View Full Version : Curie 2010!
Wow! 1114 pulls it off!
1 1114 10 301.00 104.00 22.00
2 111 10 286.00 120.00 4.00
3 2612 10 264.00 124.00 4.00
I'm not sure about the rest, but I think the top 3 seeds are pretty much set.
Stephen Kowski
17-04-2010, 11:13
I can't blame 1114 because its obvious they are going for that 1st seed hard, but I do blame the GDC for coming up with a qualification system that rewards lawyering and shenanigans versus rewarding fun, competitive game play.
These are the rules as set out by the GDC so I think your portrayal of 'lawyering' and 'shenanigans' are inaccurate. This happened in 2003 on a large scale so the GDC knew what was coming.
1114 is just playing the game in an intelligent way so you are right not to blame them. These actions are not shenanigans or lawyering, they are just the rules as they were explained to EVERYONE. Characterizing their game play as shenanigans is a shot at them, you know that. If you want to criticize the GDC go ahead, but don't bring 1114 into it.
Well, 1114 and 469 are together. Let's see how these strategies play out.
Curie division alliance selection (no declines)
1: 1114 (1) - 469 (21) - 2041 (28)
2: 111 (2) - 1538 (23) - 2630 (36)
3: 1986 (3) - 1676 (4) - 888 (54)
4: 2612 (5) - 27 (9) - 141 (80)
5: 1306 (6) - 2337 (19) - 624 (63)
6: 175 (7) - 88 (20) - 573 (18)
7: 3234 (8) - 2775 (12) - 40 (49)
8: 1511 (10) - 1732 (25) - 368 (13)
Backups are (if I'm reading correctly)
2992 (11)
126 (14)
1421 (15)
2169 (16)
830 (17)
115 (22)
2557 (24)
1764 (26)
No shock to 1114 and 469. I am a little shocked about 2041. However they seem like a good 3rd partner.
I'm just glad we finnaly know who the 3rd parter is on the Alliance we have been discussing about for so long. I hope everyone down there or back home has a good lunch, and Lets hope for some amazing elimination rounds in Curie.
Mori1578
17-04-2010, 12:34
GOOD LUCK ALLIANCE #2 - Wildstang (111), Thunderbolts (2630) and The Holy Cows (1538)! :)
Hope to see some good matches :)
Radical Pi
17-04-2010, 14:07
How'd that ball get stuck in the return for Q 4-2?
rdlevy1215
17-04-2010, 14:11
from what I heard on the webcast, somehow the ramp went into compression / was depressed and made a gap between the end of the ramp and the cross bar from the tower causing the ball to get stuck and all balls after to get stuck behind it.
Tetraman
17-04-2010, 14:23
please tell me someone has a recording of the MC shaking his thing speach. I want to do a techno remix of that.
Derbyshire
17-04-2010, 14:48
As an alumni I'm beginning to get very frustrated by the lack of follow through with penalty assessments. Alliance number 3 had almost two timeouts essentially. And a game replayed where there was no advantage what so ever. If anything the number 6 alliance where the ones that were at a disadvantage as those balls that come in from alliance 3 come in their direction. I really am frustrated by this entire event.
Radical Pi
17-04-2010, 14:57
And a game replayed where there was no advantage what so ever. If anything the number 6 alliance where the ones that were at a disadvantage as those balls that come in from alliance 3 come in their direction.
It's not a matter of one team getting an advantage over another. The replay was due to an arena fault which is specifically stated in the rules to cause a replay.
Derbyshire
17-04-2010, 15:01
so they should have stopped the match then. I mean I'm been out of first for a long time but field defaults never stopped matches before and I have been involved in games where goals and sidebars came apart. It just doesn't seem like the rules are as strict as they use to be which is a shame as teams that are designed to tough and put the time in to make sure their electronics work get penalized by these actions.
Radical Pi
17-04-2010, 15:12
How is it penalizing a team? The field broke and they re-played it as a match to make sure no team got an advantage for the broken field
Derbyshire
17-04-2010, 15:16
Goodness sir for it not being about a team getting an advantage and then saying it is to guarantee that there wasn't an advantage you clearly demonstrate my point. :cool:
Under the rules, if a field fault happens, at any time, the match is to be replayed. They don't stop matches unless it's really bad; as a matter of fact, it's never called for in the rules. What a field fault is is up to the FTA and Head Ref to determine.
