<G14> Shenanigans?

[Team1710]

What is the intent of this rule? If a team does well they penalize them.

[thefro526]

What is the intent of this rule? If a team does well they penalize them.

I personally like this rule.

It's not meant to penalize a team for doing well as much as help a team who's not doing so well who goes up against a really good team.

[Nate Smith]

I think this goes back to why your qualifying score is based on your opponent's score...helps promote close matches rather than blowouts...they hinted toward this rule during the on-field demo, but never went further into it...

[Koko Ed]

What is the intent of this rule? If a team does well they penalize them.

FIRST likes making one rule that gets dumped in by the off season events.

[NorviewsVeteran]

I think they are trying to eliminate shutouts

[Team1710]

But let’s say you play against a very poor team in the beginning. Then the next round you play a very good team. Then you’re at a disadvantage.

[Billfred]

But let’s say you play against a very poor team in the beginning. Then the next round you play a very good team. Then you’re at a disadvantage.
What's to say you can't score for them? Your human player can throw moon rocks into your own trailer about as good as anybody.

[Allison]

I would really like to see lower limits on the rule. According to this say you score 2 moon rocks and they score zero that would be a score of 4 to 0 which would lead me to see a score of more than 3x. However I do not believe that this is in the spirit of the rule. Should this rule be applied on low scoring matches?

[DanDon]

So what happens when the opposing alliance's score is 0? Do you automatically get a win by 3x and lose 2 of your empty cells/super cells the next match?

I can't wait until Championships when an alliance has no super cells available due to a previous "unbalanced/easier" matchup during a "balanced/harder" matchup.

[Team1710]

Wouldn't that hinder your team's ability to show off your team's skill? That would hurt your chances in the finals.

[Gin]

This seems to be one of the strange rules that both help and hurt all teams. Its going to be interesting to see how this is going to play out.

[Chris Hibner]

I kind of like the rule, but I don't like it as is. I think there needs to be a minimum floor on the score differential.

Here is where I see a problem: let's say you have a bunch of teams that don't have their robot working yet, so none are powerhouse teams. The Red Alliance sinks one hail mary and the Blue Alliance sinks three. These are the only scores of the match.

In the above scenario, the Blue Alliance teams would lose all of their Super Cells for the next match despite their ineptitude. Also, what if you win 2-0?

Once again, I would like to see some sort of floor on this rule, like it doesn't kick in until the winning alliance scores at least 20 points (or some other number).

Hopefully there will be enough scoring where this won't be an issue, but if past competitions are any indication, this might be an issue.


Edit: Doh! Someone above posted this same thing while I was typing.

[ATannahill]

I think there should be at least 5 points between scores before it is taken into effect, If you do 4-0 you lose nothing. If you do 6-2 you lose nothing. I think this fixes all problems.

I also agree with Billfred that you can score for your opponents so this shouldn't be too big of a problem.

[markulrich]

FIRST is trying to give a "real-word" engineering experience, but this rule is just the opposite unless you're Microsoft trying to avoid Monopoly Laws. It should be modified or removed, teams learn more from failure than success, having the other team actually trying to bring your score up would just be humiliating. This is another example making the game too much about strategy.

Either putting a cap before the rule went into effect as mentioned above and/or comparing the unpenalized score of both alliances would be a good compromise.

Overall I love this year's game!

[DanDon]

This is another example making the game too much about strategy.

What's wrong about emphasizing strategy? Overdrive had practically no strategy (except hybrid and some defensive maneuvers (i.e. keepaway)). Lunacy is more like Aim High with regards to dynamic strategy, and if I recall correctly, Aim High was one of the more popular of the recent batch of games.

[nicktoptine]

Don't forget that once an empty or super cell is put onto the field that any robot can gain control of it. There are bound to be empty cells floating around the field, whether an alliance is down a couple or not. An alliance down an empty cell or two can possibly pick up the empty cells from the opposing alliance, push them through the airlock, and get all their super cells anyway. If an alliance is down a super cell, and the opposing alliance's payload specialist haphazardly throws a super cell onto the field, then any alliance can pick it up and score it.

I really like this rule for that reason. It adds another level of strategy to the gameplay. If you're against an alliance that is down a couple of super cells, do you use yours and risk that your opponents will pick them up and get your 60 (your alliance's 4 super cells) points plus their 30 (the two super cells the opposing alliance still has)? Or do you hold your super cells back and try to outscore your opponent with just moon rocks?

[Bongle]

The rule isn't fundamentally different from earlier rules which encouraged close matches.

I don't like the implication that if you play WITH a strong team and the match goes to a blowout, your next match will be played less supercells. In really bad situations, you could have your entire alliance being of low-to-middling quality robots, but have lost all of your supercells because those robots participated in blowouts in their previous matches.

I don't think the "what if nobody scores anything?" situation is too problematic because this is a game like 2006 and 2004 where the human players can actually score substantial points simply by being good shots. If none of your team's human players can score a single rock of the minimum 39 you start with, that's weird. Especially since the orbit balls can be caught by the trailer spikes and the human players start opposite an opposing trailer.

[Team1710]

Still i think it hampers your team too much. I think a good team should be rewarded but not so much that they just completely dominate. They should be rewarded though not hurt.

[taylort]

I don't think this rule is that difficult. If you're looking at the game being a blowout, it's a lot easier to score orbit balls into your alliance's trailers giving the other team points than it is for you to score orbit balls into the other alliance's trailers. Granted, I haven't seen the math as to how high these scores are going to get, but I guess we'll just have to see once competition season starts.

[M. Faticanti]

I understand FIRST's intent here but the rule does not make sense to me.

3 teams win match 1 by more than 2x < 3x. At match 6 one of those 3 winning teams plays (less one super cell via the rule) but their 2 partners in match 6 both lost their first match. Who are we penalizing??

Am I missing something here???

Could we have a match with 0 super cells. Team A won by 2x, Team B won by 3x, and Team C won by 2x, now they are all paired together in their next match. 0 super cells according to the rule.

Take it a step further, all 6 teams in say match 20 meet the above criteria = 0 super cells for both teams

More importantly, who's going to keep track of all this???

The more I think about it it still makes no sense

[Team1710]

Still i think it hampers your team too much. I think a good team should be rewarded but not so much that they just completely dominate. They should be rewarded though not hurt.

[Andrew Bates]

Another thing to think about is how hard is this going to be to manage? What I mean is this doesn't seem like a simple thing for the people running regionals to keep track of.

[cbudrecki]

I like the intent of the rule... it goes back to the whole co-opertition mindset they're always talking about. But I don't see how this prevents shut-outs. 0x(inf)=0, so if you win 6-0, you're not really winning by 2 or 3 times. Also, it is very unclear as to how the "demerits," if you will, carry through to other rounds. Finally, in the rule, it only states that you lose an EMPTY CELL or SUPER CELL. So which one is it? Do they start with the empty cells (in which case you couldn't use your super cells), or do they start with the super cells, so you can't trade up, or do they just select one at random?:confused: :confused: :confused:

[cbudrecki]

Another thing to think about is how hard is this going to be to manage? What I mean is this doesn't seem like a simple thing for the people running regionals to keep track of.

