Level 3 Point Upgrade for Champs?

[karomata]

Hello Everyone,

It has become very apparent to me over the last few weeks that a level 3 climb, with or without scoring the colored discs, can easily be outscored. Many teams that can climb to level 3 dedicated their entire build season just to being able to climb due to its difficulty. There are a handful of teams that can easily climb and shoot, like 1114, 148, etc. but many non-powerhouse teams that climb can only climb.

the GDC has also had many rule updates that have almost completely changed the game, like the rule update about the discs being thrown by feeders, and the loading zone fouls. So I was wondering what we think the GDC will do in preparation for Championships. I believe they said that they might increase the point value for a level 3 climb, and if they do I think it will be 50 or 60 points, just to make climbing worth the time and effort it takes.

But I posted this here becuase I wanna know what you guys think.

[orangemoore]

They can only adjust each levels worth by 10 points so the max would be 40 and the minimum would to 20 for level three

[Lil' Lavery]

I'd rather see them reduce the points for the first rung.

[Anupam Goli]

I've never been of the opinion that end-game should be worth the same as the main autonomous and teleop game. I like the point value where its at right now. End game is big, but not big enough to win matches with no autonomous and teleop scoring in most elimination matches. 30 points is equivalent to 10 discs in the high goal during teleop. I feel like this is a fair representation of how difficult it is to shoot a disc vs climb to the top.

[waialua359]

It should stay the same.

Like we do year in and year out, we live and die by our decisions on what we brainstorm and build.
Should've could've would've.

The majority of teams have yet to demonstrate scoring 50 points in a match by themselves.......which is something a dedicated climber/dumper could achieve.

[Basel A]

While I agree that Level 3 climbing seems underpointed vs. its difficulty, I don't think the difference in value between climbing and disc scoring is great enough to warrant any scoring changes. Even though there is a rule allowing it in the manual, I would imagine the FRC community (or at least many of its members on this forum) would be furious. Also, remember that most Level 3 climbers have room to improve by scoring 20 points of dumpable pyramid discs.

[Jon Stratis]

I could definitely see them increasing the points for climbing, if only to increase the diversity of what's on the field. From everything I've seen, climbing is probably the hardest challenge I've seen in FRC, and one of the coolest to see it work correctly! I want to see climbing on Einstein... but the way matches are going right now, it seems like shooting typically earns you more points - we see alliances whose first two picks are shooters beating alliances who pair up a shooter with a climber more often than we see the alliance with a dedicated climber winning.

[Andrew Schreiber]

I'll be honest, I don't even like that they allow themselves the option of changing the points at CMP. The beauty of this competition is we all start from the same set of rules and decide our strategies from there. We then have to either adapt to changing circumstances (rebuild per 67 in 2009) or deal with it.

Climbers without shooters knew they were capped at earning 30 points. Shooters knew they would be more variable in their points and more susceptible to defense. These are called tradeoffs and we all had to make them. We made our bed, now we have to lay in it.


I hope the GDC doesn't touch the scoring.

[BJC]

Edit: incorrect information... See Nuttyman54 post #16.

[DjScribbles]

I think it's too early to tell. Many teams are still ironing out climbing, so it's not as common to see.

A team with 2 climber (with one that can dump) can score 80pts now. If they increase the value from 30 to 40, they are at 100 points.

Last years end game, was easier, but less valuable since points were colaborative, each robot could contribute 10 (or 13.33 points for a triple). This year each team can contribute 10 easily, or 30 with good design (and another 20 within arms reach). I think the increase this year pretty effectively offsets the higher scoring capacity of the game piece, but not enough people can climb (yet?).

An alliance of 2 decent shooters (even just for auton) that can climb, and some dumping ability, and a defender with auton and hang can rack up a whopping 144pts (two climbs, one hang, four pyramid discs, and nine auton shots, no teleop shots).

Such an alliance would not be easy to beat, without scoring a single teleop disc.

[JB987]

I'll be honest, I don't even like that they allow themselves the option of changing the points at CMP. The beauty of this competition is we all start from the same set of rules and decide our strategies from there. We then have to either adapt to changing circumstances (rebuild per 67 in 2009) or deal with it.