And there was an advantage: If there are no more balls coming down the return due to a jam, then balls are supposed to come in from the side. If they run out, there's a problem--both sides are short of balls, and it's anyone's guess who's at the disadvantage. So they replay the match.
Derbyshire, I've seen field faults cause the entire match to be played wrong. The match had to be replayed. This is AFTER the match ended. I haven't heard the foghorn in quite some time, maybe the last couple of years or more. I've heard of it, but not heard it.
Radical Pi
17-04-2010, 15:25
But you're saying the replay is somehow giving an advantage. There is no advantage for any team in a replay
Congrats to 469 1114 and 2041 for being crowned our Divsion Champions!!!!!!
sircedric4
17-04-2010, 21:43
These are the rules as set out by the GDC so I think your portrayal of 'lawyering' and 'shenanigans' are inaccurate. This happened in 2003 on a large scale so the GDC knew what was coming.
1114 is just playing the game in an intelligent way so you are right not to blame them. These actions are not shenanigans or lawyering, they are just the rules as they were explained to EVERYONE. Characterizing their game play as shenanigans is a shot at them, you know that. If you want to criticize the GDC go ahead, but don't bring 1114 into it.
Nope, not a shot at anyone that decides to play for strategy and it shouldn't be read that way. It was another vote for why I don't like the coopertition aspect. Sorry if it sounded un-GP or something, but I think if you read my other posts the last few weeks I'm as laid back as you can imagine so it wasn't meant at a shot at all and wanted that clarified. Still don't like the coopertition, as anything that rewards purposely tanking yourself to advance is not a good way to approach things.
Moving on to other things, our team had a blast at Curie this weekend and a very good weekend here in Atlanta. We learned quite a few things, finally got to see our robot go against some of the better teams in the nation and seeded 12th out of 84 with a win-loss record of 8-2. We were disappointed that we weren't picked, just like the other 60 teams that weren't, but Atlanta is always like that. Only so many can go on, and so many variables go into picking from scouting to politics to who you know and have played with before that we honestly weren't getting our hopes up to play in eliminations anyway.
Would have been nice, but at least we got one of the better seats in the house as the second backup robot for Curie's eliminations. :-) We wish everyone a safe and prosperous off-season, and congrats to the number one seed for winning Curie. Those were some fun games to watch this afternoon.
BuzzMathias175
17-04-2010, 22:11
Congratulations none the less to the winners of curie division, your were simply playing the game, maybe not in the spirit of the competition, but the game none the less congratulations, you bested curie division it was a shame you guys didn't go on to win the championship. Either way your guys had great bots cleverly and efficiently, designed and built.
playbass06
17-04-2010, 22:15
Congrats to all in the Curie division on their accomplishments! I was very surprised that our champion alliance didn't go on to win it all, but it's great that they got that far. Hey, it's an honor to lose to a great alliance!
Congrats to the finalist alliance, too, 1676, 888, 1421, and 1986!
888, you did great for the few matches you were available for. I wish you could have played longer.
1676, your midfield playing and high shooting scored several key goals and you shut down the opposing alliance from doing the same. Your hanging helped many times in matches.
1421, you were the best replacement we could have gotten. Your tactics kept us going all the way to finals, and I'm happy you were able to share in the Championship spirit.
And 1986, you're a great team to be on!
Hopefully we shall see all of you in Curie next year, whether it be at a regional or at the championships (I hope so... :D ), and good luck in advance!
On an unrelated note, I've been having account problems. I cannot post new threads. Anyone know how to contact an admin or moderator to correct this?
Also, if you didn't know, I had created a simulator for Breakaway, inspired by 5th Gear. The source file is now available at http://teamtitanium.org/resources.html (that's why I wondered how to create a new thread)
To all teams on Curie.
While tearing down the field on Curie we came across several team flags and I now have them in my possession.
If you are missing your flag contact me via PM (I have one from Team Rush, 537, and a GM flag to name a few).