I'd like to think that they've built this into their scoring/ranking program... but then again, I wouldn't be suprised if it never crossed their minds!:ahh:

[jgannon]

I have no way of speaking to the intentions of the GDC, but this rule definitely has some odd ramifications with respect to parity among teams.

Consider what a top-tier team in this competition will look like. They're quick, they're accurate, they don't need to rely on Super Cells to totally crush you. Since they don't care all that much about Super Cells, they run up the score as best they can in every match to avoid getting burned by penalties. Their partners enjoy victory... and then are at a disadvantage in the next match. It punishes those teams, and also whoever those teams end up partnered with next.

The end result is that the best one or two teams rise to the top, and the rest of the seedings are muddled. We've seen in years past that the number of matches per team at some venues is not quite enough to establish a top-to-bottom ranking that reasonably reflects relative robot performance. Adding consideration for the performance of a team's partners in a match that team wasn't involved with can only add more entropy.

[Tetraman]

Did anyone read over 9.3.5? You don't obtain ranking points based on your score...you earn ranking points based on your -opponents- unpentalized score.

To blow out a team is counter-productive. Therefore, if you and your powerful alliance can win the match and allow your opponents to have a better chance of scoring large amounts of points, you will be better off. In some ways, this rule can help the winning team, rather then hurt.

[GaryVoshol]

I like the intent of the rule... it goes back to the whole co-opertition mindset they're always talking about. But I don't see how this prevents shut-outs. 0x(inf)=0, so if you win 6-0, you're not really winning by 2 or 3 times. Also, it is very unclear as to how the "demerits," if you will, carry through to other rounds. Finally, in the rule, it only states that you lose an EMPTY CELL or SUPER CELL. So which one is it? Do they start with the empty cells (in which case you couldn't use your super cells), or do they start with the super cells, so you can't trade up, or do they just select one at random?:confused: :confused: :confused:

Suppose you score 10 points, your opponents score 0. 2x0=0; 3x0=0. 10>0, so you have scored more than 3 times your opponent's score.

Now make it even worse. You score 18, your opponents score 20. But wait, they entered a Super Cell 2 seconds too early, earning a double penalty. Final score, 18-0. Even if there was a minimum x-point differential, it would likely be more than 18 points. You lose 2 balls next game. At a minimum, <G14> should be changed so that it is the opponent's unpenalized score that determines the 2x and 3x factors. You can score for your opponents to overcome a shortfall in their score. But you can't do anything if they penalize themselves to zero.

As for which balls you lose, Super Cells or Empty Cells, that depends on which position your Payload Spec takes up in the next game.

[cbudrecki]

Good call :) It should definately be the unpenalized score that is used for this judging

[Kyle]

Seeing how this rule was just released less then 8 hours ago, lets give it some time to see if they update it during the next 6-7 weeks like FIRST dose every season with rules.

The intent of the rule is good, it will stop teams from destroying other teams, FIRST shouldn't be about blowing out the other team every time, and this rule helps keep not just good intent during the game but during teams strategy sessions. Now if you know you are going up against a poor team(s) you have to add into your strategy for the other teams to score. Makes sence to me, but I would also like to see a floor set to this rule and I like the idea of a 5 point rule mentioned earlier.

just my 2 cents..

Good Luck everyone.

[MGoelz]

At first this rule had me utterly confused, but now that I really think about it, these are the conclusions I've come to:

1) Nobody feels good winning when they completely crush another alliance, so this will help keep that in check.

2) Also, this will make an alliance come up with a strategy to accumulate enough points to win, but not enough to lose the rights to the empty cell or supercell. In essence, it's a good "on-the-job" problem solving that has to be done quickly and efficiently.

3) As others have said, it's still January 3rd. I'm sure the necessary clarifications will be made. No need to worry.

4) We're pretending we're on the moon. We have to be able to succeed under any condition, right? :p

[johnr]

I am confused. Is this rule meant for finals only when your alliances are locked in?

[cbudrecki]

I can see how that would work much better, but I don't believe it's the intent of the rule.

[Abra Cadabra IV]

No, it appears to apply to all matches.

(Although I think it would make more sense should it only apply to the elimination rounds, given that it would be fairly easy for a weak team to get screwed over just because they had a good alliance the previous round.)

[GGCO]

FIRST is trying to give a "real-word" engineering experience, but this rule is just the opposite unless you're Microsoft trying to avoid Monopoly Laws. It should be modified or removed, teams learn more from failure than success, having the other team actually trying to bring your score up would just be humiliating. This is another example making the game too much about strategy.

Either putting a cap before the rule went into effect as mentioned above and/or comparing the unpenalized score of both alliances would be a good compromise.

Overall I love this year's game!

I couldn't have said it better. It sounds like socialism to me...:ahh:

Anyways, what is the purpose of this rule? Not to make some rookie teams feel bad? It makes no sense to me. The really good alliances are going to win because they are superior, even without the supercell! The really bad alliances are going to lose because they are inferior, even with the supercells. The people who get the short end of the stick are the medium skilled alliances. If they get on a good alliance and shut the other alliance out they get gypped in their next round! If anything, it should be implemented during the final rounds. Even then I don't like it.

[Alan Anderson]

If they get on a good alliance and shut the other alliance out...

...then they have made a mistake. Their alliance should have employed a different strategy and not shut the other alliance out.

As with last years <G22> ("If you don't want to be penalized, don't break it!"), the proper response to <G14> this year seems obvious to me. If you don't want to start the next match missing a bonus option, pay attention to the score and don't win by a factor of two or more.

[ThunderKate]

...then they have made a mistake. Their alliance should have employed a different strategy and not shut the other alliance out.

As with last years <G22> ("If you don't want to be penalized, don't break it!"), the proper response to <G14> this year seems obvious to me. If you don't want to start the next match missing a bonus option, pay attention to the score and don't win by a factor of two or more.
<G14> states that the rule is only valid during a "non-surrogate MATCH". We interpreted this as any elimination match.

And there is no way to pay attention to the score. This years scoring will not be like last years where there was live scoring. So one must guess the score.

[ExarKun666]

<G14> states that the rule is only valid during a "non-surrogate MATCH". We interpreted this as any elimination match.

And there is no way to pay attention to the score. This years scoring will not be like last years where there was live scoring. So one must guess the score.
Not entirely, the balls in the basket will add up to your raw score, but I can see where penalties will be hard to figure out.

[Abra Cadabra IV]

If you don't want to start the next match missing a bonus option, pay attention to the score and don't win by a factor of two or more.