Climbers without shooters knew they were capped at earning 30 points. Shooters knew they would be more variable in their points and more susceptible to defense. These are called tradeoffs and we all had to make them. We made our bed, now we have to lay in it.


I hope the GDC doesn't touch the scoring.

+1

[PVCpirate]

Off the top of my head, 1114 has a VERY fast 30 point climber and 179 climbs for 20 and dumps colored disks, and they've both won regionals. I also saw 2 dedicated climbers be high seeds at GSR (213 and 61) with 61 making the finals as an alliance captain. Obviously I didn't hit all the good climbers, so I think climbing will definitely be playing a big role in matches come April.

I would also agree that hanging on the first bar is somewhat overpowered. It didn't seem that way at the start, but I realized that 3 10 point hangs just don't seem equal in difficulty to 1 30 point climb. I think it should be worth somewhere in-between 5-10 points.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Off the top of my head, 1114 has a VERY fast 30 point climber and 179 climbs for 20 and dumps colored disks, and they've both won regionals. I also saw 2 dedicated climbers be high seeds at GSR (213 and 61) with 61 making the finals as an alliance captain. Obviously I didn't hit all the good climbers, so I think climbing will definitely be playing a big role in matches come April.

I would also agree that hanging on the first bar is somewhat overpowered. It didn't seem that way at the start, but I realized that 3 10 point hangs just don't seem equal in difficulty to 1 30 point climb. I think it should be worth somewhere in-between 5-10 points.

179 has not won a regional. 125/4451/233 knocked them out in the semis in Orlando before they, in turn, were eliminated by 744/79/1772.

[PVCpirate]

179 has not won a regional. 125/4451/233 knocked them out in the semis in Orlando before they, in turn, were eliminated by 744/79/1772.

Oh 79 not 179. Guess I was wrong on that one. Still, I think climbers have shown that they can be useful enough that we'll see at least one on Einstein.

[Travis Hoffman]

Hey I know - let's make all non 30-point climbers blindfold their drivers for the last 30 seconds of the match! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Nuttyman54]

The GDC has added this rule to every game starting in 2011 after the whole deal with suspending robots in 2010. It's the fallback if the game doesn't play out like they wanted.

The 2011 manual did not contain this language, it first appeared in 2012, as a response to the power of minibots in 2011. The combination of diminishing returns on tube scoring and the point swing of minibots, by the upper eschelons of play most matches were almost pre-determined. Whoever had the faster minibots won.

I don't believe FIRST will exercise this clause, as I believe that it is in place only for a scenario like 2011 where one method of scoring is so powerful and so easy for all top teams to do that the match outcome is virtually assured, save for breakdowns or penalties. Changing the minibots points for championships that year would not have affected most teams, because by that point most teams had almost the same system, and it could be very easily adapted. Even then, the GDC would have given serious consideration before issuing the order to change the points. There's always SOMEONE who is greatly affected.

It is NOT a fallback because the game doesn't play exactly like they anticipated. I choose to believe the GDC understands the impact and the backlash that would result if they chose to change the points. Regardless of how the game actually plays, teams made strategy decisions at the beginning of the season based on the point distribution. This clause is for extreme scenarios, and is there "just in case".

If you thought the backlash was bad from the Team Update that changed the way the 54" cylinder was applied to climbing robots (before it was clarified), imagine the outcry if they change the points.

That's the thing, it would not diversify the field. Teams can't just bolt on a 30 point climber like they could a stinger last year. If you don't have one, you pretty much aren't getting one. You will see climbing robots on Einstein -- they'll just be climbing robots that also shoot.

Not only can robots not just bolt on 30pt climbers, but this change cannot take effect until championships. With the new qualification-only rules this year, a larger number of teams who attend championships will be the teams who succeeded at the regional level. Changing the point scoring for championships could not only drastically change which robots are successful there, but I suspect would also upset the teams who's strategy just got a points buff, but were unable to qualify with the old points.

[GCentola]

the GDC has also had many rule updates that have almost completely changed the game, like the rule update about the discs being thrown by feeders...

