving and coaching team, etc? Are they willing to do what the alliance captain wants? Did they have a scouting infrastructure to help with the next pick or to help with strategy?

: If I am lucky enough to be in the position of picking - I know some teams that will get high consideration just because I know what they are capable of.

I agree with everything above. However, when I say reputation, I was referring to reputation gained from previous years. Another thing is that I really did exagerate a bit (when I implied reputation is everything).

Anyway, to keep people from getting mad at me, this is what I meant:

Teams that did well in the past and have good reputations get more looks from the other teams. When a lot of teams get to the competitions (I know I'm guilty of this), they get the practice sheet and highlight teams like Chief Delphi, Baxter Bomb Squad, Beatty, etc. to be sure to see what they've come up with this year. I know that these teams also typically experience higher traffic at their pits to see what they're doing this time around.

Hardly anyone picks a team simply because they won the championship last year. BUT, if Team A and Team B are practically identical, and the alliance captain is very familiar with A and not B, they will pick A (and be justified). My point is that when a team has a reputation, the picking teams are typically much more familiar with these teams and are much more likely to pick them based on familiarity (familiarity gained from watching them practice, visiting them in the pits, etc.).

This is, of course, a generalization and not every team operates this way (so save your 'I disagree''s because I'm sure you exist). But I know this from experience. You would not believe how many teams we had to beg to see us play or to come to our pits to see us up close. We were told many times by teams that they didn't know what our team was like. We asked them to come watch us play and they usually didn't. One team we actually pestered long enough that they came to see us just to get us off of their back (they were happy they watched us afterward). (How many people did the HOT Team have to pester to see them play or practice - I'll bet none.)

The point is this: No one picks a team just because of reputation from previous years. But these teams do get more looks from other teams and get more of a benefit of the doubt from other teams. I'm not saying that it's wrong or unjustified. I'm just saying that it exists. Rookie teams and teams with no reputations have to work about 25% harder to get picked than these other teams. It's just human nature.

(For everyone who wasn't at the GLR, our team did get picked and we made it to the semi-finals. I'm not here to complain. I'm just trying to point out a potential flaw with the alliance system. A flaw that might potentially explain why the Baker team didn't get picked. Along these same lines, we were undefeated at Nationals last year and didn't get picked. We used that experience to make us stronger by putting together a pretty strong marketing effort this year. If you guys see us in your pits every five minutes this year, you now know why. With this in mind, I'll see everyone at the next competition. :) )

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/16/2000 10:29 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: Fully Agree (But I meant something else) posted by Chris on 3/16/2000 6:31 AM MST:

Chris,

I agree with you.

I think that the big equalizer for both improved rank estimation and for getting teams to know which teams have great robots would be to limit the number of teams per competition to under 40.

With almost 70 teams at the Great Lakes Regional, it took a lot to get noticed.

If you have under 40 team per competition, then each team can have 12 qualifying matches. This means that each team partners with 12 teams and plays against 24 teams. That means that a team sees 36 teams during their qualifying matches (assuming no duplicates for simplicity). So, it is much more likely that each team has been on the field with any particular good team (either as a partner or as an opponent). Because of this, teams will have to market themselves less aggressively. More qualifying matches have the additional benefit of improving the ranking because good luck and bad luck have the opportunity to average out.

With 7 qualifying matches for each team and with about 300 teams at the Nationals, it will be very easy of good teams to fall through the cracks. Each team will only play or play against 21 out of 300 teams, about 7% of all teams. Not enough to really know the potential that exists out there.

Is it time to have an invitation only Nationals (similar to the NCAA)? Maybe so.

Joe J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by Brett R..

Other on team #201, Viste-Feds, from Rochester High School and Visteon Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/16/2000 2:21 PM MST

In Reply to: number of teams is the problem... posted by Joe Johnson on 3/16/2000 10:29 AM MST:

At GLR we had our scouts in the stands, we did very little in pit scouting of anyone that we weren't going to play against. Actually being in the match with someone to see their abilities isn't necessary. There is nothing wrong with the number of teams at competitions, (except maybe running out of room) it all comes back down to luck, to see if you get scouted or if you play on the right field, at the right time, with the right people watching.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by Pat Major.

Other on team #468, Explorer, from BSA/Baker.

Posted on 3/16/2000 10:21 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: number of teams is the problem... posted by Brett R. on 3/16/2000 2:21 PM MST:

: At GLR we had our scouts in the stands, we did very little in pit scouting of anyone that we weren't going to play against. Actually being in the match with someone to see their abilities isn't necessary. There is nothing wrong with the number of teams at competitions, (except maybe running out of room) it all comes back down to luck, to see if you get scouted or if you play on the right field, at the right time, with the right people watching.
Brett,
I would have to agree with Joe, isn't this a competition, don't we want take as much luck out as possible and put as much skill in as we can?
Pat

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by Brett R..

