Point Value Changes for Champs

[JesseK]

Per the Game Manual, the Blue Box under 3.1.2.4 states As competition at the FIRST Championship is typically different from that during rest of the competition season, FIRST may alter each scoring value at the FIRST Championship.

At Champs, will we have hit a threshold in level of play where point values should be re-adjusted in order to remove the 'insta-win' autonomous Canburglaring, and if so what point values should be adjusted?

For example, the GDC could theoretically alter Autonomous values, which are at some of their lowest point values relative to actual gameplay scores (%-wise) that I can remember outside of 2009. For further incentives, the GDC could mandate that only the containers in the pre-staged alliance zones count towards the container set. However, this would simply lead to a Teleop Canburglar race, which then means we're still back to an autonomous Canburglar race.

What other point adjustments could the GDC make, and how would it impact play?

[Taylor]

They could re-evaluate the use of golden totes after autonomous and after their usefulness for coop score has been achieved.

[Drakxii]

It would be really nice to up the auto scoring. It could lessen the can burglar race and make so that we don't get a bunch of championship matches with no auto mode score, but... I doubt they will.

[notmattlythgoe]

It would be really nice to up the auto scoring. It could lessen the can burglar race and make so that we don't get a bunch of championship matches with no auto mode score, but... I doubt they will.

Would increasing the value of auto really stop the can burglar race? You still need the cans or you cap your score pretty quickly.

[Drakxii]

Would increasing the value of auto really stop the can burglar race? You still need the cans or you cap your score pretty quickly.

In Elims? Probably not, since you will have a bots doing auto and bots doing can grabbing on the same team. In Quals maybe depends on how high they make the auto scoring.

[Nemo]

How about this:

Gray totes: 3 pts
Green cans: 3 pts per level


Same total value for full capped stacks
Cans still very important / doesn't invalidate canburglar teams
0-4 can split is still hopeless, but 1-3 split might be interesting sometimes

[FrankJ]

Seeing that the GDC didn't make a provision in the rules for adjusting point values for championships, they really cannot. The teams that built a robot for the current rule set would have an legitimate beef.

[cmrnpizzo14]

Seeing that the GDC didn't make a provision in the rules for adjusting point values for championships, they really cannot. The teams that built a robot for the current rule set would have an legitimate beef.

Does it not have that caveat this year? I thought the quote in the first post of this thread was from this year's manual.

[notmattlythgoe]

Seeing that the GDC didn't make a provision in the rules for adjusting point values for championships, they really cannot. The teams that built a robot for the current rule set would have an legitimate beef.

Except they did, like Jesse said, it's in the blue box under 3.1.2.4

[Loose Screw]

I think it would be nice to either reduce the points that RCs have (4-->2 per level), or increase the amount totes give (2-->3 per tote).

I would like to see alliances that can score all 8 6-stacks (5HP, 3 landfill) compete with those that steal cans in auto.

Alliance 1: 8 6-stacks, 3 with RCs: 8*6*2+4*6*3= 168

Alliance 2: 5 6-stacks, all with RCs: 5*6*2+4*6*5= 180

A very exciting match, yes, but it was over in the first few seconds in auto. Not counting litter or auto (about the same if both alliances do it), the alliance that scored everything it could lost to an alliance that still has 2 RCs and 18 totes.

Now with reduced RC value,

Alliance 1: 8 6-stacks, 3 with RCs: 8*6*2+2*6*3= 132

Alliance 2: 5 6-stacks, all with RCs: 5*6*2+2*6*5= 120

This way, the alliance that scored 3 more sets of totes is rewarded with the win. Alliance 2 would have to work harder to win (just one more stack of 3totes+RC to tie). However, this scoring method would lower scores, messing with OPR and such.

