View Full Version : Why I think FIRST should reconsider...
Joe Johnson
11-01-2003, 14:59
I have thought about it and I have come to the conclusion that folks that PLAY the FIRST game can deal with the new rules SC8 & SC9, but the casual spectator cannot.
This rule will be incomprehensible to the folks we are trying to introduce to FIRST.
My intitial reaction to negative scoring, etc. was that my team was very much advantaged by it. In fact, I am convinced that the "power teams" will be very much in control of their own destinies with the rules as currently interpretted.
So... part of me would like to see the rules stay as currently defined.
But... ...I have a larger goal in participating in FIRST, specifically, changing the culture of North America and the wider world, by extention.
A viewer friendly game is a key aspect of realizing that goal.
To be honest, I LOVED the game as it was. I could explain it to my mom in with three statement:
Boxes in colored zones: Good
Higher highest stack: Very Good
Robots on top of ramp: Bonus!
I believe that the current game cannot be adequately explained to anyone but those determined to understand it.
Think about it.
Stacks are not stacks.
Sometimes robots can touch a stack and it is good, sometmes they can't.
Sometimes a high stack is good, sometimes it is very bad.
How many SHU's (Stack Height Units of course!) is the robot holding that box?
Is that red robot holding that box high enough in the blue zone to counter balance the 50 points those two blue robots get by being on top of the ramp?
I should listen to my wife more. FIRST should too. As I tried to explain the game to her and how it has changed, she said basically this: A stack is a stack not a heap. Only one-on-one-on-one free standing columns of contains should count as a "stack" No points should be given for a stack that is touching a robot period. No points for pyramids, etc. No need for a SHU or anything.
I like it.
Failing that FIRST should at least make it so that a stack can be no higher than the number of actual containers in the stack.
I don't know exactly how we can get FIRST to change their minds on this one, but I am sure that they should change it.
My fear is that even if they want to they will not be able to change it in time (a change in 2 weeks would be last year's tether rule all over again).
As always, your thoughts are welcome.
Joe J.
Paul Copioli
11-01-2003, 16:35
Joe,
I agree. A stack is a stack is a stack.
Before Update 3, it was spectator friendly:
The round down rule cleared up what was left of confusion.
Any box touching the highest stack doesn't count.
Take all the boxes not touching the highest stack and multiply by highest stack (in SHUs).
In trying to clear up the pyramid questions, negatives were born (probably on purpose) and the spectators are now lost.
I hope it changes.
Bottom line: 3 boxes high is 3 boxes high, whether is takes 3 boxes or 6 (pyramid) to build it.
-Paul
Option 2:
Any robot touching any stack doesn't count at all (not in the base score and not as a multiplier) Even easier for the casual observer because those bins essentially can be ignored.
Option 3:
No score can be lower than 0
Joe Matt
11-01-2003, 17:26
Burn Team Update #3. These updates have switched me from a lover of this year's game to a hater of it.
Ken Patton
11-01-2003, 18:39
I agree. Stacks should be made of bins, not robots.
FIRST should extricate themselves from this potential mess with a SIMPLE solution, not a clever, complicated solution.
Ken
I think the negative scores are just going to make the scoring and qp's/ep's a hellish mess not only for teams and spectators but especially for the poor refs. It will take a lot longer to figure out scores and qp's now. I hope FIRST decides to be nice and change it.
mistresshawk
11-01-2003, 18:55
Regarding update #3, we've discovered ( as it seems everyone else has as well! ) that it is possible, according to these rules, to end up with a negative point value.
Supposing you have one box, that your opponent is holding 10 SHU in the air ( think the physically-impossible blue robot from the demo simulation =D ) According to the rules, you have -9 boxes in your zone ( this is assuming that one box is the only box in your zone ) -9*10SHU = -90pts. Even with both your bots on the ramp, you still have -40pts.
Here comes the part that sent us all laughing-- with negative 90pts, you probably end up losing. Supposing your opponent has 40 pts at the end of the game, they end up with a final score of negative 140pts ( 40+(2*-90)). This just sent us into fits of laughter.
Maybe FIRST didn't realise this was a possibility?
Ianworld
11-01-2003, 20:45
"And the winner with an ASTONISHING -250 points is team 1694."
Is that what we want to hear? The best score being in negative numbers? i doubt it ^_^
HolyMasamune
11-01-2003, 20:58
So if the elimination rounds are determined by score, a team that wins both matchups could potentially lose due to a lower score.
Mike Martus
11-01-2003, 21:15
Hey FIRST are you listening?
There are serious problems with the game. All associated with the scoring.
Fix it fast....or wait is this their real intent to:
Have a game scoring system so confusing that no one will understand...
Have a game the media will ignore....