Student on team #201, Viste-Feds, from Rochester High School and Visteon Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/25/2000 10:25 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: number of teams is the problem... posted by Pat Major on 3/16/2000 10:21 PM MST:

Then work at it, and send your people in to the pits of teams to get noticed. Yes, it is a competition, and so you should also compete to get noticed.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by S. Krussell.

Coach on team #349, Robahamas, from International Academy and Ford Motor Co..

Posted on 3/15/2000 6:31 PM MST

In Reply to: Two Different Games posted by Chris on 3/15/2000 6:47 AM MST:

Well Chris, I don't think i agree with you on that. If the elimination teams were picked based on the seeding rounds, then a lot of good teams will also be left behind. It's not about the points. When the partner can't move on the field, one team must work alone. Less chance of winning the round there. So luck (or lack thereof) will affect your final standings. There were teams who personally scored almost NO points on their own, yet were ranked high because they had very capable partners. That's not right, but then, they don't have a chance at getting picked. So as i mentioned somewhere else here, I still think that 'ranking' is overrated and under-useful.

I like the system this year. If you're good, you'll get picked. If you're good and didn't get picked this year....cheer up, there's always next tournament. We've ALL been through that.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by mike aubry.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chiefs, from Pontiac Central.

Posted on 3/14/2000 8:51 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: No Changes at this point, PLEASE! posted by Pat Major on 3/14/2000 2:37 PM MST:

Pat,
I think you guys did great. Regradless of the 80 points (by the way I have no clue how many we scored cuz I wasn't watching for that) This FIRST thing that you guys experienced will leave a lasting impression. The game, the scoring, the ups, downs, and twists have always been debated here at this website for the past 5 years. We welcome everyone's opinion and believe that everyone is entitled to share it here. We have a ball discussing everything from serious matters to silly stuff - but that's what this site is about. I didn't think that you were advocating 'CHANGE', but instead just wanted feedback on how your robot performed. So, if you guys did score 80 points by yourselves - then you did awesome!!! Congrats, and keep up the great work. P.S. - when I'm not at work at Delphi, or doing this FIRST thing, I teach evening classes at Baker Mt. Clemens campus! GO B.C.!!!

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by Pat Major.

Other on team #468, Explorer, from BSA/Baker.

Posted on 3/14/2000 10:08 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: it's okay posted by mike aubry on 3/14/2000 8:51 PM MST:

Thanks for the feed back Mike we are new and tring to learn.
Pat

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by S. Krussell.

Coach on team #349, Robahamas, from International Academy and Ford Motor Co..

Posted on 3/14/2000 2:51 PM MST

In Reply to: High Score Low Rank???? posted by Pat Major on 3/13/2000 10:20 PM MST:

I'm not convinced that ranking is accurate, but I don't think it matters because it all seems to shake out in the end. Some teams were ranked quite high, even with a machine that just sat on the field and didn't work most of the time, because they had partners that carried the load. The real test, I guess, is who gets picked for the finals by the top 8 teams, and I do think the best teams made it to the top 8. Beyond that, scouting reports and observations of matches reveal the better machines and their strengths.

Counting 'points' scored during the seeding matches is irrelevant.....that's not the measure of a machine, especially in those cases where the alliance partner scored all the points for the match. But I guess everyone knows that already.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by Pat Major.

Other on team #468, Explorer, from BSA/Baker.

Posted on 3/14/2000 10:03 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: High Score Low Rank???? posted by S. Krussell on 3/14/2000 2:51 PM MST:

The reason we were counting points is we were the alliance partner that scored the points, 80 points by our robot and 21 by our partners. You make a good point about getting picked, even though we scored a lot of points, we are not fast and have to go over the ramp to cross the field and our robot was made by the students and was not the prettiest. So who would ever pick us just because we scored a lot of points, and our robot always did what it was suppose to do, and never broke or malfunctioned. I never saw any one keeping track of a robots score, they just track by what you received for your match on their scouting report, did you? I do love it and we will be back, but I'm still working on how we should design next years (small team only money for one competition this year), lets see points are not the most important thing, it must be speed, traction, and ???. Give me some help. Well I think I'm beating a dead robot to death. I look forward to hearing more for you. By the way there was only one robot at GLR that came close to yours, and they won the competition.... HOW ? by SCORING THE MOST POINTS ( I did really like you robot)
Hope I Don't Sound To Harsh, it's getting late for me and I tend to get lose liped
Thanks
Hope to hear more
Pat

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/15/2000 7:21 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: High Score Low Rank???? posted by Pat Major on 3/14/2000 10:03 PM MST:

The thing to do is to keep doing your great job.

As to who would notice, well, LOTS of TEAMS!

Everyone knows that there is not a great correlation between a team's rank and a teams desirability as a partner in the finals (and the correlation gets worse the deeper into the rankings one goes -- in fact I would go even further and say that with the current QP system a team at the very bottom is actually more likely to be desirable partner than a team about 1/3 of the way up from the bottom -- but that is the topic for a different message).

