Will The GDC Change Climb Points?!?

[pandamonium]

The GDC inserted a clause that gives them the ability to modify climb points.

"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."

I Personally really hope that they will increase the 30 point level to 40 points. This would make each progression 2x the level below. The problem is that so many people have become efficient at 10 point climbs the 30 point climb is not worth as much as it was earlier on.

10
20
40

This change would make the competition even more competitive at champs and make alliance selections more interesting as well. A good amount of 30 point climbers have already qualified for champs by winning regionals as 3rd pics. At the FIRST Championship alliance selection will be different as their are more teams and a large number of great teams. As the scoring stands right now I do not think that many 30 point climbers will be picked.

I am very interested what the FIRST community at large thinks. Perhaps I am really off base here or slightly biased because we have a robot capable of a 30 point hang.

[Steven Donow]

I don't think they will. The "ten-point clause" was new in the manual last year, and I think that it's there just to give the GDC an option if the game turned out completely imbalanced.

If they do change it, that will anger a lot of people. In contrast to balancing last year, in order to do a 30 point climb, you have to fully design your robot around it. Last year, triple balancing was something doable even if your robot wasn't designed to only triple balance.

[JohnFogarty]

The weird thing is, because robots have to be designed around the 30-pt climb to be able to accomplish the goal..gives more of a reason to make it worth more to do so. IMHO.

[akoscielski3]

The weird thing is, because robots have to be designed around the 30-pt climb to be able to accomplish the goal..gives more of a reason to make it worth more to do so. IMHO.

I guarantee you that if the 30 pt climb was worth more then 30pts more teams would have designed and built a robot to do the 30pt climb, however since the pts weren't as high, less teams did so. It would be very upsetting to a lot of team if they were to change the amount of pts awarded to a level 3 climb.

[JohnSchneider]

The weird thing is, because robots have to be designed around the 30-pt climb to be able to accomplish the goal..gives more of a reason to make it worth more to do so. IMHO.

No it's just another knife in the back to people who chose to not 30pt climb in favor of (not exclusively) shooting (and more exclusively) floor load.

[Moriarty]

There was a thread discussing this a couple of weeks ago, and the main issue with doing this is that all the design decisions of every team, regardless of whether they have a climber or not, were made fully taking into account the point values as they were at the start of the season. For this reason, any changes in the point structure would be unfair to the teams that took into account that point value and decided it wasn't worth the cost.

As it turns out, a 30 point climb alone does not make a strong competitor. However, a 30 point climber with a 20 point dump makes a very strong one. 30-point-climbers should focus on improving their robots (20 lb allowance) rather than petition for more points. Teams that made a decision they now regret should own it, learn from it, and work to improve it.

[BigJ]

There was a thread discussing this a couple of weeks ago, and the main issue with doing this is that all the design decisions of every team, regardless of whether they have a climber or not, were made fully taking into account the point values as they were at the start of the season.

I am for keeping the points the same, but the point-change rule was in there from day 1.

[Grim Tuesday]

The weird thing is, because robots have to be designed around the 30-pt climb to be able to accomplish the goal..gives more of a reason to make it worth more to do so. IMHO.

And that is precisely the reason they shouldn't change it.

[JesseK]

No it's just another knife in the back to people who chose to not 30pt climb in favor of (not exclusively) shooting (and more exclusively) floor load.

On the contrary, floor loading is still very useful outside of autonomous. Heavy defense being played at midfield? Just pick up some discs around your pyramid for a cycle. There's a good chance the defense will be baited to chase you, leaving mid-field open after the 4 discs are done.

[dellagd]

Teams design their robot around the amount of points different actions give. This calculation should be based on numbers, so adding points to one action throws off the initial decisions that teams made, favoring roar that choose to go for the third level and hurting those that didn't.

That being said, while the added points might forcer teams to make more "spectator-exciting" decisions, I don't think they will change it. That clause is just in there so that if the GDC messes up big time, they can fix it.