Still a little tired and overwhelmed from the whole weekend, but I wanted to address the comments on Match 100 in this thread. The decision to play 6v0 was made solely by the alliance of 231, 288 and 1114. We never let 111, 469 and 888 in on our strategy. The goal of the match was to obtain as many seeding points as we possibly could. The 111, 469, 888 alliance was an Einstein quality group of teams. We decided that the chances of beating them were very slim. We spent a lot of time discussing potential strategies, but the 6v0 definitely looked to be the one that maximized our seeding points. All three teams agreed to this strategy, although I don't think any of us were 100% happy about. It definitely feels weird not playing to win. As for the blocking our own goals. We were concerned that our opponents would start scoring in the other direction to maximize their seeding points once they realized we were aiming for a 6v0. We knew that the time they spent scoring in our goals meant less time they were scoring in their own goals, hence less seeding points for us. Wow, just thinking about this makes my head spin.
Also, our alliance was not the only one who ran this type of strategy this weekend. Our opponents played 6v0 against us a couple times this weekend, once using the goal blocking strategy. All part of this very weird game.
As an alumni I'm beginning to get very frustrated by the lack of follow through with penalty assessments. Alliance number 3 had almost two timeouts essentially. And a game replayed where there was no advantage what so ever. If anything the number 6 alliance where the ones that were at a disadvantage as those balls that come in from alliance 3 come in their direction. I really am frustrated by this entire event.
Here is the story from the field floor. When 888 failed to boot up and connect on the field, the field techs began the process of trying to determine whether it was a field error or robot problem. All diagnostic efforts were done by the field staff. No work was done on the 888 robot, other than power cycles and connection checks by the FTAs. They worked the problem for a long time. Probably longer than they would have at any regional. We assume this is because at championships they want to make an extended effort to make sure every match happens without field issues. The alliance had no choice or say in how long or short this effort lasted. When they finally concluded that it was a robot issue, the match was played 2 on 3 with 888 disabled, because they had already taken the field. Hardly an advantagous outcome for Alliance 3. Alliance 3 later utilized their time-out to try to fix the problem, was unable to, and called for a substitute in the later moments of the time-out as directed by the field officials.
Regarding the replayed match, again this was totally a decision of the field officials. No protest or challenge was made by any team. The rules explicitly state that any match with such field malfunctions will be replayed, so we assume that was the ruling. We would judge that the accumulated balls on our return rack did present a disadvantage for us, as we play a recycle strategey by controlling balls from the rack.
Edit: After reviewing the video of this match, the stuck balls did indeed starve our recycle efforts, and forced us to abandon the midzone and move to the forward zone, where there where only 2 balls remaining.
Still a little tired and overwhelmed from the whole weekend, but I wanted to address the comments on Match 100 in this thread. The decision to play 6v0 was made solely by the alliance of 231, 288 and 1114. We never let 111, 469 and 888 in on our strategy. The goal of the match was to obtain as many seeding points as we possibly could. The 111, 469, 888 alliance was an Einstein quality group of teams. We decided that the chances of beating them were very slim. We spent a lot of time discussing potential strategies, but the 6v0 definitely looked to be the one that maximized our seeding points. All three teams agreed to this strategy, although I don't think any of us were 100% happy about. It definitely feels weird not playing to win. As for the blocking our own goals. We were concerned that our opponents would start scoring in the other direction to maximize their seeding points once they realized we were aiming for a 6v0. We knew that the time they spent scoring in our goals meant less time they were scoring in their own goals, hence less seeding points for us. Wow, just thinking about this makes my head spin.
Also, our alliance was not the only one who ran this type of strategy this weekend. Our opponents played 6v0 against us a couple times this weekend, once using the goal blocking strategy. All part of this very weird game.
Hopefully the off season events will universally denounce the ranking system and go for the traditional W-L-T formula so we can see the matches played out like the elims which are very very fun to watch and teams won't have to obsess over seeding points as much and give the audience their money's worth.