I dunno about that... it's pretty hard to keep track of how many balls are in six different bins moving randomly around the field. Even if you could, I can see teams purposely keeping their own score low until the very end of the game, which forces the opposing alliance (if they're keeping track of score) to keep their total low enough that a surprise Super Cell or a mass dumping of moon rocks could pull the losing alliance ahead in the final seconds of a match. Personally, I wouldn't risk it.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and there's still penalties to take into account. One overenthusiastic payload specialist throwing a Super Cell in early could bring the match score from, say, 6-10 to 6-0. Again, not something most teams want to risk.

[johnr]

I still don't get it. See if you can follow this.
match 4--you win by huge amount.
match 12-- you had huge win earlier but your new partners lost hugely earlier.
why would your new partners be penalized.
I'm slow ,forgive me. The only way i see this working is if you stay with the same partners the entire comp.

[ExarKun666]

I dunno about that... it's pretty hard to keep track of how many balls are in six different bins moving randomly around the field. Even if you could, I can see teams purposely keeping their own score low until the very end of the game, which forces the opposing alliance (if they're keeping track of score) to keep their total low enough that a surprise Super Cell or a mass dumping of moon rocks could pull the losing alliance ahead in the final seconds of a match. Personally, I wouldn't risk it.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and there's still penalties to take into account. One overenthusiastic payload specialist throwing a Super Cell in early could bring the match score from, say, 6-10 to 6-0. Again, not something most teams want to risk.

But like you said for the opposing team to keep track of the opponent's carts' and how many balls they have, and how many pts the other team has will be extremely difficult, not to mention penalties, sure you can attempt to low score it, but then it would be hard to figure out in your head how many pts you need to overtake them, penalties included, and personally I don't think a driver will concern themselves with such things, it's not a huge risk basically is what I'm saying.

[GGCO]

I don't get it either, John. Some say that it encourages more strategy, but since you don't know the score until after the match it is basically all guess work!

This rule is total "Lunacy"!

[ExarKun666]

I don't get it either, John. Some say that it encourages more strategy, but since you don't know the score until after the match it is basically all guess work!

This rule is total "Lunacy"!

My personal take on this, is the following, and you can disagree, that if you scored high, and another alliance team scored low, whomever is in the corner actually throwing the super cells will be penalized or not (ball wise depending on the team) and the other team on the side will have the same thing (either penalized or not ball wise, depending on the team)

[ATannahill]

If you look through some of the pictures either by TBA or another person, you can see their live scoring banner on a blue screen, it looks like it can hold live score. Not counting penalties of course.

direct link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22421182@N05/3163789235/in/set-72157611844292070/

[ThunderKate]

Can you clarify ExarKun666? I am wayyyy past confused on your post.

[ExarKun666]

Well if they do count points, like last yr, electronically then make sure your team is staying ahead pt wise, but by a reasonable amount. However if they don't do it electronically as the game goes, and only calculate at the end, play safe, and play your best, if this does happen, worse thing is you don't get a super or empty cell next match.

[Greg Marra]

And there is no way to pay attention to the score. This years scoring will not be like last years where there was live scoring. So one must guess the score.

There appear to be handheld boxes for Refs to use to keep live scoring. If we presume there is no descoring, this will be completely accurate live scoring:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22421182@N05/3164596040/in/set-72157611844292070/

[ExarKun666]

Can you clarify ExarKun666? I am wayyyy past confused on your post.

Yeah, okay so here's my thought: You have three teams on your alliance, let's say one team, the round before, got 2 times the score, and another, different team on the same alliance lost their last match. Before the match they group and decide whom goes to which position, like who goes to the fueling post, and who goes to the outpost. Let's say they decide the team who got the 2 times better the round b4 goes to the outpost, in that case they would have a blank cell taken away, and the team who lost let's say goes to the fueling post they, don't get any super cells taken away.

If that doesn't make sense could you clarify which part is hard to understand plz?

[Herodotus]

If I am reading this rule correctly, and judging from these posts I am, I think it's pretty ridiculous. It essentially encourages teams to not do their best. Shouldn't FIRST be all about encouraging every team to do their absolute best, regardless of outcome? I don't take a crushing defeat as... well... a crushing defeat. I take it as a chance to learn and grow.

Even more importantly, it punishes people that have NOTHING TO DO with the previous match.

[ThunderKate]

Thanks. But I highly doubt that they will keep track of score during matches. It would be nearly impossible.

[synth3tk]

I think that some teams may take advantage of this and not try their best, just to let the other alliance "score" for them. That is, if the previous interpretations of the rule are correct.

[ExarKun666]

Thanks. But I highly doubt that they will keep track of score during matches. It would be nearly impossible.

well i just thought since in the rules they say empty OR super cell, I just thought it could mean, it depended what position the team had.

[XXShadowXX]

This rule is kinda of dumb, is it like 'sposed to make us hold back and have mercy from completely destorying an opposing alliance, WHAT?

It not in the spirit of competion which is to do your best.
Not in the spirit of FIRST, which is to do your best
Not in the spirit of Enigneering which is to do things better, faster, and more effienent then other people.

[BethMo]

ThunderKate wrote

<G14> states that the rule is only valid during a "non-surrogate MATCH". We interpreted this as any elimination match.

I don't see a definition of this term in this year's rules. However, I vaguely remember a rule at some time in the past (or, possibly, from a different event altogether) where, if there weren't enough teams to fill out a match schedule, a team could be assigned to fill in extra rounds as a surrogate, to prevent playing matches with no opponent. These matches result in a score for the real player, but not for the surrogate.

Anyway, that's how I interpreted it.

[johnr]

So is this going to be based on some kind of ranking system? If yes, does this mean it wouldn't come into play until all teams played atleast one match?

[ThunderKate]

ThunderKate wrote



I don't see a definition of this term in this year's rules. However, I vaguely remember a rule at some time in the past (or, possibly, from a different event altogether) where, if there weren't enough teams to fill out a match schedule, a team could be assigned to fill in extra rounds as a surrogate, to prevent playing matches with no opponent. These matches result in a score for the real player, but not for the surrogate.

Anyway, that's how I interpreted it.
Yes that actually makes perfect sense. I just don't understand how <G14> would be fair during any matches other than the elims.

[footballguy]

I think it's a ridiculous rule, maybe they don't remember how 07 turned out when they tried to put everyone on equal playing fields, it gave good high number teams a huge advantage and others a huge disadvantage, and now this year they can penalize you based on doing good in a DIFFERENT match. I don't think it will be as important as '07 but it still has disaster written all over it, so remember teams do good but not to good. thats the spirit were lookin for.

[BethMo]

Aha, found it! Rule 9.3.2:

All teams will play the same number of qualifying matches except if the number of team appearances (number of teams multiplied by number of rounds) is not divisible by six; in that case the Field Management System will randomly select some teams to play an extra MATCH. For purposes of seeding calculations, those teams will be designated as SURROGATES for the extra MATCH. If teams play a MATCH as a SURROGATE, it will be indicated on the match schedule, and it will always be their third match.

[Barry Bonzack]

How about these shenanigans:

You have a dominate alliance of one dominate team and two decent teams vs a below average alliance.