I don't believe this is a huge game changer, honestly. I think the game is great the way it is, and I really think the freakout over this change was unnecessarily large. I will admit that I was concerned if you care to dig up my post on that, but it seemed to work itself out just fine. That was a much smaller change than changing climbing points would be.

Second, a dedicated climber is still useful. You don't need to be an alliance captain to win. It can be outscored, but it really depends what you are up against. If you can connect some shots in autonomous and guarantee that you will add 30 to our score, I don't think that is a robot that would be overlooked. From a match-perspective, if an opposing alliance knows of the dedicated climber, they will try to stop it (FLR eliminations against 340 and 1559).

Lastly, trade-offs. It was mentioned earlier and I couldn't agree more. The point values drove strategy and design decisions. People had a massive argument over IRI removing the coopertition bridge and that isn't even a regular season competition. If climb points changed for the champioship, the uproar would, well....gethca' popcorn ready.

TL;DR? This game is pretty cool and there are lots of great designs. It;s fine the way it is, no need to change it.

[pntbll1313]

I know many teams like ours had long discussions as to what aspects of the game were more valuable than others. Because of the small footprint our team decided it would be tough to fit both a 3rd level climber and a good shooter on our bot. We also, after much deliberation, decided we wanted to score 70 points by ourselves in order to give ourselves the best chance to win in qualifications no matter who we were paired with. (Based on the matches so far I think we did a great job estimating the score we would need). Because of those goals we decided on a strategy of 18pt auto, 10pt hang, and 42pt (13 disk) teleop. By the end of our regional we were able to accomplish very close to that exact goal, making it the correct strategy based on the game constraints. Now if the GDC were to change point values I think that would take away a ton of the strategies that many teams used in deciding how to build their robot.

By the way just because a climb/dumper can't outscore a good shooter doesn't mean they can't play defense for 1:30, then go climb and dump, and still be net positive of that great shooter because of how much they slowed them down. I'm sure that is the strategy of many of the best climb/dump teams that do not have a shooter.

[GBilletdeaux930]

So far, the averages work themselves out so that each part of the game accounts for a nearly equal amount of the points. Last I checked it was like 13 auton, 14 tele, and 12 climbing for an alliance. So in terms of separate parts of the game, the points are about on par. Good alliances (elimination alliances) can score 3x each of those points easily.

Now, the fact that auton and tele correlate much more than climbing with anything makes it seem like climbing got the short end. But while climbing relies on heavy mechanical skills that tele, auton relies on heavier programming skills then tele. I'm not saying they are directly a fair trade, but we have to remember that there is more to a robot than its metal.

Removing the 10pt hang would basically drop the climbing average to next to nothing since there seems to be < 5 30pt climbers at each regional, as opposed to half the robots on the field being able to hang.

I don't think the problem is in the scoring. I think its just in the faults of the robots themselves. If a robot spends the entire match climbing, that turns it into a 3v2 match essentially. A 50 or even 30pt contribution is much better than the average score (~41) divided by 3 teams (13pts). But when you spend 2 minutes to do just that, or worse, do it in 30 seconds but that 30 seconds happens to be immediately after autonomous, you hurt your alliance.

I personally don't think FIRST will change anything. The 3 parts of the game are about balanced. I think teams should just reassess their strategies if they are focused climbers. Focused climbers have the opportunity to be a *huge* contribution to a team. But if it only takes you 30 seconds or even a minute, that doesn't mean you spend the remainder of the match at the top of the pyramid. If you can prevent or slow down points before you go climb, that is essentially you scoring more points for your own alliance.

If you want a perfect example, look at 148 in 2008. Look at how their strategy changed from the first regional, to their strategy on Einstein.

[stuart2054]

I'll be honest, I don't even like that they allow themselves the option of changing the points at CMP. The beauty of this competition is we all start from the same set of rules and decide our strategies from there. We then have to either adapt to changing circumstances (rebuild per 67 in 2009) or deal with it.

Climbers without shooters knew they were capped at earning 30 points. Shooters knew they would be more variable in their points and more susceptible to defense. These are called tradeoffs and we all had to make them. We made our bed, now we have to lay in it.