Given that everyone knows that straight ranking is not a good method to pick partners, most teams have scouting teams. These teams are not looking at ranking but other things. In our case we have a list of features and capabilities that is totally separate from qualifying points or even winning.

So...

Buck up. Capable robots get noticed. In your case at the GLR, you were overlooked. Sorry. Chalk it up to bad luck. Your luck will change if you keep doing the right things.

Good luck.

Joe J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by Patrick Seeney.

Student on team #469, Las Guerrillas, from Oakland Robotics and Lawrence Technological University and Magna Seating Systems, Nachi and Kuka Robotics.

Posted on 3/14/2000 10:14 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: High Score Low Rank???? posted by S. Krussell on 3/14/2000 2:51 PM MST:

: I'm not convinced that ranking is accurate, but I don't think it matters because it all seems to shake out in the end. Some teams were ranked quite high, even with a machine that just sat on the field and didn't work most of the time, because they had partners that carried the load. The real test, I guess, is who gets picked for the finals by the top 8 teams, and I do think the best teams made it to the top 8. Beyond that, scouting reports and observations of matches reveal the better machines and their strengths.

: Counting 'points' scored during the seeding matches is irrelevant.....that's not the measure of a machine, especially in those cases where the alliance partner scored all the points for the match. But I guess everyone knows that already.

See, that even comes to be not entirely accurate. There may be some bots that are designed for purely defense, or purely offense, whose talents may shine in the finals, and depend on being picked in the finals. I know that our bot took on a more defensive role towards the end of the competition, with the option of dumping in two balls minimum. As we were not picked, but we ended up 15th, and on average we could score about 11 points. So i believe it comes down to luck in a way.

Pat

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by Pat Major.

Other on team #468, Explorer, from BSA/Baker.

Posted on 3/14/2000 10:47 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: High Score Low Rank???? posted by Patrick Seeney on 3/14/2000 10:14 PM MST:

Pat
Thanks you are the only one that has replied with your robots score. Knowing that we were up there with you guys makes us feel better, than thinking we scored all those points and deserved to be at the bottom. The luck of the draw----- is the luck of the draw, and everyone has an equal chance at that. I really don't know where 11.42 points would have put us with regular scoring, but it's nice to think about, what is life without dreams, I guess I'll dream about next year.
Pat

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by Thomas Grupp.

Engineer on team #378, Circuit Stompers, from Newfane High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/15/2000 5:47 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: High Score Low Rank???? posted by Pat Major on 3/14/2000 10:47 PM MST:

:
Pat

If your interested this is how we did. Over the seven seeding matches we scored 74 pts. our alliance partners scored 41 pts. for atotal of 115 pts. for the alliance. Using the scoring method that first uses we
ranked 22nd with an Avg/Qp of 22 pts. a match.

However, I believe that using the score of the opponent after the match is over is a great indication of the spirit of the co-opetition! It does come down to the luck of the draw! But, that is part of the competition, and the part that makes this type of event what it is: AWESOME!!!!

Best Regards
Tom Grupp
Team #378
The Circuit Stompers!

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by Andy Baker.

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/15/2000 9:40 AM MST

In Reply to: High Score Low Rank???? posted by Pat Major on 3/13/2000 10:20 PM MST:

Pat,

Here's some info for you:

I'm tring to recall how many points we scored during our Q matches, by ourselves.

For the seven matches, I think that we scored about 87 points. This includes ball, ramp & hanging points.

We hung once, were on the ramp all 7 times, and scored about 47 points in balls during the qualification matches.

I think that we ended up ranked around 45. Our record was 2-5... but MOST IMPORTANTLY, we won our last two matches. We were improving with each match, except during our 5th match when we were with the Circuit Stompers... sorry Stompers!

What we did at the end of the day Friday and on Saturday was market ourselves to everyone in a top-ranked position. These teams have a difficult time picking a partner, and you must go to them in order to get noticed... especially if you're a new team.

This 'marketing' teaches our students some important skills... especially if they want to be in sales!

Andy

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:22

Posted by Ken Patton.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 3/15/2000 10:31 AM MST

In Reply to: Guess on our team's points posted by Andy Baker on 3/15/2000 9:40 AM MST:

Since our team was the one who picked #45 TechnoKats (we were only #9 seed, but two teams picked from within the top eight, so we got to pick), I think I can add something here...

We did not really care what the ranking of their team was. We were looking for some specific skills that we thought would make for a good elimination round strategy. Team #45 had those skills, in the opinion of some of our team members who were responsible for making the choice.

It didn't hurt that we know these people from past experiences, and that they have been to the top of the mountain (National Champs in '98, runner up in '99). BUT that was minor compared to our assessment of their robot's abilities. So I disagree with a previous comment that there are teams getting in 'by reputation' as opposed to 'by robot.'

We think we made a good choice, as the alliance only lost once when the TechnoBeast was on the field. Plus, when you pick the TechnoKats, they give a tshirt to the picking student :))

Ken