Have a game that will drive teams to other competitions....
Have a game that no one can explain......
Hmmmmmm I wonder, is this the master plan?
DanLevin247
11-01-2003, 21:34
I completely agree with what is being said by all of you...
But has someone taken the initiative to write FIRST a letter, call them, or notify them in any way about this potential disaster?
EStokely
11-01-2003, 23:17
I admit it took me a bit to understand the actual wording but now that I see it....
Yikes! This is almost impossible to explain. What happened to the one page explanation? The elevator ride up? My grandmother in 3 minutes?
But I also see it as a positive for strong teams. Those that can adjust how high to put a single empty bin and can count really fast!
I have no problem with a pile being a stack but only so far as it follows the same rules. SHU as the measuring device. Any box in that stack does not get counted as a 1 pointer.
As I play more with the bins I have images of piles of bins right at the ramps, robots trying to break thru, I said 'trying' , that wire mesh was selected for a reason.
I still like the game but now , as Joe pointed out, need to start looking at the game differently. If we design to this rule to have it change later it will sound familiar.
Lets see what awaits us in the next update be fore we get too excited.
I guess one more cardboard model wouldn't hurt...
As I play more with the bins I have images of piles of bins right at the ramps, robots trying to break thru, I said 'trying' , that wire mesh was selected for a reason.
Believe it or not those wheels that first provided us (nine inch ones) are quite good at gripping the wire meshing once a modifcation is made to them.
EStokely
11-01-2003, 23:38
Yea the wheels do OK on the mesh.(after you take a Dremel to them :-) ) But the bins hang up on it too. Try pushing two or three up the ramp with the tops facing you. They catch on the wire.
Useless member
11-01-2003, 23:42
Sorry but I am confused.... Please can some one explain in simple English. How can a team win with a negative # wouldnt the other team have to have a larger negative #to loose or is that a higher lower negative #!!!!!
Are you saying that if the opposition lifts "one" bin 10 feet in the air on your side it would count as a 10 stack multiplier for your team as its the highest bin off the carpet and if you only had 1 other bin on your side you would end up with a multiplier of 10 x 1 = 10 how can it be -9
Help im confused.....
D.J. Fluck
11-01-2003, 23:44
Originally posted by Useless member
Sorry but I am confused.... Please can some one explain in simple English. How can a team win with a negative # wouldnt the other team have to have a larger negative #to loose or is that a higher lower negative #!!!!!
Are you saying that if the opposition lifts "one" bin 10 feet in the air on your side it would count as a 10 stack multiplier for your team as its the highest bin off the carpet and if you only had 1 other bin on your side you would end up with a multiplier of 10 x 1 = 10 how can it be -9
Help im confused.....
No negitive scores. Read my post in D.J.'s Unofficial Clarification (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16327&perpage=15&pagenumber=2)
Negative scores won't happen. Teams that THINK won't allow it. Wondering why? See my post in this thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=117609#post117609).
-dave
Amanda Morrison
12-01-2003, 00:36
There are many problems with the scoring in this game. Of course, right around this time, FIRST gets bombarded with questions, and they make some snap decisions. I assume that they realize that the negative scoring won't really be a great idea, and my instinct leans towards them just saying that a negative score will be considered zero. Although this doesn't make it too much more spectator friendly, it will help the people behind the lexan figure out how they stand in a couple seconds.
Either that, or it really will come down to what Dean said - "Take the smallest prime number and multiply that by the reciprocal..."
redbeard0531
12-01-2003, 03:52
I highly doubt a team will give up 25 king of the hill points, just to get negative QP!!!!!
A more likely situation is that a team will be a team getting less then 3 boxes in their scoring zone. lemme breake it down.
3 box = 2-1 = 1
2 box = 1-1 = 0
1box = 0-1 = -1
0 box = 0-0 = 0
my sugestion - very easy
the stack* with the most boxes in it is multiplied by the TOTAL number of boxes in the scoring zone. PERIOD, NO MATER WHAT!
*definition of stack
dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stack) "An orderly pile, especially one arranged in layers."
Legalese / Mattsk=peak
"A group of boxes supported by 1 and only 1 box, or any nonbox item. each box can only directly support 1other box.
any stack not fitting this description is not elegible for the high stack.THATS IT; The boxes in it are just regular boxes!!!
high points (pun intended;)) in this plan
NO NEGATIVES!!!
VERY SIMPLE!!!
tallest stack possable = good!!
why shouldnt I get points i my bot is holding a stack?
Why should i rais my oponents score if my bot cant steal a stack in time?
did i say NO NEGATIVES!?! ;)
ps. this exact same message will be posted in all negative point threads, and in its own poll thread in the rules forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16355). any updates/replies should be posted in poll thread, so please make sticky. goto the poll thread and lets make it a petitition!!!!
pps. sorry bout the speling, gammer, too many !'s and bouts of RAGE; its 3:45 AM!!
-Matt Stearn
CUL8R
If I remember the rules correctly, please tell me if I'm wrong, that FIRST has not specified to whether or not they start the measure of the multiplier stack from the bottom of the bottom container or from the playing field. I remember reading a thread about someone asking this and I don't think they found out either.
-Food for thought.
-BigLuke:confused:
Negative scores will very likely happen and it won't always be because a team is trying to do it.
Scenario;
2 slower robots (blue team) are beaten badly to the stack on the ramp. Most if not all of the bins are on the red scoring zone. The red faster robots are on top of the ramp with their suction cups deployed. The slower stacking robot and pusher robot (blue team) finally make it to the top of the ramp and the battle begins. Even if one is successful and replaces one of the red robots with one blue - the red team is still far ahead. Lets say, the blue stacker can limbo and does just that, instead of battling on top of the ramp. The stacker begins to either push OR LIFT the bins to either place them out of bounds or to place them over the bar onto their side of the field AND time runs out just as they are lifting the last one they have grabbed.
Looking around indicates that they were very successful in pushing the bins out of bounds or out of the scoring area (say there are 2 left on the scoring area and they have lifted the last one equivalent of 8 stack heights) but didn't get it out of the red scoring area in time. Regardless of what their own score is, they have reduced their opponents score to a negative number, while simply attempting to move the bins.
So why move the bins someone asks - because if the opponent HAS them - you don't. What other option is there, if you already know you can't get the other Blue robot off the ramp (they have 25 pts. in the bag).
I suppose that after seeing the majority of the bins on the opposite side of the field the blue robots could have wasted 1:45 attempting to move the red robots - (I predict that it will take only a limited number of matches to determine which teams have solved the problem of sticking to an hdpe floor covering).
Seems to me the easier way to resolve the problem and force the red team alliance off their perch is to simply make the bonus points more reasonable compared to the rest of the scoring. Say 10 points instead of 25. That way the points are really a bonus - and not the focus. Just my opinion - sorry this is so long.
Q: Why is a "large-negative-scorer-bot" a good thing?
Although it makes no sense to set your opponent with a negative score in qualification matches, the LNS-bot could be an effective strategy in eliminations.
Assume you have specifically designed an LNS-bot, which can pick up one box and which can lift it to, say, 25 SHU. This bot is specially designed with deployable flying buttresses that can actually support the box at this height, even against some vigorous interaction.
Let's say the LNS alliance is blue. The blue alliance starts on red's side of the field. Bot one defends the bottom of the ramp against incoming bins being pushed down by red. The LNS bot pushes all but one of red's bins out of scoring position and steals the last one. LNS bot shoots the bin up to 25 SHU and both bots sit in the red zone and defend against red scoring any more points.
Assume that red gives up and returns both robots to the top of the ramp for 50 points.
Red loses the first elimination match with a score of 50+(1-25)*25 = -550
Blue wins the match with a score of 0 (assuming that red removed blue's eight initial boxes from play).
In the next match, Blue only has to insure that red cannot score 550 points and it will advance to the next round.
Andrew, Team 356
Oops! I just realized in my previous example that blue would actually receive:
0+2*(-550) = -1100 EPs to red's -550 EPs.
So, it really is a bad idea.
Andrew
25 SHU
accckkk stop thinking about hypothetical situations its getting annoying almost no robot would be able to do that
Jason Morrella
12-01-2003, 10:38
While this thread as been a very interesting discussion, and Joe, Dave, and everyone else have brought up very intriguing scenarios - I don't think this thread is even an issue.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't SC8 and SC9 say that:
A container is counted as "IN" if it is touching the carpet in the scoring the zone, touching a container which is supported by a container touching the carpet in the scoring zone, or is supported by an OPPONENT robot that is touching the scoring zone carpet.
"IN" means it counts as a POINT, NOT a stack. No where does it say this counts as a stack. I think an assumption was made that is never actually said by FIRST.
The STACK is determined by the highest SHU of the STACK, not of a container "IN" in the scoring the zone. Two different issues - I don't think a robot holding a container 8 feet high in the air has anything to do with the "STACK" multiplier - all SC9 says is that container being held 8 feet high will count as "IN", meaning it's worth one point. But to count as part of a stack it must be touching containers which are touching containers which in some pile/stack/chain are touching the carpet of the scoring zone.
Dave, Joe, and others - what do you think? Do you think this could just be a case of reading something between the lines which isn't actually there? I don't think there is any scenario which allows for negative points - but I think SC9 just says that if a container is supported by (resting on top of, is being held by, etc...) an opponent robot which is in "YOUR" scoring zone that it will be counted as "IN" and count as a point. Nothing to do with the stack.
If I'm right, than at least there is no controversy and everything is exactly as we thought it was on Friday - just that we had a really interesting 48 hour hypothetical discussion. Any thoughts?
JM
Bill Beatty
12-01-2003, 10:59
How high can Wildstang go? They have gone up 11 feet from a 3 foot box and 16 feet from a 4 foot box lifting a lot more weight than a 4.5 pound bin. I am betting they can go above 20 feet from a 5 foot box.
Ben Mitchell
12-01-2003, 11:19
Yeah - you could just have a simple arm, and a massive scissor-jack - 60 inches high is a LOT of scissor.
I agree - FIRST needs to change the rules so that stakes have to be free of all robot contact, and make things simpler.
Also, this whole negative points thing needs to be fixed - it's a scoring nightmare.
I thought that FIRST was trying to make things more spectator friendly? Err...
Now that I think of it, a negative score was possible even last year. Scenario
Alliance Y:
Balls: 15
Goals: 2
Robots in endzone: 2
Alliance Z:
Balls: 1
Goals: 0 (the goal in which the ball is placed, is pushed into Alliance Y's endzone)
Robots in endzone: 0
This situation would give Alliance Y 55 points, while Alliance Z would only receive 1 point. Where does the negative score show up? Alliance Z receives a penalty 3 times during the match because their human player continually steps outside the prescribed player station area. Alliance Z ends up with a score of 1 - 4, or -3. In this situation the winning alliance would get -9 QP, and the losers -3 QP. The losers are better off. However, I do also recall that last year there was some sort of rule that rounded any negative scores to zero.
Hi All,
First off let me say that I agree with Joe 100%. The though has occured to me, perhaps somewhat cynically (hey we all have our faults) that with out some convuluted nature to the rules it wouldn't really be FIRST. I mean last year we had robots being in the zones by mere milimeters. In addtion going back as far as 1996 the goal could actually be tipped over and any balls that rolled out of it were consiered in scoring position as long as the center of the ball did not breach the plane of the goal....try to determine that form the stands...there were matches in the finals where FIRST Actually had to bring out tape measures and other various tools to figure out the score. Ironically that decision about the goal being tipped was made in an update and totally changed the way the game is played. I think that there has been something like this in just about every single game I've ever seen played.
I loved the game in its origional way I thought it was evil and that things were fairly unambigous with perhaps the exception of what exactly a stack was now a stack is anything that is a misc. pile of boxes. I think the inital rigidity of the rules made for a much more exciting game.
Food for thought...
Justin
redbeard0531
12-01-2003, 13:31
this is rediculous.
a stack should be boxes stacked one on top of oneand so on. and the shu is STUPID! why are we doing it by height, as opposed to simply the number of boxes in the stack? Please, someone answer that.
For that matter, why should the state of the robots affect it. Why should i be penalized for touching my own box. Why should my opponent beable to help me by raising my stack. Can anyone defend first in this matter?
I just would like to say my opinion about that.
I'm also against this new things.
The game was excellent before. I'm sure there is a way to fix the problems FIRST found that is simpler than update 3.
I was already convinced that the tiebraker thing maybe wasn't a problem, but now this IS a problem.
Changing again could be bad (too many changes makes confusion) but would be worth, because it seems there's no big fan of this new rules.
redbeard0531
12-01-2003, 13:54
Originally posted by Digo
I'm sure there is a way to fix the problems FIRST found that is simpler than update 3.
vote in my sig, ya never no, they might lissen
Warren Boudreau
12-01-2003, 21:53
If FIRST was to replace the word STACK with COLUMN, that would clear things up quite a bit.
And state that only columns that touch the floor can count in the selection of the tallest column.
Though a CHU might be hard to swallow (pun intended).
Amanda Aldridge
13-01-2003, 21:16
how about keeping it the highest box, but simply stating that the highest box may only be supported by other boxes....simple elimination of the dreaded negative score
my $0.02
Ben Mitchell
14-01-2003, 06:36
I can't beleive FIRST just changed the game on us again.
Didn't they promise they wouldn't do that?
They just watered the game down - lovely. I was kinda into it too - it sure beat last years pushing match.
:mad:
According to the rules, if you are touching a stack that's in your zone, it doesn't count. if your opponent is raising the stack, and you are touching their robot, does that "stack" count?:confused:
jeremy562
14-01-2003, 15:51
Read Team Update #4. A stack will only count as a multiplier stack if the bottom crate is on the floor and the stack is a continuous chain of crates. An opponent robot lifting a crate will only count as 1 point (assuming their robot is in your scoring zone).
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.