I hope the GDC doesn't touch the scoring.

I agree 100%. The GDC should not change the scoring for the champs. We all started out with the same rules and picked a strategy based on the rules and scoring that was presented. In our case we ruled out more than a 10 point hang as our feeling is that the 30 or 50 potential points of climbing is not worth the difficulty / risk of damage. It is a risk/reward thing but everybody looks at it different. That is what makes things interesting is to see the diversity of robots and the change in strategy as the competitons progress.

If the scoring had been higher for climbing out of the gate we would have factored that in and maybe went a different direction.

[MikeE]

We all started out with the same rules and picked a strategy based on the rules and scoring that was presented.

And that set of rules explicitly included the clause that climbing points could be varied by up to ±10 points. If a team didn't include that consideration as part of your strategy decisions then don't blame the GDC.

The core imbalance is that a relatively trivial capability on all three alliance robots - 10pt hang following the 3-day robot example - gives the same score as the much harder and riskier challenge of climbing the pyramid.

As several posters have already said, dropping the level 1 score to 5-7pts is probably the most likely action if there is any scoring change for Championships.

[tinybob20]

I don't think the problem is in the scoring. I think its just in the faults of the robots themselves. If a robot spends the entire match climbing, that turns it into a 3v2 match essentially. A 50 or even 30pt contribution is much better than the average score (~41) divided by 3 teams (13pts). But when you spend 2 minutes to do just that, or worse, do it in 30 seconds but that 30 seconds happens to be immediately after autonomous, you hurt your alliance.



I would disagree. I feel like that 30 points is more than enough to give you a advantage over the other alliance. And, it's *almost* un-defendable. I found that while other robots had to potential to score much higher, such as full court shooters, they were also much easier to defend against. Coming from a team who won a regional with a directly-after-autonomous climb, I felt the easy, safe 30 or 50 points guaranteed a repeatable and higher score. That being said, I also believe that without support from some good shooting/defending bots, a climbing robot will not be as effective.

[Grim Tuesday]

I think the 30 point climb is underpowered compared to its point value.

However, it was exactly the same way at the beginning of the season when everyone chose their strategy. It should remain the same but I would not be surprised to see it go to 35 or 40 pts. Given the fact the FMS doesn't display 200+ scores properly (they overlap the border) I think this game has much higher scores than the GDC anticipated. Maybe it's the consistent gamepiece. Maybe it's Robot in 3 Days. Maybe it's just teams generally getting better. Whatever it is I feel like climbing is unbalanced in its cost:benefit ratio but that does not mean it should be changed. It only means that teams who chose to make exclusive climbers made a strategic misstep.

[Vikingtech2054]

I personally feel that they should leave it as it is, if anything reduce it. When the GDC came out with the rule change on bag night about throwing white disk at the end i feel like this had made climbing more valuable against floor pickup robots. If they increase the point value the floor pickup robots will be at another disadvantage on top of white disk not being thrown at the end. I know that they had said at the beginning of the season they can change the value at championships but i feel the rule change on bag night is the special circumstance that make the GDC should consider to leave the point value the same.

[XaulZan11]

As only a fan/sepectator, I hope climbing to the top is prevelent during the eliminations at the Championship. We have already seen elite teams (like 118) forgo climbing because scoring discs resulted in more points. Since watching a team climb at the end of the match is so exciting and adds an extra layer of strategy, I hope it is valued enough that the top teams still do it. If that means adding more points to climbing or lowering points for hanging (aka, 10 point 'climbs'), then the GDC better do it. I think we all agree shooting and climbing is more exciting than just shooting.

I know MikeE already said this, but: Yes, it is true we were all given the same rules to base strategy and design decisions and changing the point values of climbing will change the game. But, those same rules given to all teams, give the GDC the ability to tweak the game. As always, those teams more prepared to adapt on the fly, will do better.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

As a spectator (we don't compete until week 5!!!), I like the game where it is (10-20-30).

I would also still like the game if hanging was increased to 10-20-40.

However, hanging is undeniably difficult and lessening the point values would be a disservice to the 30pt hangers and the spectators.
Either way is fine by me.