Increasing tote worth,

Alliance 1: 8 6-stacks, 3 with RCs: 8*6*3+4*6*3= 216

Alliance 2: 5 6-stacks, all with RCs: 5*6*3+4*6*5= 210

In this case, Alliance 1 would have a very close victory, but still be rewarded with scoring everything they can. If alliance 2 steps up their game, they could easily win.

My point is that I don't believe that 1 container should add 2 stacks worth of points. This system will decide matches based on who can get the containers in auto first. Last second stacks will have no meaning without containers, and all excitement will be lost after the first 5 seconds of the match.

[Sunshine]

If you increase the autonomous tote stack points from 20 to 60, you in essence devalue the burglary. If you increase the value of autonomous container sets from staging zones from 8 points (way too low IMHO) to 40 points and keep same point value if taken from steps, you in essence devalue the burglary. One or both scoring changes work.

[FrankJ]

Except they did, like Jesse said, it's in the blue box under 3.1.2.4

OOPS I should have read the manual better. :]

[Matt_Boehm_329]

If you increase the autonomous tote stack points from 20 to 60, you in essence devalue the burglary. If you increase the value of autonomous container sets from staging zones from 8 points (way too low IMHO) to 40 points and keep same point value if taken from steps, you in essence devalue the burglary. One or both scoring changes work.

Wouldn't this greatly overpower the teams that are able to do the current 3 tote auto? How does this devalue the burglary. I would think in playoffs each team would be able to run a 60 point auto either making the auto points a wash or making an alliance with can burglars even more powerful if the opposing one didn't have that same auto.

[Abhishek R]

Wouldn't this greatly overpower the teams that are able to do the current 3 tote auto? How does this devalue the burglary. I would think in playoffs each team would be able to run a 60 point auto either making the auto points a wash or making an alliance with can burglars even more powerful if the opposing one didn't have that same auto.

Both alliances can get auto, both alliances can't get 4 cans of the step.

[Matt_Boehm_329]

Both alliances can get auto, both alliances can't get 4 cans of the step.

Exactly, so changing auto points wouldn't help

[pandamonium]

Changing Auto points would absolutely help! 16pts for 3 staging zone bins seems about right

[Wired_Mike]

RC= 12 pts per level but -2 per level for each RC retrieved from the step by your alliance , would greatly balance one's consideration for those center cans.

If one alliance grabbed 3 off the step and the other none and all made six stacks with every one of those containers, the points would be equal (not including other contributors towards score) therefore making the alliance re-evaluate how much they "need" those center RCs.

[Matt_Boehm_329]

RC= 12 pts per level but -2 per level for each RC retrieved from the step by your alliance , would greatly balance one's consideration for those center cans.

If one alliance grabbed 3 off the step and the other none and all made six stacks with every one of those containers, the points would be equal (not including other contributors towards score) therefore making the alliance re-evaluate how much they "need" those center RCs.

So why grab cans then if the other team who didn't would score the same amount of points? or is this to allow both teams to grab 2? If so why not just start each side with 5 then?

[Wired_Mike]

So why grab cans then if the other team who didn't would score the same amount of points? or is this to allow both teams to grab 2? If so why not just start each side with 5 then?

This would pressure teams to consider the equilibrial effect of can grabbing.

If you left the center step cans alone and just had three you may be able to score more individual tote points after the stacks are made, or if you took 3 RC's plus the 3 you had you could more effectively score litter. It would put more emphasis on the strategical skills rather then the skills of the bot itself. Teams would have to more reasonably consider the pitfalls of grabbing a center RC but not being able to use it.

Edit: Sorry, had a realization, the points wouldn't be equal due to the larger number of totes stacked by the alliance with (6) six tall RC stacks in the first place, was thinking too much about RCs and forgot about the 36 additional pts of totes making up those other three stacks.

P.S. This originally predicted rule change was made when I was a little tired + creative, and I understand it isn't the most realistic idea.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Honestly a point value adjustment would be a great improvement to the game if it was made far earlier in the season. At least for us, we are halfway through doing a big redesign for the game we knew was going to happen at champs. Changing the game now would be a huge blow for us and any other teams that may have made big redesigns specifically because they knew the center cans were so critical. If it does happen, I would much rather it happen right now or as soon as humanely possible so teams can make accommodations as nessasary.