In this match the dominate team and the decent teams are on the same alliance, but suppose one of the decent teams next match they must face the dominate team.

The dominate team does just that, dominates, but stays within the rule so the score is within 3x the opposing alliance's score. The team that must face the dominate team in the next match chooses to score enough to go over 3x, thus they even the playing field for the next match because neither alliance will have any super cells.


I think it never will happen, but worth a thought.

[XXShadowXX]

So it for qualification matches were all team are 'sposed to be in the match, or a normally qualifaction match.

<G14> (Lets not be awesome)

[ATannahill]

If a team plays match 2, 6, 10, and 14 and are a surrogate in match 10 just for an example. They win 58-22 in match 6, we don't care about match 2. Will they lose 1 ball in match 10 even though they are a surrogate? no matter the outcome of match 10 we know that they lose 1 ball in match 14.

[Ian Curtis]

This rule is kinda of dumb, is it like 'sposed to make us hold back and have mercy from completely destorying an opposing alliance, WHAT?

It not in the spirit of competion which is to do your best.
Not in the spirit of FIRST, which is to do your best
Not in the spirit of Enigneering which is to do things better, faster, and more effienent then other people.

But what makes Engineering hard (I think), is doing it better, faster, and more efficiently within the given constraints. <G14> is just another constraint.

Plain and simple, it will make for more even and exciting regular matches. And, if your robot is really good enough to blow your opponents out of the water every single time, you shouldn't find it too hard to toss them a few balls every now and then, or simply stop scoring, and wait for them to catch up a little bit.

But, as it is currently written, if during the eliminations the Red Alliance scores 121 points, while the Blue Alliance Scores 47 points, the Red Alliance will only get a single EMPTY CELL, and thus only one POWER CELL, in their next match. That has the potential to be huge! Do other people agree with this interpretation

[ryanking09]

This is my rookie year... our team had their rookie year last year, and having read this rule, I found that it is a positive and efficient way to balance the teams. Kamen said its not about the points. and i hope their arent teams wrapped up in scoring high and shutting out teams. the rule their to keep the game close so it stays intense and anyone can win.

Don't see this rule as a limitation, see it as equalization.. The algorithm used is not based on how strong a team is therefore this was place inorder to balance this unknown factor. :D

[ThunderKate]

Even if it is just an equalizer nobody will take it that way, instead teams will end up scoring on themselves so they dont get penalized in the next match and I know I would never want to have the other team have to score for me, Id find that embaressing not equalizing
Yeah not gonna lie, we don't really plan to focus our robot and strategy around this rule. And I'm sure the new 1114's don't plan on holding back.

[XXShadowXX]

Even if it is just an equalizer nobody will take it that way, instead teams will end up scoring on themselves so they dont get penalized in the next match and I know I would never want to have the other team have to score for me, Id find that embaressing not equalizing

Seems like a good idea, We can run with that

[ExarKun666]

Does anybody know if the illustration under <G14> in the manual has anything to do with the rule, I know it says layout, but if you look it has 13 - 20 all over, and a variation of <=2, <=7, and <=4 is there any significant meaning to this, or is it just there?

[synth3tk]

Yeah not gonna lie, we don't really plan to focus our robot and strategy around this rule. And I'm sure the new 1114's don't plan on holding back.
Quoted For Truth.
I think this really all depends on the true meaning behind the GDC's reason for this rule.

[ATannahill]

The true number depends on where you put the 20 moon rocks you are given and whether a team has lost 1 or 2 cells from a previous match.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

...Remembering 1114 firing into their opponent's goal at the end of pwnage matches in '06...

We're all dragging around our opponents goals... Just get your ally to dump some points in there if you're wining by too much... If you can get 2x their score this shouldn't be too hard :rolleyes:

[Jonathan Norris]

We won't be holding back, this will just give us incentive to score for our opponents if it comes down to that... which I know the GDC has frowned upon in the past. So I am still a little confused what purpose this rule has, I just see it as promoting self-scoring.

[Akash Rastogi]

...Remembering 1114 firing into their opponent's goal at the end of pwnage matches in '06...

We're all dragging around our opponents goals... Just get your ally to dump some points in there if you're wining by too much... If you can get 2x their score this shouldn't be too hard :rolleyes:

Yup. That's my view of it.

[ryanking09]

A tip for those who may worried about over scoring...

I don't know if it prohibits this but I think u could intentionally shoot a few balls into your own trailer to even up the score if your team is too far ahead in points. It wouldn't make sense to penalize you for this so i do believe it would be acceptable. unless they saw it as violating the integrity of the game. They may penalize you for this but nothing else that i can think of.:)

I see this has been mentioned by a few already sorry for the repetition.:o

[Lil' Lavery]

This rule must be modified, or preferably removed completely. I have several reasons for this, but one stands above the rest.
Others have alluded or briefly mentioned this, but I'm goin to spell it out clearly and focus on it.

It penelizes teams that have nothing to do with the matter.

Team A is paired with Team B. Team B tripled their opponents score last match. Now Team A must compete in a match with 2 less super cells because of Team B's actions.

Tell me how that is fair. Team A could have even been the alliance who had their score tripled by Team B in the previous match (given how "random" the pairing algorithm has been the past few years).

This rule has many flaws that must be fixed. So many it's probably easier just to remove it and move on.

[meaubry]

This rule is both different and yet similar to previous years when the idea of NOT winning by too much was encouraged.

Similar in that it wasn't too long before most teams figured it out. Watch that the scoring isn't too one sided, and be prepared to alter the game plan if it gets to that point.

Different in that the penalty for bad behavior is being assessed - way after the fact. But mainly - NOT as part of the outcome of THAT match.

It would seem to me that the penalty for "blowing out" the opponent should be felt as part of that match outcome, rather potentially penalizing other teams that had nothing to do with the outcome of the match they are being impacted by.

I hope they re-think and possible alter ths rule, but I wouldn't count on it.

Mike Aubry

[GaryVoshol]

It penelizes teams that have nothing to do with the matter.

Team A is paired with Team B. Team B tripled their opponents score last match. Now Team A must compete in a match with 2 less super cells because of Team B's actions.Not exactly, but close enough. If B had 3x score last time, whatever station B's Payload Spec is in loses 2 balls. They may be Super Cells or Empty cells. Whatever the case, the alliance has two less balls available to them. A (and C, for that matter) are penalized for B's prior "indiscretion".

[Gabe Salas Jr.]

This rule must be modified, or preferably removed completely. I have several reasons for this, but one stands above the rest.
Others have alluded or briefly mentioned this, but I'm goin to spell it out clearly and focus on it.

It penelizes teams that have nothing to do with the matter.

Team A is paired with Team B. Team B tripled their opponents score last match. Now Team A must compete in a match with 2 less super cells because of Team B's actions.

Tell me how that is fair. Team A could have even been the alliance who had their score tripled by Team B in the previous match (given how "random" the pairing algorithm has been the past few years).

This rule has many flaws that must be fixed. So many it's probably easier just to remove it and move on.