[JB987]

And that set of rules explicitly included the clause that climbing points could be varied by up to ±10 points. If a team didn't include that consideration as part of your strategy decisions then don't blame the GDC.

The core imbalance is that a relatively trivial capability on all three alliance robots - 10pt hang following the 3-day robot example - gives the same score as the much harder and riskier challenge of climbing the pyramid.

As several posters have already said, dropping the level 1 score to 5-7pts is probably the most likely action if there is any scoring change for Championships.

3 trivial hangs gives the same score as just 1 climber. So... what if the alliance has 2 or three 30 point climbers instead of one?

[AmoryG]

A lot of teams worked very hard building robots that would be competitive given the current scoring system. I'm sure many of those teams knew St Louis would be a different kind of beast and changed their designs accordingly. I just don't see how someone could justify changing the scoring system given the amount of planning and work that would be wasted if the scoring system was changed.

[AmoryG]

I know MikeE already said this, but: Yes, it is true we were all given the same rules to base strategy and design decisions and changing the point values of climbing will change the game. But, those same rules given to all teams, give the GDC the ability to tweak the game. As always, those teams more prepared to adapt on the fly, will do better.

That's a little unfair for teams that don't have the time and resources to adapt on the fly. The game is hard enough as it is. Don't make it even harder for those teams with unnecessary rule changes.

Besides, even elite teams can't always just adapt on the fly. Some of them are very close to the weight limit, so there's no way they can add a level 3 climber without making big changes to their original design.

[bduddy]

I don't believe FIRST will exercise this clause, as I believe that it is in place only for a scenario like 2011 where one method of scoring is so powerful and so easy for all top teams to do that the match outcome is virtually assured, save for breakdowns or penalties. Changing the minibots points for championships that year would not have affected most teams, because by that point most teams had almost the same system, and it could be very easily adapted. Even then, the GDC would have given serious consideration before issuing the order to change the points. There's always SOMEONE who is greatly affected.

It is NOT a fallback because the game doesn't play exactly like they anticipated. I choose to believe the GDC understands the impact and the backlash that would result if they chose to change the points. Regardless of how the game actually plays, teams made strategy decisions at the beginning of the season based on the point distribution. This clause is for extreme scenarios, and is there "just in case".This is the key, I believe. The rule was added because of the 2011 game, which was massively unbalanced at the highest level of play to an almost unwatchable degree (IMO it wasn't a particularly well-designed game to begin with, but I digress). While they still do change the rules during the season a bit too much for my liking, I don't believe the GDC would actually exercise their option to change the game before the most important competition of all unless the situation was just as dire. You can argue about whether or not pyramid climbing is currently undervalued, but you certainly can't say with a straight face that it's even close to as bad as 2011 was.

[DMike]

I don't believe that i've seen one match with 6 hanging robots ???

[engunneer]

I don't believe that i've seen one match with 6 hanging robots ???

There have been plenty of matches, especially in eliminations, for 6x 10 point hangers. Also quite a few with 50-30 for final hanging points.

[DMike]

I watched the Finger Lakes and WPI regionals and was surprised at the lack of 10 point hangers. Many matches there were only 1 or two robots on a side hanging. With the implied simplicity of 10 point hanging I would think every robot would be sucessful. I see an exception for great shooters, you can score more points shooting 3's than hanging for 10. Unless you can shoot 3's and hang 10 at the same time.

[Andrew Schreiber]

That's a little unfair for teams that don't have the time and resources to adapt on the fly. The game is hard enough as it is. Don't make it even harder for those teams with unnecessary rule changes.

Besides, even elite teams can't always just adapt on the fly. Some of them are very close to the weight limit, so there's no way they can add a level 3 climber without making big changes to their original design.

Then those teams need to go find the resources to adapt on the fly. But that's more a general opinion of mine. I stand by my claim that changing the points is unnecessary, this game has turned out to be quite a good one to watch and play and the points are quite balanced as is.

[Jared Russell]

I think the game is balanced as it is. Dedicated 50 point climber-dumpers will probably not be #1 seeds in their divisions at champs, but they will be a sought-after commodity in eliminations at all levels of play.