Akash Rastogi
18-04-2010, 19:08
Congrats to 1676 on a very solid season performance. You guys really made New Jersey proud. Keep it up.:)
DonRotolo
18-04-2010, 22:01
1114 is just playing the game in an intelligent way so you are right not to blame them.Absolutely 100% in agreement here. I didn't like to see it, and even Karthik admits it was kinda wierd, but the GDC knew exactly what they were doing when they designed this game, and I cannot imagine they did not consider such a possibility.How'd that ball get stuck in the return for Q 4-2?Someone (888 I believe) kicked a ball off one of the bumps, and it went up and got lodged between the supporting wire and the rails of the ball return. That moved everything a bit, causing another ball to get stuck on the end of the return.And 1986, you're a great team to be on!...and a great alliance partner! You guys rock!Hopefully the off season events will universally denounce the ranking system and go for the traditional W-L-T formula so we can see the matches played out like the elims which are very very fun to watch and teams won't have to obsess over seeding points as much and give the audience their money's worth.Or at least come up with some other way to rank teams. WLT has some disadvantages, where we see good teams hurt by weak alliances, just as Ranking Points has its disadvantages in that a team with a losing record can seed.
Something needs some tweaking. I'm sure the GDC would be happy to entertain suggestions.
Congrats to 1676 on a very solid season performance. You guys really made New Jersey proud. Keep it up.
Thanks! :)
sparrowkc
18-04-2010, 22:23
Attached is a frame grab of the ball return malfunction at the end of the second QF match. I circled the ball that caused the problem and drew in the path it took from 888's bot. The red ball return was loose and drooping for the entire tournament, I thought about saying something but never did...
Edit: Also, I'm not sure if the announcer mentioned it or if it influenced the refs decision, but during the match the middle field entrance fell apart and the Plexiglas part fell onto the field hook side up. At one point it got caught under our bot and impeded us a little, and at another we missed several scoring opportunities because the field crew was reaching on to the field to fix the problem.
The ball stuck under the return was one of those things you don't expect to happen. A robot kicked a ball, and it somehow wedged itself on the underside of the ball return, between the cable and the poles. I made the decision to let the match run because a robot had kicked the ball there, and then sought guidance from above on a replay while the match continued. You can always replay a match after it ended, but you have to replay a match if you stop it early. The decision came back to replay, so we did. The balls did not fall off the ramp because as they ran down, they hit the stuck ball, and had to go up and over it. That stole enough speed that they did not clear at the bottom.
The ball return was as tight as it goes all weekend. We checked it after the ball got stuck and there was no room to take any more slack out of the cable. If you ever have a concern about the field being incorrect, please go and talk with your FTA at the event. If you had, I would have looked at it and been able to show you that it was fully tightened down.
Other than that, I think the field performed well. Thanks to all the teams for working with us to get things running. We may have run behind the other division a bit due to some extra troubleshooting, but I believe in No Robots Left Behind. Also, thanks to the many captains that listened to my spiel before selections about not using "graciously accepts." Your English teacher thanks you.
See you at the next one,
Wetzel
thefro526
19-04-2010, 11:42
Still a little tired and overwhelmed from the whole weekend, but I wanted to address the comments on Match 100 in this thread. The decision to play 6v0 was made solely by the alliance of 231, 288 and 1114. We never let 111, 469 and 888 in on our strategy. The goal of the match was to obtain as many seeding points as we possibly could. The 111, 469, 888 alliance was an Einstein quality group of teams. We decided that the chances of beating them were very slim. We spent a lot of time discussing potential strategies, but the 6v0 definitely looked to be the one that maximized our seeding points.
Karthik,
I was lucky enough to be in que when this match went on. It was an absolutely brilliant move by 1114, 231 and 288 to play this strategy considering how close you and 111 were seeded at the time. The fact that the score was driven up into the 30 point range was just a bonus.
Also, in the end with the penalties assessed against the Alliance of 469, 111, and 888 wasn't there only a 2 point difference in the seeding points awarded between the alliances?
Anyway, thanks to all of the teams we played with on Curie over the weekend, we definitely had a blast and learned a lot!
Mike Soukup
19-04-2010, 14:05
Still a little tired and overwhelmed from the whole weekend, but I wanted to address the comments on Match 100 in this thread....
1114 absolutely made the right decision in match 100. We were only a few SPs behind them at that time and couldn't risk losing a close, high scoring match and falling into 2nd place. Looking back at the match now, we should have played it differently. We should have assumed that 1114 was going to play 6v0, skipped our autonomous, and immediately scored the 3 balls into their goals, then start scoring for us. That would have given us 6 more SPs than 1114.
There were a lot of strategic moves on Curie by teams that understand the ranking system. During our last match on Saturday against 40, they realized half way through the match, once we started scoring for them, that it was going to be a blow-out and proceeded to play defense on us, preventing us from scoring in their goals.