I personally think it is the whole alliances responsibility to agree if they want to risk losing a match by boosting the opposing team's score to gain a higher ranking score versus going all out (thus possibly losing the chance to use their super cell the following match). It is a calculated risk the alliance must take. If each team sees that their following match is up against a pretty good alliance, they need to voice their opinion.

What teams really should do (in the spirit of GP) is to send one team representative to alert their following match alliance of the possibility of losing a super cell and perhaps asking if the strategy for that up coming match is dependent on the super cell.

[Alexa Stott]

There appear to be handheld boxes for Refs to use to keep live scoring. If we presume there is no descoring, this will be completely accurate live scoring:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22421182@N05/3164596040/in/set-72157611844292070/

I think most of us who have ever attended week one regionals (when the field software always has a few kinks yet to be worked out--as in 2006, when the scoring couldn't keep up with rapid-fire autonomous) have learned the risks of trusting live scoring... :rolleyes:

[nicktoptine]

The dominate team does just that, dominates, but stays within the rule so the score is within 3x the opposing alliance's score. The team that must face the dominate team in the next match chooses to score enough to go over 3x, thus they even the playing field for the next match because neither alliance will have any super cells.

That's not exactly right though. In the next match, each alliance will be down two of their FOUR super cells, and that's only if those alliances decide to put the teams that are down super cells in one of the two corner fueling stations.

If both that dominant team and that decent team from the previous match are put into the outpost stations, then there will only be four empty cells available in the entire match, two per alliance.

[johnr]

How are they going to keep track of all this? What if someone makes a mistake and there is a cell were it is not supposed to be and one of the better scouts catch it at end of match. do-over? Looks like refs aren't going to have it that easy.

[Ezbez]

ThunderKate wrote



I don't see a definition of this term in this year's rules. However, I vaguely remember a rule at some time in the past (or, possibly, from a different event altogether) where, if there weren't enough teams to fill out a match schedule, a team could be assigned to fill in extra rounds as a surrogate, to prevent playing matches with no opponent. These matches result in a score for the real player, but not for the surrogate.

Anyway, that's how I interpreted it.

Yes, that's how I see it. From page 3 under "Tournament":

All teams will play the same number of qualifying matches except if the number of team appearances (number of teams multiplied by number of rounds) is not divisible by six; in that case the Field Management System will randomly select some teams to play an extra MATCH. For purposes of seeding calculations, those teams will be designated as SURROGATES for the extra MATCH. If teams play a MATCH as a SURROGATE, it will be indicated on the match schedule, and it will always be their third match.

[meaubry]

By delaying the impact for outscoring the opponents by a large margin,
I wonder if teams that can score alot, will still demonstrate that ability in their last match, to encourage high ranked teams to pick them as an alliance partner?

As the rule is now written, they really wouldn't be putting themselves in danger of having less balls to play with, in their next match would they.(Unless, I misread the rule).

This might put them in a difficult situation, especially if their alliance partners for that match still have a match to play.

[Michael Hill]

Wow, this is a pretty horrible rule...If you're part of an amazing team/alliance, you should be rewarded for it. They earned their ability, and should not be discriminated against.

[smurfgirl]

I think it's a ridiculous rule, maybe they don't remember how 07 turned out when they tried to put everyone on equal playing fields, it gave good high number teams a huge advantage and others a huge disadvantage, and now this year they can penalize you based on doing good in a DIFFERENT match. I don't think it will be as important as '07 but it still has disaster written all over it, so remember teams do good but not to good. thats the spirit were lookin for.

Could you clarify what you're talking about in 2007? I don't remember anything of the sort happening... and I also really liked 2007.

I also really like Lunacy so far, and <G14> is part of the reason why. It may seem unfair in various ways to some people, but it is a part of the game, and we have to accept that and work with that. The complexity <G14> adds to the game and the amount of strategy it brings in is why I like it so much. It may not end up leveling the playing field the way we're expecting it to now, we're going to have to wait to see how the game plays out as the season progresses. There are a lot of directions this rule could turn, so you shouldn't write it off as bad right now.

[GaryVoshol]

By delaying the impact for outscoring the opponents by a large margin, I wonder if teams that can score alot, will still demonstrate that ability in their last match, to encourage high ranked teams to pick them as an alliance partner?

As the rule is now written, they really wouldn't be putting themselves in danger of having less balls to play with, in their next match would they.(Unless, I misread the rule).

This might put them in a difficult situation, especially if their alliance partners for that match still have a match to play.I don't see anything that wipes out the blowout penalty going from Qualifying matches to Elimination matches. If you score big in your last match, you bring a burden with you into your Elim alliance.

Could you clarify what you're talking about in 2007? I don't remember anything of the sort happening... and I also really liked 2007.I'm guessing he's talking about the tiered scheduling algorithm. Each Qualifying match alliance had a team from the lower 1/3 of team numbers, a team from the middle 1/3, and a team from the highes 1/3. This was under the vendor's theory that lower numbered teams were veterans, and that automatically made them better; upper number teams were rookies and that made them worse.

[GaryVoshol]

There appear to be handheld boxes for Refs to use to keep live scoring. If we presume there is no descoring, this will be completely accurate live scoring:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22421182@N05/3164596040/in/set-72157611844292070/There is a new position this year, the Official Scorer. Regional volunteer coordinators were told to get 4 referees, who were to be trained and certified. In addition there will be 6 scorers, who do not need pre-certification.

I'm guessing now - These scorers will attempt to provide real-time scoring using the shown handheld. Then at the end of the match they will come onto the field to confirm the ball counts, based on <T13>.

[Lil' Lavery]

I personally think it is the whole alliances responsibility to agree if they want to risk losing a match by boosting the opposing team's score to gain a higher ranking score versus going all out (thus possibly losing the chance to use their super cell the following match). It is a calculated risk the alliance must take. If each team sees that their following match is up against a pretty good alliance, they need to voice their opinion.

What teams really should do (in the spirit of GP) is to send one team representative to alert their following match alliance of the possibility of losing a super cell and perhaps asking if the strategy for that up coming match is dependent on the super cell.

That may be a valid idea, but it's beside the point.

Whether or not Team B planned to get 3x the score or not, or alerted my alliance that they were getting 3x the score or not, they did. And now my team is paying the price for actions committed by another team in a match we didn't even participate in.
Even having a fair warning beforehand does not make that situation fair to my team.


To take it a step further, what if Team B's partner in the previous match, Team D, did it intentionally? Team A (my team) is ahead of Team D in the standings, and they know that Team B is paired with us next. So Team D then decides to triple the score of the opponents to put my alliance at a disadvantage in our match.

[Cory]

It's a stupid rule...

But who cares? Just build a robot so good it doesn't even need the fancy pants super cell (or whatever the dumb terminology is) to win.

[Lil' Lavery]

It's a stupid rule...

But who cares? Just build a robot so good it doesn't even need the fancy pants super cell (or whatever the dumb terminology is) to win.