Maybe some more experienced FIRST-ers could tell if they ever changed the point values mid season before.

[Chris is me]

The game is very well balanced already. Changing the point values at this point just rewards teams who made some design decisions over others, rather than fixing a broken game.

In 2011, the GDC had no option to change minibot point values after it became apparent that a 1st + 2nd place minibot basically resulted in an unbeatable alliance at the high level. That is why the rule to change end game points was added in 2012 and 2013. 30 point climbs do not unbalance the game in such a way. I would be very disappointed if the point levels changed.

[MrForbes]

I can see both sides of this issue, and I kind of favor changing to 40 points for the 3rd level climb. It's difficult enough that it should be rewarded more.

[Samwaldo]

GREAT IDEA HERE:

What if they did something similar to last years game: The pyramid point values remained the same but during eliminations the 3rd level is raised slightly. I've noticed in eliminations (especially as it gets closer to the finals) 30pt climbing hasn't been making as much as a difference as most would think. (Example: In CT, the winners would of won almost all their match without the 30 point climb made by 95) Also not as many climbers are being chosen for alliances than what people thought initially.

Just like in 2012, strategy changed when the bridge points were increased during eliminations. Robot shape and balancing abilities all of a sudden were more important. If this was done in 2013, climbing would be alot more important for those choosing alliances



*This is just my opinion, meaning some stuff may be wrong in your eyes

[connor.worley]

I can only see the GDC reducing points to balance the game (and there's no need to do this at the moment). Increasing points would be disadvantageous for teams without practice robots or mock pyramids.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Disclaimer** I am fully okay with climbing to the top being worth 30 points**

The rule to change points seems to be wrong in every scenario I can think of. It seems everyone would be okay with climbing would be lowered if to fix a broken game but what does a broken game mean. Does it mean that climbing is stronger than shooting and so points should be lowered because climbers are too dominant. I think most can agree that shooting is far more stronger than climbing and so by using that same logic this is a broken game. All in all I would not like the points to change and hope the GDC won't put this disclaimer in the rules from now on.

[JohnSchneider]

On the contrary, floor loading is still very useful outside of autonomous. Heavy defense being played at midfield? Just pick up some discs around your pyramid for a cycle. There's a good chance the defense will be baited to chase you, leaving mid-field open after the 4 discs are done.

I think you misunderstand. I meant it as "another" meaning that you still lose some usability (picking up during "the storm") even if you retain some. It's not all or nothing but is definitely a hit. Just like increasing climb points would be.

[Grim Tuesday]

There are two different questions people are answering here:


Should climbing be worth more points?
Should the GDC change climbing to be worth more points?


To me, these questions have different answers.

[pfreivald]

I'd like to see them increase the 30 to 40, leave the 20 at 20, and reduce the 10 to 5.

[JohnSchneider]

I'd like to see them increase the 30 to 40, leave the 20 at 20, and reduce the 10 to 5.

You must be a climber ;)

[dellagd]

I'd like to see them increase the 30 to 40, leave the 20 at 20, and reduce the 10 to 5.

I'd Agree if we were with the GDC back before Jan 5th (Well, earlier than that, but you get the point), and I do feel that 10 is so easy to get that 10 is a little gracious.

[PayneTrain]

I feel like most people making earnest pushes for point changes are either bad strategists, not strategists, or apologists for their team's strategists.

Choosing to designate a strategy that revolved around your team building a robot specifically for field motion and climbing and not getting the result you wanted out of competition is tough, but it's just that... tough, not unfair, or unbalanced, or un-GP, or un-whatever.

The current point balancing has not broken the game in the way some could say it was in 2011 (the likely reason for this provision), the game is just somewhat deviating from the way FRC games have historically been played, with higher teleoperated scores across the board.

Changing the points now looks like a shameless attempt to prop up teams that decided on their own to box themselves in to one dimension of play.

[Tom Line]

I guarantee you that if the 30 pt climb was worth more then 30pts more teams would have designed and built a robot to do the 30pt climb, however since the pts weren't as high, less teams did so. It would be very upsetting to a lot of team if they were to change the amount of pts awarded to a level 3 climb.

