[EWCP] EWCPCast Review of District Point Structure

[EricDrost]

EWCPCast is back!

Tune in Wednesday, 11/6, at 9PM EST as EWCPCast presents an analysis of the Standardized District Point Structure.

Special guests Jim Zondag and Jon Jack weigh in and answer our questions on the new point structure. Be sure to tune in!

Follow the link below to listen and be a part of our live chat:
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=98466&cmd=tc

As always, EWCPCast is recorded and available in the same location as live broadcasts are.

[AllenGregoryIV]

This is exciting, I can't wait to hear what Jim and Jon have to say about all of this. The original District cast (from 11/27/2011) should be required listening, Jim does a great job of explaining the reasoning behind Michigan's initial system and point system.

[EricDrost]

This is exciting, I can't wait to hear what Jim and Jon have to say about all of this. The original District cast (from 11/27/2011) should be required listening, Jim does a great job of explaining the reasoning behind Michigan's initial system and point system.

Small correction, the original cast was 12/12/2011. Here is a direct link: http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-98466/TS-569023.mp3
(http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-98466/TS-569023.mp3)
Thanks Allen!

[AllenGregoryIV]

Small correction, the original cast was 12/12/2011. Here is a direct link: http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-98466/TS-569023.mp3
(http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-98466/TS-569023.mp3)
Thanks Allen!

Sorry not sure how I copied the date so completely incorrectly. Thanks for catching that.

[DampRobot]

Sweet! I'll be tuning in. EWCPcasts are always cool parts of the offseason.

[Andrew Lawrence]

The cast is back! Can't wait to hear the views on the new model from both an experienced individual in the district system, and a newcomer for when the California Model comes in 2015.

[Ben Martin]

Thanks for setting this up, guys--sure to be a great listen. I look forward to it.

[avanboekel]

EWCP is back! I can't wait to listen.

edit: ooh. This conflicts with Karthiks "Effective FIRST Strategies" Webinar that night :(

[Akash Rastogi]

EWCP is back! I can't wait to listen.

edit: ooh. This conflicts with Karthiks "Effective FIRST Strategies" Webinar that night :(

Both will be up as recordings, I believe. I'll be tuning into the EWCPcast because folks in the chat will probably be able to ask Jon and Jim questions in real time.

Looking forward to the cast, Eric & all!

[rsisk]

Hey everyone, don't forget to join us tonight at 9PM Eastern to hear Jon Jack and Jim Zondag talk about the new District Point System

http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/98466

[PayneTrain]

EWCP is back! I can't wait to listen.

edit: ooh. This conflicts with Karthiks "Effective FIRST Strategies" Webinar that night :(

The presentation on effective FIRST Strategies will likely much more time than the entire two hour gap between the start of it and the start of this podcast.

Also, there's no way this will start on time. They never start on time : D

[Andrew Schreiber]

The presentation on effective FIRST Strategies will likely much more time than the entire two hour gap between the start of it and the start of this podcast.

Also, there's no way this will start on time. They never start on time : D

We never start "on time" but we're usually only 10 minutes late while we give people time to connect.

[Robotmmm]

I am really looking forward to this cast. It is always better to hear participants in decision making processes explain the logic behind their thoughts. Much more educational than reading endlessly speculative threads.

[Andrew Schreiber]

For those of you joining us tonight, live.ewcp.org should take you straight to our Talkshoe page, click the big purple button. :)

If it doesn't the link is http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=98466&cmd=tc I just set up this dns record so give it a few to propagate.

[MikeE]

Thanks for putting this together. It was a very enlightening discussion.

[BrendanB]

Yep, knew I missed something tonight.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Yep, knew I missed something tonight.

Aww I'm sorry, have a cookie (http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-98466/TS-801525.mp3) (recording). And the response to said cookie https://docs.google.com/a/ewcp.org/document/d/1vnescGza1T4md9VqWcr2JH89-ctguCY3hQsm-FE_OJk/edit?usp=drive_web (chat transcript)... and I guess I can give you the recipe too. https://docs.google.com/a/ewcp.org/document/d/1gayADV8pQurklp8bcI74tiFlV7HS7xszo3MyYu2RqPQ/edit (outline)

[Andrew Schreiber]

Thanks for putting this together. It was a very enlightening discussion.

Our pleasure, if there are any other topics you'd like to hear about drop us a line contact @ ewcp.org and we'll do what we can.

[Nathan Streeter]

Very good podcast... thank you very much for conducting it, EWCP, Jim Zondag, and Jon Jack! Thank you for the insight "behind the scenes" into the thought process involved in the committee making this point system!

Reading between the lines about elimination wins... was the concern with giving points for each win in eliminations basically that alliances that felt confident would "throw" a match to "share" a few points with their opponents? Was there a different loophole concern? I'm personally in favor of elimination win points simply being [# of wins your robot participated in] * 5, enabling teams who win a single match to get 5 points for that. The point system works to award points not just to those that win, but also to those that came close(r). While I don't have the analytics to show it, I do think this would help distinguish all the quarterfinalists from each other.

I'd be very interested in seeing some of the analytics that Jim Zondag mentioned he may be writing up... I'll be interested in seeing those when Jim finds the time to document and publish them!

[MikeE]

Very good podcast... thank you very much for conducting it, EWCP, Jim Zondag, and Jon Jack! Thank you for the insight "behind the scenes" into the thought process involved in the committee making this point system!

Reading between the lines about elimination wins... was the concern with giving points for each win in eliminations basically that alliances that felt confident would "throw" a match to "share" a few points with their opponents? Was there a different loophole concern? I'm personally in favor of elimination win points simply being [# of wins your robot participated in] * 5, enabling teams who win a single match to get 5 points for that. The point system works to award points not just to those that win, but also to those that came close(r). While I don't have the analytics to show it, I do think this would help distinguish all the quarterfinalists from each other.

I'd be very interested in seeing some of the analytics that Jim Zondag mentioned he may be writing up... I'll be interested in seeing those when Jim finds the time to document and publish them!

Analysis of the week 1-6 2013 twitter data showed that ~27% of elimination rounds went to a third match, so the extra 5 points would on average be awarded to two alliances per event (i.e. total elimination points increase from 210 per event to a mean of 243 per event). It would have an impact on points but maybe little change to which team advance at each level.

I also appreciate Jim clarifying that the "no more points if you are replaced by a backup" rule was actually in place in FiM for the past few seasons and was invoked rarely (twice in FiM and once in MAR if I recall correctly). Of course it may have been rare because the rule drastically curtails the points accrued to the withdrawing robot!

If I seem a little fixated on this point it's because as a New Englander eagerly awaiting Districts I do anticipate an increased robot failure rate as teams adjust to playing far more matches per event.

[IKE]

...snip...If I seem a little fixated on this point it's because as a New Englander eagerly awaiting Districts I do anticipate an increased robot failure rate as teams adjust to playing far more matches per event.

Envoking a replacement bot is rare because the terminal breakdowns are rare (usually you can fix things), and about 50% of the time in elims, a breakdown means your packing up (loosing because of a breakdown for a second loss ends the advancement, and thus the need for a back-up).

They do happen, just not very often.