Cory, what happens when you then run up against another team that built a robot that doesn't need the fancy pants super cell to win? When you're facing a team as good as you are, suddenly it becomes important again...

[Team1710]

By delaying the impact for outscoring the opponents by a large margin,
I wonder if teams that can score alot, will still demonstrate that ability in their last match, to encourage high ranked teams to pick them as an alliance partner?

As the rule is now written, they really wouldn't be putting themselves in danger of having less balls to play with, in their next match would they.(Unless, I misread the rule).

This might put them in a difficult situation, especially if their alliance partners for that match still have a match to play.

I totally agree with this. Those who do well should be rewarded not hurt. Thats the survival of the fittest and it adds motivation and competition. Its a good thing.

[Boron + Z]

Someone already brought this up, but it wasn't really talked about; the situation:

Blue Alliance scores 30 points.
Red Alliance scores 0 points. (or after penalties the alliance score is reduced to zero)

Technically, the Blue Alliance had an infinite multiplier (because 30 divided by 0 = infinity). Does this mean the teams won't have any super cells to work with next match? Maybe I've overlooked something here, but it would be nice if someone could clarify this.

[dtengineering]

If an alliance is good enough to win by a blowout, then they are good enough to win by something less than a blowout.

The only place where I would be too concerned about this is in matches that aren't really blowouts... say 20-10, or even 30-10. Perhaps, however, with even moderately competent human players the minimum scores will be in the 30-40 range.

Mostly, however, I think Cory hits the nail on the head when he says to plan to win without the supercell. I'm suspecting, given the effort that is required to score a supercell that the chances of seeing four of them (or even three of them) come into play in one match for one alliance will be minimal. I suspect they'll be kind of like the spoiler rings in Rack-n-roll... good for a bit of drama, sometimes, but rarely a match deciding factor.

Jason

[Joe G.]

Here is how I think this one will play out, why I think it is here, and a couple more points:

Suppose that team A has a low end robot, with an amazing match draw. In their first match, they are partnered with 2 amazing robots, B and C, and in their next, with 2 fairly decent robots, D and E. They are carried to a dominant victory by their partners in the first match. Now, under the old system, if this happened enough, team A would seed fairly well, possibly even within the top 8. Justifiably, this can be argued as unfair, as team A was carried to this position more than anything else.

Teams B and C, meanwhile, proceed to win nearly every match they compete in. They are hampered slightly by their loss of empty cells, which happens in more matches than not. Team B has dominated the competition for years, and was fully expecting their robot to be one of the forces at the regional. Therefore, they wisely decided to not base their strategy on empty/super cells, and focus on other things. They place within the top 3 at the regional. Team C is a rookie sensation, and was not expecting to be doing so well. Their robot was designed more around empty cells, as they were not expecting to be hurt by <G14> much. They seed just outside of the top 8, and make a note to focus more on parts of the game not penalized by similar rules in the past. However, through good scouting and foresight, team B picks team C in the first round of picking. The eliminations are close enough that <G14> never affects a match, and team C is allowed to fully shine, and along with team B and their third partner, they win the regional.

Team A goes on to its second match carrying a heavy <G14> burden from its last match. Teams A, D, and E fight hard, but are unable to win their second match, arguably because they were short 2 empty cells. This same cycle occurs at least once more to team A, placing them out of the top 8. Scouts have noticed that most of their victories, such as those with team B and C, were not lead by team A, and they are not picked.

Teams D and E only are affected by <G14> occasionally, and when they are, it is usually due to another team. However, they are finding that, without team C's amazing combination of good robot, skilled payload specialist, and skilled driver, they rarely, if ever, score more than 2 super cells per match anyways. Not enough opportunities come for the payload specialists, and without exceptional robots, they are unable to both receive more than 2 empty cells without wasting a fair amount of time, not to mention time sitting still getting shot at, as well as receive more than 2 empty cells from the payload specialists, and score them all in 20 seconds.



So I guess I don't really think that losing 1-2 empty cells will hurt that much, and if it does, you must have a dynamite robot that will be taken in pretty quickly in the picking. If you really think that this is an unavoidable and harsh burden, then design around things other than empty cells.

I also don't think a score of zero will EVER occur. There will just be too many balls flying around to not have at least a couple score.


Finally, we all seem to forget the first bit of kickoff too quickly. Are we really going to be looking back, 20 years from now, and going "Gee, my life has been messed up. If only FIRST had let us win that match by letting us have another empty cell, then I would have learned so much more, been inspired to go into engineering, and come up with several things to make the world better."?

[Pat Arnold]

FIRST likes making one rule that gets dumped in by the off season events.

I think dumping rule <G14> would allow for a better, more exciting competition (& explains why I've gone to watch IRI the last 2 years).

Seeing robots perform at the top of their game inspires. Spectators & parents shudder when scoring/penalties are difficult to understand or are inexplicably punitive. Record high scores amaze audiences, create benchmarks for others to try to break & create excitement. Lengthy explanations about the need to keep match scores close between competitors bewilders spectators.

A strategy that requires participants to do less than their best seems blatantly misguided even if its intent is to prevent hurt feelings.

Just my thoughts...

[Drwurm]

I think dumping rule <G14> would allow for a better, more exciting competition (& explains why I've gone to watch IRI the last 2 years).

Seeing robots perform at the top of their game inspires. Spectators & parents shudder when scoring/penalties are difficult to understand or are inexplicably punitive. Record high scores amaze audiences, create benchmarks for others to try to break & create excitement. Lengthy explanations about the need to keep match scores close between competitors bewilders spectators.

A strategy that requires participants to do less than their best seems blatantly misguided even if its intent is to prevent hurt feelings.

Just my thoughts...

Agreed. Presumably, the main goal of the game (not of FIRST, but of Lunacy) is to win. You win by having the highest score. Why discourage having high scores?

[johnr]

team mentor-Hi. Welcome to the team.
new parent- Thanks. So, what are you going to teach my kid?
tm-Well, this years game is blah,blah ,blah and if we do to good we get penalized.
nw- WHAT???
That is the reaction i got all meeting today. How do you tell a new parent that his/her kid can't do his /her best.

[Cyberphil]

What happens if by some random event, your opponent scores 0, because of penalties, or just robots not working. Than you are a hue dis advantage in the next match.

[Team1710]

What happens if by some random event, your opponent scores 0, because of penalties, or just robots not working. Than you are a hue dis advantage in the next match.

I highly doubt that will happen but it will be interesting if it happens.

[Koko Ed]

team mentor-Hi. Welcome to the team.
new parent- Thanks. So, what are you going to teach my kid?
tm-Well, this years game is blah,blah ,blah and if we do to good we get penalized.
nw- WHAT???
That is the reaction i got all meeting today. How do you tell a new parent that his/her kid can't do his /her best.
To quote the great movie The Incredibles:
"It's psychotic! They keep creating new ways to celebrate mediocrity, but if someone is genuinely exceptional... "

[AdityaD]

I feel the need to bring up something that was stated on the first page:

What's preventing you from scoring on your own robot? You could have the payload specialist keep a watch for a totally lopsided score, and have him/her switch targets to your own robot..You could even make your trailer a sitting duck....