I agree completely. Many teams develop a strategy based around how the game is scored. They look at things like transit time, loading time, climbing time, and shooting time to evaluate trade-offs in different avenues of design.

Changing one of those metrics by 25%, or by about the amount you'd get with a transit of the field and a volley of 4 frisbees would drastically alter the model of the game, and invalidate a lot of the planning that went on to design the robots.

[Gary Dillard]

I feel like most people making earnest pushes for point changes are either bad strategists, not strategists, or apologists for their team's strategists.

So if a team chose a design that limits their points without a change, they're bad strategists and it's tough but not unfair if no change is made. But if you chose a design that can't take advantage of a potential change in points that has been in the rules since day one and the GDC does make the change, then you're a good strategist and it's tough and unfair?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..............

[Cory]

A change would be stupid. This is the most balanced game in years. Absolutely no reason to change.

People are looking at the trees instead of the forest. The game is playing out in an exciting and dynamic manner. Why would the GDC want to change that just to appeal to a small minority who think that 30 pt climbing should be worth more?

At any rate, if they did increase 30 to 40 or decrease the 10 pt climb (really dumb idea) it only serves to make the strong unassailable. Most teams who climb for 30 can't do so in a timely fashion, which limits their effectiveness regardless of how many points it's worth.

[MooreteP]

I was thinking about posting a fake team update yesterday, but time and tide worked against me, so here it is.

In order to level the playing field for the pyramid, the following rule changes are being implemented for the remaining competitions as well as the Championships.

1) The third level of the pyramid is now worth 40 points.
2) The three point goal is now worth one point, and the one point goal is now worth three points
3) The two point goal scores will be doubled for the left goal in odd numbered matches, and doubled for the right goal in even numbered matches.
4) There will be a deduction of $20 from your AndyMark First Choice account next year for each belay from the third level at Championships.
5) Any additions to your Robot after alliance selections will be assessed a technical foul for each match.
:)

[pfreivald]

You must be a climber ;)

Nope! Shooter with a 10-point hang.

As for strategy etc, we've known since kickoff that the point change is a possibility. Anyone who didn't plan for that didn't plan for all the variables they could have... That doesn't make them stupid or poor strategists, it just means that they took different risks than others.

[MikeE]

Earlier thread on the same topic (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114945)

If your primary intent is to score as many points as possible, and you can't climb above a 10-point hang, then it makes complete sense to decry any change to the current points.

If your intent is to score as many points as possible and your team has a full-pyramid climber and you are attending the Championship, then it makes sense to hope for the GDC to increase the current 30pt climb to 40pts.

If your intent is to encourage an exciting spectacle then it also makes sense to increase the points for a full pyramid climb.

What I don't understand is the argument that making an adjustment which has been explicitly listed in the Game Manual since Kickoff is "unfair". Why is the blue box in section 3.1.5.2 any less "fair" than other parts of the game design?

[Travis Hoffman]

I'd like to see them increase the 30 to 40, leave the 20 at 20, and reduce the 10 to 5.

Good - even more reason for 10-point hangers to freak climbers out by keeping them away from their pyramids late in matches. A 10 hang is worth less, might as well go push a climber across the field. Be careful what ye climbers wish for!

Greater potential score at the top means an equally greater incentive to deter it - BRING ON THE D. :)

[RyanShoff]

might as well go push a climber across the field. Be careful what ye climbers wish for!


Bring it on. See you at Crossroads. :)

[pfreivald]

Greater potential score at the top means an equally greater incentive to deter it - BRING ON THE D. :)

Yeah! I love me some quality D!

[Zuelu562]

The "Fixing the Game" Clause was placed in the manual, as pointed out earlier, after 2011 because the initial minibot point level not only broke, but snapped Logomotion in two.

In this light, do I believe that something is wrong? Yes. Level 1 climb is WAY too easy for the points and Level 3 Climb Points may be too low for what it required. But by no means is the game "Broken" by this; In Logomotion, if the opposing alliance got 1st and 2nd in the minibot race, the only way you had a chance is if all they did was minibots. You can very easily come back from 1 or even 2 30 point hangs.

[pandamonium]

Wow I did not mean to create a war between climbers and shooters. Even if you do not have a climbing robot remember that increasing the points of a 30 point climb ubecause you do not know what your aliance parrtners will do.

[Grim Tuesday]

Everyone says the "fixing the game clause" was put because of 2011's minibot imbalance. Can anyone cite a source for that or is that just why Chief Delphi thinks it was put in?

[D.Allred]

Do I think the GDC will change the climb points? Most likely not.

Do I think they should change the climb points? No. The game is well balanced as is.

Is my team a climber? Yes. We have zero regrets with our choice or performance.

It will be interesting to see if climbing points impact Championship alliance selections. According to the Twitter data feed**, a significant majority of winning alliances have averaged less than 30 total climb points per match. I think this will change.

** Thank you Ether for posting.

[class1234567]

.
People are looking at the trees instead of the forest. The game is playing out in an exciting and dynamic manner. Why would the GDC want to change that just to appeal to a small minority who think that 30 pt climbing should be worth more?.

This just about sums it up.

[Seth Mallory]

After reading the rules again it does state that the scoring values can be changed. By that argument they could change the third level climb to 20 points. That would also just as fair as changing to 40 points. I like keeping the rules the same since the teams did the math and planned things out.

[PayneTrain]

So if a team chose a design that limits their points without a change, they're bad strategists and it's tough but not unfair if no change is made. But if you chose a design that can't take advantage of a potential change in points that has been in the rules since day one and the GDC does make the change, then you're a good strategist and it's tough and unfair?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..............

At the very least, the design that can't take advantage of a potential change in points that has been in the rules since day one at least decided to go with the scoring that is supposed to take place in 80% of the game that can't be changed. A 30 point climb could also be worth 20 by the rules.

I also never said the rule change would be unfair. I implied it is needless because the implied intent of the rule, balancing the scoring of the endgame to maintain the importance of teleop, is seen as largely unnecessary by all but a small minority of people who put all of their eggs into the climbing basket, and making a move like this points adjustment to acquiesce this minority would be unwelcomed.

Everyone says the "fixing the game clause" was put because of 2011's minibot imbalance. Can anyone cite a source for that or is that just why Chief Delphi thinks it was put in?

Minibot scoring was weighted heavily in 2011 by the opinions of a lot of people. This provision was added to the endgame in 2012 and 2013. The reasoning isn't something that will likely ever be admitted by the GDC, but it's a pretty slam-dunk assumption.

[Andy A.]

Climbing to the third row should be worth more.

The GDC should not revise the point values, nor do I expect them to,

Climbing's hard and exciting to watch. If the GDC were to reissue the rules knowing what they know now I suspect it'd be valued higher, if for no other reason to encourage a more exciting end game. Or, just as good as higher point values, less restrictive climbing rules, something they already did mid season.

Still, I don't think the issue rises anywhere near the level that would invoke a point change in champs. The game isn't broken, just not quite optimal, and even that's a matter of some opinion.

[themccannman]

There was a thread discussing this a couple of weeks ago, and the main issue with doing this is that all the design decisions of every team, regardless of whether they have a climber or not, were made fully taking into account the point values as they were at the start of the season. For this reason, any changes in the point structure would be unfair to the teams that took into account that point value and decided it wasn't worth the cost.

As it turns out, a 30 point climb alone does not make a strong competitor. However, a 30 point climber with a 20 point dump makes a very strong one. 30-point-climbers should focus on improving their robots (20 lb allowance) rather than petition for more points. Teams that made a decision they now regret should own it, learn from it, and work to improve it.

This is the best argument in this thread. Changing the strategy of the game at championships would nullify the entire strategic aspect of FRC since you would no longer be competing in the same competition that you originally designed your robot for; and it could ruin the credibility of the game makers in the future.

As someone else said previously the only reason that the ability to change points is in the rules is in case the game turned out to be extremely unbalanced within the first couple weeks of competition.

[Nick Lawrence]

While I wouldn't put it past the GDC to make slight changes that adversely affect a significant amount of teams, (mind you, the blizzard reduction was a good call,) I don't think they'll do this.

Don't fix what a'int broke.

-Nick

[Moriarty]

While I wouldn't put it past the GDC to make slight changes that adversely affect a significant amount of teams, (mind you, the blizzard reduction was a good call,)

In addition, the blizzard reduction was for safety and had minimal impact on strategy (when compared to climbing)

[Nick Lawrence]

In addition, the blizzard reduction was for safety and had minimal impact on strategy (when compared to climbing)

I completely disagree. Not to rehash this and hijack the thread, but MANY teams designed their robots around floor loading in both auto and teleop (specifically the last ~25 seconds or so) instead of climbing. I can't tell you how many messages I fielded that day from friends about that.

GDC made the right call, though.

-Nick

[Gregor]

Should a level 3 climb be worth more? Yes
Should a level 3 point value be changed now? No

[EricDrost]

the blizzard reduction had minimal impact on strategy

Have you SEEN a floorloading robot clean up the misses from a FCS? That's what the blizzard would have been like in Quals matches when the feeder stations have lots of frisbees left.

[S.P.A.M.er 17]

From this and the other thread that was created, I generally don't see that many teams "regretting" their decisions to climb. The general arguments for inflating level 3 climbs are: The feat is more than 3x difficult than a ten point hang, a more exciting end game, and an interesting twist to strategy. No where do I see the words "We regret..." Infact, a member of Team 4451 (with an incredible climber/dumper) just said quite the opposite. Now that doesn't mean 30 pt climbers would be utterly destroyed to find out that their OPR has a ten point increase coming its way.

The real question is do these arguments warrant a change? With the way the game has played out, my opinion is that they do not. But that doesn't matter because it is up to the GDC, not me nor any other Delphi poster. It has been this way since day one.

The point of my post is not to argue for/against a change. It is to ask for people to stop putting words into other teams mouth and insulting teams for choosing a certain strategy. Now if your team does regret the decision to climb, please share with others why so that they can learn from your decision. This is a learning experience, not a place to brag that you read your crystal ball better than others.

[Anthony Galea]

I do not think they will change it to 40, because of the possible uproar stated, but is it possible they will change it to 35? Not too much impact, but I bet it might influence a few matches.

[Jaxom]

The point of my post is not to argue for/against a change. It is to ask for people to stop putting words into other teams mouth and insulting teams for choosing a certain strategy. Now if your team does regret the decision to climb, please share with others why so that they can learn from your decision. This is a learning experience, not a place to brag that you read your crystal ball better than others.

Best thought in the thread. Well said.

[Sean Raia]

5
20
30

Increase the value of the 30 point climbers by decreasing the value of the "strap-on" level 1 climbers...

If it was going to get changed at all that's the way I see it going.

[efoote868]

I'd argue to keep the level 1 hang as 10 points; it makes the game more exciting. When there's 15 seconds left in the match, your robot is empty of discs you have an important decision to make: try for 12 points or grab 10. Depending on your design neither or guaranteed. It also makes for an interesting dynamic for defenders. Should you let the other teams do their thing and try to get an extra 10 points for your alliance, or should you try to prevent them from having an opportunity to score 12?

Lowering the points to 5 makes the answer a bit more obvious - get 2 discs in and you're doing better than attempting a hang, and 2 discs isn't going to be much of a challenge for most reasonably competitive teams. It also makes the answer obvious for the defender - prevent them from scoring 12 instead of attempting 5.

[Travis Hoffman]

It also makes the answer obvious for the defender - prevent them from scoring 12 instead of attempting 5.

Or scoring 30...or 50. Let's get nuts!