Both 1114 & 40 played the correct strategy, but I find it odd that most teams don't realize it. Far too often I've seen a team down at least 5 points at the end of the match go for the hang. The team cheers, but really, their opponents should be cheering louder since they just got a 4 point gift and the hanging team got nothing.
Don Wright
19-04-2010, 15:02
Both 1114 & 40 played the correct strategy, but I find it odd that most teams don't realize it. Far too often I've seen a team down at least 5 points at the end of the match go for the hang. The team cheers, but really, their opponents should be cheering louder since they just got a 4 point gift and the hanging team got nothing.
Mike,
I too thought this several times during the weekend. However, I think you suffer the same problem I have... You are on a team that was in the position to fight for seeding points to make the top eight. So, points were the most important thing to you...
However, if you put yourself in the position of a team that might be way out of the top eight and are just looking to get picked, the ability to hang in every match might be more important to show than the seeding points.
In that case, hanging, regardless of the score, is this right move for that team.
However, if I play devil's advocate for a second and take the approach that some others have approached the topic of 6v0 and 1114...is that decision to hang regardless of the points a selfish thing to do with regards to your teammates? What if they need points, or are trying to keep their opponent lower in points so they don't get past them and the hang just gives the opponent more points? Is their decision to hang, even in a losing situation, not in the best interest of your alliance when it only benefits the hanging team (rep) and the opponent alliance?
But, you can also devil's advocate the above argument saying that maybe penalties could be there, lowering the apparent winning alliance score, and the hang might give you the win...
I think it just shows that things aren't always black and white... We just have to think about it a little bit when we attack/commend teams for their actions on the field...
Unless, of course, you have a personal agenda against a certain team and use every chance you get to try and bash them publicly, which most people see through and it just proves how little of a man you are...no pun intended...
sparrowkc
19-04-2010, 16:35
The ball stuck under the return was one of those things you don't expect to happen.
I completely agree, I think I'll make a gif of the ball getting stuck to show people how ridiculously improbable it was.
I'd like to re-phrase my last comment a bit, I didn't mean to imply that the tension of the ball return was an oversight on anybody's part. The reason I never mentioned it to the field staff was that it wasn't really that bad.
Al Skierkiewicz
19-04-2010, 17:28
I'd like to re-phrase my last comment a bit, I didn't mean to imply that the tension of the ball return was an oversight on anybody's part. The reason I never mentioned it to the field staff was that it wasn't really that bad.
Mark,
The FTA did check the tension of both ball returns following this match. I also looked at both ball returns from the driver's stations and you can be fooled by the shape and distance of the two. In my mind they were identical.
Cap'nCollin1986
19-04-2010, 17:29
I would like to say, after competing with the best of the best in the world, that myself, and the entirety of team 1986 really enjoyed the unusual amount of mutual teamwork we were so welcome to in our alliances. Teams can get so focused with the robot that they forget about the team of drivers controlling that machine. I have seen some teams that just do not care about what the alliance had to say about any strategy or plans, but Curie was one of the nicest group of teams that I have competed with. So thanks!
To 888, 1676, and 1421, all of you guys were a great (super-)alliance, and arguably the best alliance of people I have ever teamed with. I saw zero problems with the team, no human player compromise issues, and everyone just worked together fluently, even with our robot issues, and our riddiculous set of quarterfinal matches. 1421 really came in the clutch after all of that, and really stepped up. You guys were really pivotal to get all three of us to the finals. Even faced against 1114 and 469, we worked together amazingly!
I would like to say to anyone reading this post, remember that FRC is not just about competing with the robot; your teams personality will show when you join alliances, so be a team that people want to team up with, not just with your robot, but with your own graciousness towards the game and the players.
Thanks again Curie! Great Division!:D
Still a little tired and overwhelmed from the whole weekend, but I wanted to address the comments on Match 100 in this thread. The decision to play 6v0 was made solely by the alliance of 231, 288 and 1114. We never let 111, 469 and 888 in on our strategy. The goal of the match was to obtain as many seeding points as we possibly could. The 111, 469, 888 alliance was an Einstein quality group of teams. We decided that the chances of beating them were very slim. We spent a lot of time discussing potential strategies, but the 6v0 definitely looked to be the one that maximized our seeding points. All three teams agreed to this strategy, although I don't think any of us were 100% happy about. It definitely feels weird not playing to win. As for the blocking our own goals. We were concerned that our opponents would start scoring in the other direction to maximize their seeding points once they realized we were aiming for a 6v0. We knew that the time they spent scoring in our goals meant less time they were scoring in their own goals, hence less seeding points for us. Wow, just thinking about this makes my head spin.
Also, our alliance was not the only one who ran this type of strategy this weekend. Our opponents played 6v0 against us a couple times this weekend, once using the goal blocking strategy. All part of this very weird game.
It is my opinion that just because you find a hole in the ranking system doesn't mean you should go out and exploit it. You guys had an excellent robot (and you should be very proud) and I'm not entirely convinced that you would have lost. 469 was not unstoppable, we proved that in match #1 on Curie and 67, 177, and 294 proved it on Einstein. Regardless, if you had played the match out and lost, so be it...that's part of the qualification matches...sometimes you go up against hard teams. Just because you're given a tough match doesn't give you rights to take an unGP way to minimize casualties to ensure a 1st seed position. That being said its all in the past now, and hopefully the GDC will revisit their ranking system for next season. You guys were a formidable opponent and I am proud to have lost to an aliance of your caliber.
sparrowkc
19-04-2010, 18:14
Here's a youtube link to the exact time when the ball got stuck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un5F088PTyE#t=2m7s
Chris is me
19-04-2010, 19:56
It is my opinion that just because you find a hole in the ranking system doesn't mean you should go out and exploit it. You guys had an excellent robot (and you should be very proud) and I'm not entirely convinced that you would have lost. 469 was not unstoppable, we proved that in match #1 on Curie and 67, 177, and 294 proved it on Einstein. Regardless, if you had played the match out and lost, so be it...that's part of the qualification matches...sometimes you go up against hard teams. Just because you're given a tough match doesn't give you rights to take an unGP way to minimize casualties to ensure a 1st seed position. That being said its all in the past now, and hopefully the GDC will revisit their ranking system for next season. You guys were a formidable opponent and I am proud to have lost to an aliance of your caliber.
I guess I'm stuck on the concept that teams are supposed to read rules, then assume that the GDC actually meant to make the rules say something else and play as if the rules were written that way, other than the way they actually were.
I'm reminded of a team that got very mad when they couldn't turn around and score for their opponent since they blocked their own goals (not on Curie). What right would that team have to be mad, when the same "exploiting the ranking system" arguments could be fallaciously applied to what they planned to do?
While I agree that the GDC is responsible for this, teams should not take advantage of the rule. Just because they aren't breaking the rules doesn't make it any less GP.
While I agree that the GDC is responsible for this, teams should not take advantage of the rule. Just because they aren't breaking the rules doesn't make it any less GP.
Go talk to Don Rotolo about that next time you see him.
Just because you didn't break any forum rules when you posted that doesn't mean that your post was GP. (Or that your word choice doesn't need work; there's a distinct difference between making something less of something, which is what you said, and making something more of something, which is what I'm pretty sure you meant.)
Akash Rastogi
20-04-2010, 15:06
While I agree that the GDC is responsible for this, teams should not take advantage of the rule. Just because they aren't breaking the rules doesn't make it any less GP.
Also talk to Don about his take on GP and you'll learn a thing or two.
DonRotolo
20-04-2010, 20:43
The FTA did check the tension of both ball returns following this match....and I saw him do it.
It is my opinion that just because you find a hole in the ranking system doesn't mean you should go out and exploit it.
With a statement like that, it is small wonder you have so many red reputation dots.
Go talk to Don Rotolo about that next time you see him.
Also talk to Don about his take on GP and you'll learn a thing or two.
Sage advice from some well-respected participants. Indeed, I would be pleased to have that conversation any time you like. You know where to find me.
Don
Hopefully the off season events will universally denounce the ranking system and go for the traditional W-L-T formula so we can see the matches played out like the elims which are very very fun to watch and teams won't have to obsess over seeding points as much and give the audience their money's worth.
Why?
The new system is great. The best teams seed in the top 8. In the past they did not.
sircedric4
20-04-2010, 21:17
Why?
The new system is great. The best teams seed in the top 8. In the past they did not.
The new system is really close to good, but it leads itself to being taken advantage of in some cases. If you suspect you can't beat another team you can turn around and score on yourself to improve your seeding score. This aspect is horrible from a spectator standpoint. When you have to sit and write a dissertation to explain to spectators why everyone if scoring on the opposite goals, then the game has lost its "spectator friendliness".
It also does not reward defensive playing. As it stands the way you play when you qualify is not the same as when you play in the eliminations. I think there are some tweaks that can be made to improve these two issues, but I admit I am at a loss to what those things could be exactly. Surely the community can brainstorm something to keep the good and ditch the 6v0 bad.
Don Wright
20-04-2010, 21:34
The seeding system, imho, will work awesome at an event like IRI where you are almost guaranteed to have a good scoring robot on every alliance playing...
It's when you are playing an alliance that can't score when teams have to "exploit" the scoring for the other team part...
The seeding system, imho, will work awesome at an event like IRI where you are almost guaranteed to have a good scoring robot on every alliance playing...
It's when you are playing an alliance that can't score when teams have to "exploit" the scoring for the other team part...
IRI will have the occasional 6 vs. 0 match as well if they keep the current scoring system. Not every team there is Einstien Quality.
In regards to Match 100:
I think by now it's quite obvious that the FIRST Community is quite split on the strategy played during that match.
I was often told that when reading the rule-books, I should keep in mind what the GDC ment for the game to have, and not to Lawyer. Now we could have a whole conversation on that, but this is not what I'm trying to get into. Sadly, the tournament set-up is one of those areas where we're not sure about the GDC intent with the game. I have seen posts that say both that the system was not ment to be used in 6v0, and others that the GDC was planning for matches like Q100. Both sides have very strong arguments.
In the end, 1114 interpretaed useing 6v0 as a scenario the GDC designed the rules to allow, and that it was not a whole in the Seeding system.
So I belive we should stop taking hits at certain teams for there own interpreations of the Rules.
I think its perfectly fine (if not awesome:p ) to discuss if 6v0 was an intention of the GDC or not, but I think it would be a good idea if we keep in mind when doing it, that this is something that people have to interpret and have an opinion on. An opinion is an opinion, and an opinion can-not be wrong or right.
My $0.02
I have to admit, I was a little disappointed when seeing Match 100, but I reminded myself who exactly made the rules. I personally hope that next year there would be something set in place to discourage that kind of strategy, but it was completely legitimate this year and I cannot blame anyone in Match 100.
On the elimination match where the ball got stuck, I remember being down at the driver station, and just looking up at the end only to see a ball between the rail and the wire. I found it hilarious because I never thought it would ever happen. It was definitely an unusual circumstance.
Curie this year was a great division to start my first year of driving. There were a lot of hard hitters in the division, and I had a blast every single match.
Curie this year was a great division to start my first year of driving. There were a lot of hard hitters in the division, and I had a blast every single match.
Jeff, If you are a first-year driver, then your opponents next year are in for some serious trouble. You guys were awesome. If we ever meet up again, I hope we are wearing the same color again.
delsaner
21-04-2010, 11:47
Jeff, If you are a first-year driver, then your opponents next year are in for some serious trouble. You guys were awesome. If we ever meet up again, I hope we are wearing the same color again.
Thanks for the comment (sorry for intervening, since it was directed towards Jeff). Myself, both drivers, and the human player were first-year drive team members. Id love to see you guys again next season. Good job at Curie, it was an amazing experience for all of us. =)
Don Wright
21-04-2010, 12:13
As long as a team's seeding score has some aspect of the opponents score, you will have teams scoring for the other side (if possible...not possible in 2005, 2007, 2008)....
PerpetualMotion
21-04-2010, 14:36
The new system is really close to good, but it leads itself to being taken advantage of in some cases. If you suspect you can't beat another team you can turn around and score on yourself to improve your seeding score. This aspect is horrible from a spectator standpoint. When you have to sit and write a dissertation to explain to spectators why everyone if scoring on the opposite goals, then the game has lost its "spectator friendliness".
It also does not reward defensive playing. As it stands the way you play when you qualify is not the same as when you play in the eliminations. I think there are some tweaks that can be made to improve these two issues, but I admit I am at a loss to what those things could be exactly. Surely the community can brainstorm something to keep the good and ditch the 6v0 bad.
IRI should change the seeding system to be winners get winners score, losers get losers score. This will get rid of the 6 v 0 aspect, no one will be scoring in each others goals. It will also minimize defense as it would have no advantage to your seed (unless you were playing an alliance that had a team close to you in the ranks). The first tie breaker should be hanging points. This will encourage exciting end game hangs. Thoughts?
Jon Jack
21-04-2010, 14:41
Leave the ranking system alone... It does it's job...
Don Wright
21-04-2010, 14:59
IRI should change the seeding system to be winners get winners score, losers get losers score. This will get rid of the 6 v 0 aspect, no one will be scoring in each others goals. It will also minimize defense as it would have no advantage to your seed (unless you were playing an alliance that had a team close to you in the ranks). The first tie breaker should be hanging points. This will encourage exciting end game hangs. Thoughts?
It doesn't factor in how tough your opponents are... I assume this is the reason for the opponents score being part of the winners score.
maverickfan138
21-04-2010, 16:58
I'm surprised to see that they never updated our score after our last match(144). They claimed we finished in 18th, but after adding our last match scores, we should have finished in 12th.
Overall, we are very happy at our accomplishments this year. We had a robot that performed well and did the best we have ever done in Atlanta. Many of us think we could have even done better as well. Look out Einstein, we will see you next year!
Chris is me
21-04-2010, 17:04
I'm surprised to see that they never updated our score after our last match(144). They claimed we finished in 18th, but after adding our last match scores, we should have finished in 12th.
This is something you would need to loudly, calmly, and clearly tell the FTA on field as it is happening. If that's actually the case you deserved an alliance selection redo if the 12th seed became a captain...
XaulZan11
21-04-2010, 18:40
Curie 2010 was the perfect way to finish 1732's best year in team history. I wish we could have gone further, but still had a blast.
Thanks for 1511 for picking us and 368 for joining our alliance. I think we were one of the better alliances that would have gone further if we weren't fodder for 1114/469/2041 first. On the bright side, we had the lowest point differential of any alliance that played them on Curie. The first quarterfinal match was probably my favorite match we have lost. We almost had them! Anyway, I hope we can partner up again in the future.
Congrats to 1114, 469 and 2041. Three of my favorite teams in FIRST. 1114 is amazing in everything they do and is just insanely inspiring. 469 has always built some of my favorite robots while 2041 is one of the scrappiest, smartest teams that does the most with the least (just check out their progression since 2007). I can't wait to see their blue banner hanging in their pit at Midwest next year.
Thanks again to 171 for scouting with us. Hopefully, we can do it again in the future.
Thanks again to 1739 for giving us a ride from the hotel and naming our blue polos that we wear on Saturday the "beat 'em up blues". I hope the name sticks with the rest of my team.
How many days till kickoff?
How many days till kickoff?
264! A.K.A. Too many!
Jeff, If you are a first-year driver, then your opponents next year are in for some serious trouble. You guys were awesome. If we ever meet up again, I hope we are wearing the same color again.
Thanks, Jeff! I loved working with you guys. Even before our qualifying match started I knew we would work very well together. I look forward to seeing 1986 again next year and, as you said, I hope we'll be together (Otherwise I'm going to have trouble in that match)
I just wanted to publicly apolgize for my comments in this thread regarding match 100 and the GDC's ranking system, I realize they may have come off in a way that was much more harsh and critical then I had originally intended. I was simply expressing my frustration with the way the ranking system worked in some situations this season.
The first quarterfinal match was probably my favorite match we have lost. We almost had them!
Indeed, we definitely did our best as the underdogs to get through the powerhouse first seeded alliance. Many mahalos go out to our partners 1511 and 1732! That match in particular can be viewed here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0jaIKzACNA) if anyone is interested.
Now that Atlanta and Dallas (VEX) are over, we're going to try to upload what video we have from Curie. We've got just about all the matches taped from Thursday and Friday and then only our matches on Saturday. It's going to take awhile to upload, but they should be viewable up to 1080p once they're done. YouTube is being finicky about converting some of the videos, so we'll work on it.
Great job, Curie! It was definitely a blast...
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.