[M.O'Reilly]

And that set of rules explicitly included the clause that climbing points could be varied by up to ±10 points. If a team didn't include that consideration as part of your strategy decisions then don't blame the GDC.

The core imbalance is that a relatively trivial capability on all three alliance robots - 10pt hang following the 3-day robot example - gives the same score as the much harder and riskier challenge of climbing the pyramid.

As several posters have already said, dropping the level 1 score to 5-7pts is probably the most likely action if there is any scoring change for Championships.

Considering a single robot in autonomous frequently goes for 40+ points in 15 seconds, and only one robot to date has climbed for 30 points in a 15 second window, the game is pretty lopsided.

Perhaps those teams predicted correctly how the game would be scored as is, but also consider MikeE's point quoted above.

I would be pretty disappointed at the end of the season if I felt like the hardest task FIRST has even assigned was undervalued. In a 150 point match, it only counts for 20% right now. I think FIRST reserved the right to change the point total to see how the game played out.

[pntbll1313]

Considering a single robot in autonomous frequently goes for 40+ points in 15 seconds, and only one robot to date has climbed for 30 points in a 15 second window, the game is pretty lopsided.

I'm pretty sure the number of robots that can score 40+ can be counted on one hand so far. And you need to be comparing teleop time to climb time. Since that is when both would be taking place. Probably about the same number of really good shooters can score 30pts in the last 45 seconds that can climb for 30pts in the last 45 seconds. It seems pretty even to me. I agree that this may be one of the hardest tasks FRC has given but at the same time they also released the point values. Knowing both should have determined your teams build strategy.

[Travis Hoffman]

I agree 100%. The GDC should not change the scoring for the champs. We all started out with the same rules and picked a strategy based on the rules and scoring that was presented. In our case we ruled out more than a 10 point hang as our feeling is that the 30 or 50 potential points of climbing is not worth the difficulty / risk of damage. It is a risk/reward thing but everybody looks at it different. That is what makes things interesting is to see the diversity of robots and the change in strategy as the competitons progress.

If the scoring had been higher for climbing out of the gate we would have factored that in and maybe went a different direction.

Ding Ding Ding! Winner, winner Thunderchicken dinner! :)

[Joe Ross]

Considering a single robot in autonomous frequently goes for 40+ points in 15 seconds, and only one robot to date has climbed for 30 points in a 15 second window, the game is pretty lopsided.

There are 12 teams that have an autonomous OPR of greater then 18. There are 13 teams with a climb OPR greater then 18.

[JVN]

Ding Ding Ding! Winner, winner Thunderchicken dinner! :)

Yes, we all started with the same rules, including:

As competition at the FIRST Championship is typically different from that during the competition season, FIRST may alter the value of CLIMBING at the FIRST Championship by up to ten (10) points per Level.

While I agree with much of what has been said, and I hope the points do NOT change, I find some of the arguments being made in this thread surprising. It said in the game manual, on day 1, that the points might vary.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Yes, we all started with the same rules, including:



While I agree with much of what has been said, and I hope the points do NOT change, I find some of the arguments being made in this thread, surprising. It said in the game manual, on day 1, that the points might vary.

I viewed that rules as a safeguard in case it was discovered that hanging was as over valued as minibots were in 2011. If the game were unbalanced and climbing or shooting were completely worthless I'd be all for changing it. As it stands, either is a perfectly viable strategy.

My primary complaint is the people that built solely hanging robots and complained that "we tried the harder challenge and aren't being rewarded like we thought we would be".

[SteveGPage]

I viewed that rules as a safeguard in case it was discovered that hanging was as over valued as minibots were in 2011. If the game were unbalanced and climbing or shooting were completely worthless I'd be all for changing it. As it stands, either is a perfectly viable strategy.

My primary complaint is the people that built solely hanging robots and complained that "we tried the harder challenge and aren't being rewarded like we thought we would be".

I'm with JVN on this. Historically, you are correct about the reasoning for the point adjustment. Who's to say that the GDC didn't add this rule for a completely different reason - that the parameters for Championships would be different than Regionals. When we strategized how we would build this year's bot, we designed it with that possibility in mind, since they were in the rules on day one.