So I think this rule forces you to be more creative, and that outwieghs the disadvantages to better teams.

[Jim E]

G14 makes perfect sense to me.

Why blow out an opponent just to get their low point total as a score? Hypothetically, if my marginal team was on an awesome alliance and we won by a large margin, that means my alliance (and team points) are lower even though we are credited with the win.

It just makes more sense to keep the actual score close as part of the strategy of the alliance. If an alliance can score 100 points, they can surely give a little back to the opposition to improve their own standings and not hurt their alliance partners. It's about working together as a team.

Shenanigans? NO! It is just part of the strategy of the game and makes it more exciting for the spectators (and potential sponsors).

[Ironstorm]

My biggest problem with this rule is the playoff rounds. Lets say one of your robots is out of commision. Why not keep your score to less than one third of the other alliances to give you an advantage in the final match. Bottom Line this will add minimal strategy to gameplay and honestly, makes me pretty mad. I understand that nobody feels good when they get blown out I certainly don't, but guess what how much would I learn from FIRST if I thought that everyone in the outside world would want to score for me even they were the compitition. Not to mention if the other team starts scoring for me I would feel a lot worse than if they just beat the crap out me. I hope and expect this to be dropped in update 1.

[Pat Arnold]

It is just part of the strategy of the game and makes it more exciting for the spectators (and potential sponsors).

Sorry Jim, I disagree. It just confuses spectators when a high score alliance gets punished for excelling at the task (scoring points) for which they are created & cheered on to achieve. Sure, some sports use a handicap system to "even the playing field", but none I can think of create a handicap for team players mid-tournament.

[Cory]

Cory, what happens when you then run up against another team that built a robot that doesn't need the fancy pants super cell to win? When you're facing a team as good as you are, suddenly it becomes important again...

Well they'll probably have beaten their previous opposing alliance so badly they've lost their super cells as well, so you'd be on equal footing ;)

In all seriousness it seems like a ridiculous rule to me. Everyone should always play their best and hardest. This encourages not doing your best. It's also just a politically correct move on FIRST's part. They're saying "we know we will have teams who will kick the snot out of everyone they play, so we'll try to penalize them in an attempt to make them win, but just less convincingly so". This doesn't actually help the weaker alliance, it's just a pity rule.

It seems even more ridiculous if you penalize an alliance than won 10-0, or something of that nature. As mentioned before there should be some minimum point threshold before this rule is in effect.

[R.C.]

Well they'll probably have beaten their previous opposing alliance so badly they've lost their super cells as well, so you'd be on equal footing ;)

In all seriousness it seems like a ridiculous rule to me. Everyone should always play their best and hardest. This encourages not doing your best. It's also just a politically correct move on FIRST's part. They're saying "we know we will have teams who will kick the snot out of everyone they play, so we'll try to penalize them in an attempt to make them win, but just less convincingly so". This doesn't actually help the weaker alliance, it's just a pity rule.

It seems even more ridiculous if you penalize an alliance than won 10-0, or something of that nature. As mentioned before there should be some minimum point threshold before this rule is in effect.

Cory I agree with the threshold rule. Kinda like little league baseball there is a ten run rule. Maybe there should be limit. How would you decide it, after week 1 or before?

[synth3tk]

Cory I agree with the threshold rule. Kinda like little league baseball there is a ten run rule. Maybe there should be limit. How would you decide it, after week 1 or before?
Hopefully before. I would like to play without this crazy rule, as we only attend one regional per year.

[Jreed129]

The only time i see this rule working is during finals when the same teams are against each other... other then that with everything being "Random" during qualifications i don't think that they can really penalize you because of a alliance partner you didn't have in your previous match.

apart from that there really are only 2-3 penalties this year:
~Intently wedging or flipping and opponent (they disable you i think)
~throwing the Super Cell before the last 20 seconds of match(20 points off)
~and then this rule which would only allow you to score 2 points per ball in match if you do really well in previous match

I think this rule will be the deciding factor in a lot/all of the finals

[Michael Corsetto]

This rule also seems like a nightmare for Field Reset Crews to me. Every year those crews do the same thing match after match, and now this year they have to consider where to put every empty cell every match? Coupled with an entirely new control system, we could be seeing 10 minutes between matches on a regular basis...

[=Martin=Taylor=]

Maybe our team has gone hopelessly awry in our strategy...

But do any of you honestly think any team will be able to score more than 2 super cells!??

First you have to transport them one-by-one to your alliance station. Considering the playing surface and the ridiculous interfaces between bots and HP's this will likely take all of 1.5 mins...

Then... In the last 20 seconds you have to try and score them into a moving target, from a single position (which is likely the furthest away from your opponents).

If there are bots that do this consistently... I'll be impressed...

[Drwurm]

But do any of you honestly think any team will be able to score more than 2 super cells!??

Until the robonauts 3 week video last year, i didn't think anyone was going to be reliably hurdling via a shooter. If you can think of it, some team will do it.

[AdamHeard]

No idea if this was the intention, but I imagine it could be.

Limited resources, and efficient use of them. If you are truly going to the moon, would it be wise to use 120 Watts do something 20 can? If you're opponents score 19 balls, you only need 20 to win.

Just playing devil's advocate.

Now.......... On the other hand, this isn't actually going to the moon, this is a FIRST game and that reasoning no longer applies to my emotional response.

But, what's odd to me, is I'm not upset about this rule. Not one bit. High Scoring teams will probably have good scouts, and will probably know when they are having hard and easy matches. They should be able to handle not dominating several times over in a single match if they want a super cell in the next.

If a team is consistently losing super cells match after match, they shouldn't be complaining one bit; they're clearly winning matches over and over, and easily at that.

As for my team, I think we'll just score.

[AdamHeard]

Maybe our team has gone hopelessly awry in our strategy...

But do any of you honestly think any team will be able to score more than 2 super cells!??

First you have to transport them one-by-one to your alliance station. Considering the playing surface and the ridiculous interfaces between bots and HP's this will likely take all of 1.5 mins...

Then... In the last 20 seconds you have to try and score them into a moving target, from a single position (which is likely the furthest away from your opponents).

If there are bots that do this consistently... I'll be impressed...

who says the payload specialists can't somehow get the supercells to a robot, who can score them much easier.

[Koko Ed]

The more I think about it the more I think this thread by the end of the season will be much ado about nothing. I think <G14> is going to have the opposite effect on top level teams and they will just pound everyone into mush so that they don't even have to worry about the Super Cells effecting them.
I bet they don't even get scored at more than 10% for a whole regional. And mean were assuming that teams are actually going to be able to score them once they have them. I don't think that's going to be as easy as people think. You only get a 20 second window shooting over a barrier into a small moving target. Unless teams are able to wrangle a clutch shooter from their high school basketball teams (good luck with that) you're probably not going to get someone all that skilled and once there in play aren't they available for anyone to use?
After week 2 this will be a non issue.