[themccannman]

If the yellow auto stack was worth 8,000,000 points it wouldn't change anything except for the fact that if a team failed auto they would just immediately throw in the towel. The can races would still happen. There is no solution to the can race with the current game setup, if there is any advantage to be gained by having more RCs then people will always be racing for them, if there's no advantage to be gained then every alliance will just ignore them completely, everyone will build there 3 stacks, run auto, then stop playing because the center RCs wouldn't help them at all.

Nothing will change at champs, nothing should change either, there is no solution to "balancing" the center cans, there will always be RC races as long as they are worth any points at all.

[Abhishek R]

If the yellow auto stack was worth 8,000,000 points it wouldn't change anything except for the fact that if a team failed auto they would just immediately throw in the towel. The can races would still happen. There is no solution to the can race with the current game setup, if there is any advantage to be gained by having more RCs then people will always be racing for them, if there's no advantage to be gained then every alliance will just ignore them completely, everyone will build there 3 stacks, run auto, then stop playing because the center RCs wouldn't help them at all.

Nothing will change at champs, nothing should change either, there is no solution to "balancing" the center cans, there will always be RC races as long as they are worth any points at all.

Agreed, if a change were to happen it needs to disincentivize the cans in the middle. Originally I was thinking making the container set worth more (since it's pretty rare, maybe teams would try and make that happen instead of getting the cans from the step) but honestly, most people (including me) would take the cans over anything else any day, the rewards are huge.

[MrJohnston]

I wouldn't change the points at all - teams specifically design robots with they point system in mind... However, something that might make things more interesting: Place an additional recycling container on the coopertition step.

[TDav540]

I think it would be nice to either reduce the points that RCs have (4-->2 per level), or increase the amount totes give (2-->3 per tote).

I would like to see alliances that can score all 8 6-stacks (5HP, 3 landfill) compete with those that steal cans in auto.

Alliance 1: 8 6-stacks, 3 with RCs: 8*6*2+4*6*3= 168

Alliance 2: 5 6-stacks, all with RCs: 5*6*2+4*6*5= 180

A very exciting match, yes, but it was over in the first few seconds in auto. Not counting litter or auto (about the same if both alliances do it), the alliance that scored everything it could lost to an alliance that still has 2 RCs and 18 totes.

Now with reduced RC value,

Alliance 1: 8 6-stacks, 3 with RCs: 8*6*2+2*6*3= 132

Alliance 2: 5 6-stacks, all with RCs: 5*6*2+2*6*5= 120

This way, the alliance that scored 3 more sets of totes is rewarded with the win. Alliance 2 would have to work harder to win (just one more stack of 3totes+RC to tie). However, this scoring method would lower scores, messing with OPR and such.

Increasing tote worth,

Alliance 1: 8 6-stacks, 3 with RCs: 8*6*3+4*6*3= 216

Alliance 2: 5 6-stacks, all with RCs: 5*6*3+4*6*5= 210

In this case, Alliance 1 would have a very close victory, but still be rewarded with scoring everything they can. If alliance 2 steps up their game, they could easily win.

My point is that I don't believe that 1 container should add 2 stacks worth of points. This system will decide matches based on who can get the containers in auto first. Last second stacks will have no meaning without containers, and all excitement will be lost after the first 5 seconds of the match.

This idea still makes a lot of sense to me. As covered pretty well, the Great Can Races of 2015 will still happen regardless of the value of other game elements. However, if we slightly reduce the value of RCs (4 points per level to maybe 2 or 3) or increase the value of totes (3 points?) then, as Loose Screw shows, maybe the matches become a little bit more interesting post-auto?

[dellagd]

The only thing worth changing is the points awarded for the auto sets (robot, can, tote). Right now most alliances don't even worry about getting auto points because they matter so little relative to the final match score. Making the sets worth more would encourage more cooperation amongst alliance members, possibly leading to some code cheesecaking during the quals, which I think is a pretty rare occurrence right now.

Changing anything else is a major strategic change to the game. Good teams analyzed the points system back in January in order to optimize their chances of success. Any changes to the center cans, auto stacks, tote points, litter points, ect. would devalue the work that people put into strategy in the beginning of the year.

[MrJohnston]

Raising the points for autonomous sets would completely devalue the work teams with an autonomous stack put in through the course of the season.

[dellagd]

Raising the points for autonomous sets would completely devalue the work teams with an autonomous stack put in through the course of the season.

Not necessarily. Things like making a robot set worth more than 4 points doesn't change that. You can work to see if you can get both in auto instead of just running the 3-tote auto and making sure the other two teams are clear of your path.

[Jared Russell]

Restrictions on noodle throwing would be the only thing there is any chance of us seeing, and even then I doubt it (unfortunately).

[Bryce Paputa]

The only thing worth changing is the points awarded for the auto sets (robot, can, tote). Right now most alliances don't even worry about getting auto points because they matter so little relative to the final match score. Making the sets worth more would encourage more cooperation amongst alliance members, possibly leading to some code cheesecaking during the quals, which I think is a pretty rare occurrence right now.

Changing anything else is a major strategic change to the game. Good teams analyzed the points system back in January in order to optimize their chances of success. Any changes to the center cans, auto stacks, tote points, litter points, ect. would devalue the work that people put into strategy in the beginning of the year.

This. Week one we saw that autonomous was 28 points maximum and decided that it would be nice, but not something we would put much effort into, especially when the center cans can be worth 60 points in a good match. We would be a little mad if this was invalidated by a 60 point auto stack. Increasing auto sets however would be an interesting change that could possibly increase competition without messing with strategy too much.

By the way, we (and 548, 68, 469, and many other teams) got 0 autonomous points total at the Michigan state championships. Our team valued lining up to the tote chute in autonomous more than a slight chance at 4-12 points (when we weren't bin stealing). I know that 548 got their robot into the auto zone in basically every match, and yet not once did their partners also get into it.

[MrJohnston]

Not necessarily. Things like making a robot set worth more than 4 points doesn't change that. You can work to see if you can get both in auto instead of just running the 3-tote auto and making sure the other two teams are clear of your path.

As a team, we chose to do the autonomous stack and, in doing so, made specific design decisions and dedicated countless hours to that specific end. We recognized that robot and bin sets would be rare as, at lower levels, too many teams would be incapable of doing their parts and, at higher levels, the center bins would be far more important. In other words, the autonomous stack was going to be nearly the only autonomous points score - a bonus of about half a full stack that would not be affected by the draining of resources.

If, however, other autonomous routines are given increased values, other robots will take the time to do them - reducing the relative value of the three-tote stack to other autonomous routines. "Adjusting" the three tote stack to also get a robot set is not necessarily easy or something that can be done at this point as our robot is sitting in St. Louis as I type.

[dellagd]

As a team, we chose to do the autonomous stack and, in doing so, made specific design decisions and dedicated countless hours to that specific end.

If, however, other autonomous routines are given increased values, other robots will take the time to do them - reducing the relative value of the three-tote stack to other autonomous routines.

For these reasons, in general, I agree with you. I just think that of any change, that one would be the least damaging and most, maybe, inspiring, to other teams.

[carpedav000]

My suggestion would be to double tote scores and make containers a 1.5x multiplier. This wouldn't alter the full point value, just the uncapped values.

Example:
-Normal capped, noodled 6-stack -42 points

-Normal uncapped 6-stack -12 points


-Capped, noodled 6-stack with rule alteration -42 points

-Uncapped 6-stack with rule alteration -24 points