Our build strategy thoughts were:

Climb points lowered = more shooting cycles, and climb to lower level or not at all.
Climb points higher = fewer shooting cycles and climb to 30.
Climb points the same = balance of shooting cycles with 20 point climb.

These strategies are also beneficial within the changing aspects of any match, especially in regional eliminations.

I don't think, given the way the GDC has adjusted the rules in the past, that you can design a bot for a static strategy. Those who say - "This isn't fair, I didn't account for any changes by the GDC" - are going to find it more difficult to advance at Championships.

Steve

[Andrew Schreiber]

Who's to say that the GDC didn't add this rule for a completely different reason - that the parameters for Championships would be different than Regionals. When we strategized how we would build this year's bot, we designed it with that possibility in mind, since they were in the rules on day one.


Because that'd be just plain silly and counterproductive. If this were an engineering competition I'd agree with you that it'd add in a good "real world" twist. But if the goal of this program is to change the culture we would be best to not discourage our kids with what I consider the darker side of engineering (the fact that sometimes the right solution is wrong because some arbitrary group decides your product is bad). Because explaining that they can't throw frisbees for safety reasons was hard. Explaining that that suddenly the rules change "because some dudes in their ivory tower decided it was so" is even worse. Though, I guess "to level the playing field" is even worse... so whatever. The GDC can do whatever they want... I'm just tired of hearing teams gripe about how their 30 point climber isn't an instant win.

[Racer26]

Other thought: How different would the game be if hanging for 10 was changed to hanging for 0?

[dodar]

Other thought: How different would the game be if hanging for 10 was changed to hanging for 0?

It wouldnt change the game that much. You would just see a wide difference in teams that would go for all hanging or all discs. You would still see either 2 elim strategies: 2 full-bore disc scorers or a full-bore disc scorer and a 50 point hanger. But if they did take away the 10 point hang, the GDC would have to increase the disc capacity by 1 or 2.

[rick.oliver]

Hey I know - let's make all non 30-point climbers blindfold their drivers for the last 30 seconds of the match! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

:D My sentiments exactly.

If the value for hanging is eliminated or the value of climbing to level 3 and/or 2 is increased the result will be more intense defense on a robot which does not immediately start their climb. Not sure that is the outcome desired by the GDC either.

[MikeE]

My primary complaint is the people that built solely hanging robots and complained that "we tried the harder challenge and aren't being rewarded like we thought we would be".

I'm not seeing (m)any posts like that.

What I am seeing is lots of posts from people who did not build a pyramid climbing capability into their robots and didn't read the rules completely now complaining that "we don't want any changes to rules which currently benefit us, so that they potentially benefit others".

And there is nothing wrong in that view until it gets wrapped up in self-serving and sanctimonious claims of "fairness".

I don't expect to see a change at the Championships. But as I stated earlier if there is a change I'd expect a moderate adjustment downwards for a level 1 hang rather than an increase in level 2 or 3 climbing.

[Akash Rastogi]

But as I stated earlier if there is a change I'd expect a moderate adjustment downwards for a level 1 hang rather than an increase in level 2 or 3 climbing.

Why? I don't quite understand the rationale for lowering the point value of a 1st level hang.

[rick.oliver]

... "we don't want any changes to rules which currently benefit us, so that they potentially benefit others". ...

Did not do the math on the posts and don't claim to be able to read minds ... You may well be correct.

Being among those who chose not to go for climbing, I will admit that I did not consider the potential of reducing the level 1 bonus while increasing the level 2 and 3 bonus when we decide on our strategy and design criteria. I doubt that it would have changed our decision.

It would certainly change our strategy for match play; that is if we are fortunate enough to qualify for Championships.

Finally, I believe that the GDC recognized how much easier it would be to achieve a level 1 climb versus the other two. I think that the bonus for autonomous scoring and climbing balance well. I think this game was designed to force teams to make choices and find ways to build a robust alliance to accomplish all of the game challenges ... I really like it.

Hope they don't feel the need to tweak it any more.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Being among those who chose not to go for climbing, I will admit that I did not consider the potential of reducing the level 1 bonus while increasing the level 2 and 3 bonus when we decide on our strategy and design criteria. I doubt that it would have changed our decision.


We did consider it. And we modeled it. I don't have a horse in the game because we did our analysis. If they announce they are changing it at CMP so be it. We'll play that game. It'll be a shame since this game is all kinds of exciting and fun to play as it is.

I'm not playing the "fair" card. I'm playing the it's a great game, why screw with it? card.

[Tetraman]

I think the important thing to note, is that the GDC is not going to just randomly add points to climbing without finding the correct amount of points to add to each rung, if any, that would generate a balance between disc and climb strategies in an event with much more competition.

My fear, however, and one of the main reasons the GDC puts this option into the rule book, is to make sure that all teams have a chance at #1 seed. I would find it a tad suspect if the top 8 in each division didn't include a robot that could climb for 30 every match but did include a sub par shooter.

I think that the climb points are correct and if there was a change to make, it would be so small and strange (like 10, 23, 36) that maybe it wouldn't be worth it to the GDC at all. However I am very open to adding some points.

[MikeE]

Why? I don't quite understand the rationale for lowering the point value of a 1st level hang.

Certainly, I'll explain my thought process for that position:

If there was to be a change in the endgame points, then the issue to address is the imbalance between the relatively easy task of hanging at level 1 vs the harder task of climbing to level 2 or level 3, i.e. my assumption is that there is an intra-endgame imbalance.
Adding additional points for level 2/3 climbing changes the balance between climbing and autonomous/teleop scoring, which clearly has a broader impact across all phases of the game.
Therefore reducing the points for a level 1 hang is a smaller change localized to the endgame.


I'll repeat again that I do not expect the points to be changed by the GDC.
More formally, p(GDC adjust points) < 0.5

Edit to add: Ultimate Ascent is a really good strategic game and could be seen as the best in the modern FRC era.

[Wayne TenBrink]

Regardless of what the GDC decides, I hope they make their decision and announce it soon. I hope they don't wait until the Championship or just remain silent on the issue.

Last year, did they ever annouce their decision that bridge points would not change at Championship? If so, when?

[cgmv123]

Last year, did they ever annouce their decision that bridge points would not change at Championship? If so, when?

Team update on April 17, or a week before championships. They said when they would in a Q&A, but the Q&A archive from last year doesn't have dates.

[Joe Ross]

Team update on April 17, or a week before championships. They said when they would in a Q&A, but the Q&A archive from last year doesn't have dates.

We asked that Q/A last year. We asked it the last week of events (if I remember correctly), and it wasn't answered for several weeks. It was only answered a day or two before the update was released.

[Doc Wu]

Hello Everyone,

It has become very apparent to me over the last few weeks that a level 3 climb, with or without scoring the colored discs, can easily be outscored. Many teams that can climb to level 3 dedicated their entire build season just to being able to climb due to its difficulty. There are a handful of teams that can easily climb and shoot, like 1114, 148, etc. but many non-powerhouse teams that climb can only climb.


Why? 1114 doesn't need the points :yikes: If they can do it all, why should a team that spent all their efforts on one thing, climbing, be rewarded for skipping the rest?

One robot hangs at 30 points and negates any advantage of an entire alliance hanging for 10 points each. Plus their partners are still free to do either, hang or shoot.

Yes, hanging at the top is hard, but so is shooting 10 three-pointers. I think the points are just right.

[efoote868]

At the championship, I wouldn't mind if a level 1 hang was downgraded with respect to a level 2 or level 3 hang. I feel like 10-25-40 points is a nice balance between the climbs and rewards the more difficult and more time consuming tasks.

I don't want the level 1 hang to change in points, simply because the current endgame dynamic is fascinating. What should a team do in the last 15 seconds? Should they play defense on the fast and accurate shooter to try and prevent them from scoring another 12 points, or should they go hang for a guaranteed 10? Should they try and get another 4 disks and score another 12 points, or should they get fewer disks but leave more time to hang for 10?

Also nothing is cooler than a robot hanging for 10, and then shooting their remaining disks as a buzzer beater.