[Muktar Ali]

From my interpretation, the rule makes most sense for the elimination matches. That way you have your alliance which doesn't change. To have this rule in qualifying is madness.:confused:

[GaryVoshol]

The only time i see this rule working is during finals when the same teams are against each other... other then that with everything being "Random" during qualifications i don't think that they can really penalize you because of a alliance partner you didn't have in your previous match.But that's the way the rule is written.

apart from that there really are only 2-3 penalties this year:Actually there are 27 penalties this year. The only good thing is that most of them are arcane and won't be seen. Certainly not repeated time and time again like the interfering with hurdling penalty last year.

But you will see a whole lot of double penalties for entering the Super Cell too early. OCCRA had a similar money-ball rule this season, and even in the last event prior to the championship teams were still doing it. (I wasn't at the championship; maybe it happened there too.) A -20 point swing that late in the game will be huge, especially in regards to <G14>. An alliance that was losing 8-16 may suddenly see itself winning 8-1 and incur the 3x penalty for their next match.

[XXShadowXX]

To have this rule in qualifying is madness.:confused:

Very true, there would be 3 alliance's, in three matches being penalized for 1 teams actions

[Jreed129]

But that's the way the rule is written.

With that I'm going to have to agree with Muktar Ali

It is going to be madness to have this rule in qualification matches

[QUOTE=GaryVoshol;792174]Actually there are 27 penalties this year. The only good thing is that most of them are arcane and won't be seen. Certainly not repeated time and time again like the interfering with hurdling penalty last year.[QUOTE]


I can agree with you also that allowing the supercell to enter that game before the last 20 seconds will be that major rule this year that also decides the game, like interfering with a hurdle and crossing a line plane in the opposite direction last year.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

who says the payload specialists can't somehow get the supercells to a robot, who can score them much easier.

Yeah, who said you can't do that? ;)

Needless to say, that really doesn't make it THAT much easier though. Its still a fairly ridiculous task to complete in >20 seconds.

[artdutra04]

Here's my proposed modification of G14, which I think the fairest way to keep this rule in effect:

- You beat your opponent by 2x and with at least 15 points difference (e.g. greater than 30-15 win),
- Or you beat them by at least 3x and also with at least 20 points difference (e.g. greater than 30-10 win).

Or you can word the above as saying the 2x and 3x clauses only take effect if the winning score is greater than or equal to 30 points.

Any winning score of less than thirty points shouldn't be a victim of this rule, as those teams certainly aren't powerhouse teams. They were just a victim of having a single ball count so much higher towards their score relative-wise than a much higher scoring match.

Because as the rule stands now, many of the 12-2 or 16-8 style matches we see in week one and two regionals (where the difference is only a few balls) will be made victims of this rule, stinting further progress towards high scores. But under the proposed modification, low-scoring matches from both alliances won't get penalized, but the uber-high scoring matches (the ones typically called shutouts) would still be affected by the rule.

[cbudrecki]

Has anyone asked about this rule in the Q&A? I myself, don't have a team sign-on, so I can't.

[Alan Anderson]

Has anyone asked about this rule in the Q&A? I myself, don't have a team sign-on, so I can't.

I don't see anything unclear about it. What would you ask?

"We don't like <G14>. Can you delete it?" :cool:

[ATannahill]

I don't see anything unclear about it. What would you ask?

"We don't like <G14>. Can you delete it?" :cool:
What happens in a 2-0 game?
What happens in a 4-2 game where the only way to win is to double the other alliance's score?
Is this enacted before or after penalties?
Does this apply to no-show teams?

[EricH]

I don't see anything unclear about it. What would you ask?

"We don't like <G14>. Can you delete it?" :cool:I would ask one thing: What happens when (not if) a team loses x-0, where x >= 1? Is this 2x, 3x, or <G14> does not apply?

I understand <G14>. The effects will be--minimal, at best, I think. I can only think of two groups of teams that will really be affected other than by their alliance partners. The one thing I don't understand is why it's in the rulebook. I'm sure there is a reason, but I don't know what that reason is.

[kirtar]

I don't have time to look through this thread to see if it has been posted already, but say for example that before penalties that your alliance has scored 50 and the opposing alliance has scored 40. However, for some reason, a payload specialist on the opposing alliance had hurled a super cell before the 20 second warning (assume unintentionally), incurring a double penalty. Your alliance recieves zero penalties. The final score is 50-20. According to the current wording of <G14> in your next match you lose one empty or super cell because the other alliance broke some rule and incurred a penalty. At the very least <G14> should use the unpenalized score and take low score matches into account since they will undoubtedly occur although probably not very much. Also, in the case of a 4-2 score, if you look at <G14> it says:
<G14>
CELL Count Modification – If the assigned ALLIANCE score for the last non-surrogate MATCH played by the TEAM was more than twice (2x) the opposing ALLIANCE score, then one EMPTY CELL or SUPER CELL will be withheld from the initial set of GAME PIECES made available to the PAYLOAD SPECIALIST for the TEAM. If the assigned ALLIANCE score for the last non-surrogate MATCH played by the TEAM was more than triple (3x) the opposing ALLIANCE score, then a second EMPTY CELL or SUPER CELL will be withheld from the initial set of GAME PIECES made available to the PAYLOAD SPECIALIST for the TEAM.

According to this wording, 4-2 wouldn't trigger <G14>.

[jgraber]

If a team wins 5 to 0, they aren't scoring super cells anyway, so loss of future use is not much of a penalty.

G14 provides just more of the same motivations as Ranking point system:
Winners: score for opponent to boost your RP, and avoid G14 losses
Losers: If you are losing, try to lose badly to avoid giving high RP.
Losers: If you are clearly outmatched, you can always create infinite penaties at the last second to zero out your opponent RP, and cause G14.

If it only applies during Eliminations only, then RP doesn't matter and G14 is just another long-term strategy component.

If it G14 applies during qualifying, then the strategy gets too deep for me; do you check if your opponents now are your future allies before using penalties to aid them in G14?

[Ian Curtis]

If a team wins 5 to 0, they aren't scoring super cells anyway, so loss of future use is not much of a penalty.

G14 provides just more of the same motivations as Ranking point system:
Winners: score for opponent to boost your RP, and avoid G14 losses
Losers: If you are losing, try to lose badly to avoid giving high RP.
Losers: If you are clearly outmatched, you can always create infinite penaties at the last second to zero out your opponent RP, and cause G14.

If it only applies during Eliminations only, then RP doesn't matter and G14 is just another long-term strategy component.

If it G14 applies during qualifying, then the strategy gets too deep for me; do you check if your opponents now are your future allies before using penalties to aid them in G14?

Ranking Points are determined by the losing alliance's unpenalized score. That said, you still could invoke <G14>, but I'd bet your alliance partners would not be too happy with you. :rolleyes: