Maximum Points
 

Posted by Joshua Berthiaume.

Student on team #131, Chaos, from Manchester Central HS and Osram Sylvainia.

Posted on 1/16/2000 8:53 PM MST



Does anyone know what the maximum number of points I haven't found a specific number
Team 131

Answer me this first...
 

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 1/16/2000 9:09 PM MST


In Reply to: Maximum Points posted by Joshua Berthiaume on 1/16/2000 8:53 PM MST:



How many robots can be 'hanging'?

The answer changes the answer you seek.

29 1 point balls
4 5 point balls
4 5 or 10 point robots

Looks like a total of between 69 and 89 points available.

one team could only get 69 of those points regardless.

if the question was not what is the maximum score but what is the maximum Qualifying points it would be 3 X INT(89/2) or 3 X 44 or 132.

I will be shocked if anyone actually manages to win a match 45 to 44 though so I wouldn't count on it.

Joe J.

Re: Answer me this first...
 

Posted by Marc DeSchamp.

Other on team #125, someone who remembers Ramp N Roll, from Northeastern University and Textron Systems with the kids from Boston Latin School, Brookline High, and Milton Academy.

Posted on 1/16/2000 9:35 PM MST


In Reply to: Answer me this first... posted by Joe Johnson on 1/16/2000 9:09 PM MST:



I'm not going to be at all surprised to see people look like they're going to win 45 to 44 and then get stiffed at the last minute because they were over reaching, scoring for the other team. I think this will create some interesting situations. Will teams try to score for the opposition? Or will they decide that it's better to win by 20 points and get less qualifying points, than to take the risk of an upset?

Marc

Re: Getting stiffed is NOT an option
 

Posted by mike aubry.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chiefs, from Pontiac Central.

Posted on 1/17/2000 6:24 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Answer me this first... posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/16/2000 9:35 PM MST:



: I'm not going to be at all surprised to see people look like they're going to win 45 to 44 and then get stiffed at the last minute because they were over reaching, scoring for the other team. I think this will create some interesting situations. Will teams try to score for the opposition? Or will they decide that it's better to win by 20 points and get less qualifying points, than to take the risk of an upset?

: Marc

Mark,
The idea of scoring into your opponents goal can easily be justified by a team that is confident that it is going to win! The real trick is understanding the difference in being confident and being greedy! I suppose there will be those that will rationalize whatever decision they make with the obvious answer, that being I'd rather lose with a big score than win with a little one. (This is the result of an alliance misjudging the ability of the other alliance and as a result losses 44 to 45, do to a last second ramp climbing, pole hanging miracle that neither partner was successful defending against) Which by the way, really isn't as bad as it might sound, because the result (44 points) although a loss would probably net you a pretty darn good score. Bottom line though, I would rather not leave it up to chance, miracles, or misfortunate over achievers that say they can do stuff but only to find out later they couldn't. The margin (differential) I'm looking for is in the range of 13-15 points. I'll be happy winning against a 25 point opponents score. Just my opinion - What score would all of you think that you will win against? We can keep track of the average and announce the winner with the closest guess! Seeding rounds only - the games not even close to the same game in the elimination rounds.

#1 = 60 QP average.
 

Posted by Raul.

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 1/18/2000 6:32 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Getting stiffed is NOT an option posted by mike aubry on 1/17/2000 6:24 PM MST:



I think the #1 seed will average 60 QP's (20 points for the losing alliance).

Raul

Re: #1 = 60 QP average (Too Low)
 

Posted by mike aubry.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chiefs, from Pontiac Central.

Posted on 1/18/2000 8:51 PM MST


In Reply to: #1 = 60 QP average. posted by Raul on 1/18/2000 6:32 AM MST:



: I think the #1 seed will average 60 QP's (20 points for the losing alliance).

: Raul

How hard can it be for 4 robots to get 15 points in balls and then lets assume 1 of the 2 losing robots gets on the ramp. I suppose on average you may be right! And, I just realized that the losing alliances have nothing to gain by getting on the ramp or hanging - so if they get into a no-win situation I'm sure they will just 'back off' rather than score points for the winning alliance and besides why run the risk or get your machine beat on for no good reason. Once the differential is too lopsided the losing alliance may as well just stop running and preserve their machines!

Re: #1 = 60 QP average (Too Low)
 

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team #483, BORG, from Berkeley High School and NASA Ames & UC Berkeley.

Posted on 1/18/2000 11:57 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: #1 = 60 QP average (Too Low) posted by mike aubry on 1/18/2000 8:51 PM MST:



The losing alliance has nothing to gain by getting on the bar or ramp? Not true! In the seeding rounds the bar is still worth 10 points. Perhaps it gives your opponents thirty if you're losing but who cares?? That's still 10 points for you. And 10 points (at the predicted 60 QP average per match for #1 seed) is definitely a boost. I think it'd be silly not to go for those points.

Agree/Disagree?
-DL

perceptions matter
 

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 1/19/2000 3:41 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: #1 = 60 QP average (Too Low) posted by Daniel on 1/18/2000 11:57 PM MST:



I think a lot of what actually happens will depend the general perceptions at the competition. If it is widely believed that there are 'haves and have nots' then I think that it could easy develop into teams not scoring point for themselves in order to keep from giving points to 'them.'

I think that a little bit of this kind of thinking was going on during some Torroid Terrror competitions.
For those who were not involved, there was a definite break between teams that could go high and those who could not. There were a number of cases when two low branchers played a tree topper. At times it seemed that one low brancher would sacrifice itself to prevent the tree topper from scoring, even to the point that they would rather finish 3rd and prevent a tree topper victory than finish 2nd with the topper coming in 1st place.

While this was not in the best interest of the individual team, it was considered a victory in the 'us vs them' informal competition that developed.

If this kind of a dynamic begins to develop then I would expect that teams may in fact start lowering their scores, despite the modest benefits that flow from raising their score in a losing effort.

Joe J.

Re: perceptions matter - Yes
 

Posted by Raul.

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 1/19/2000 6:26 AM MST


In Reply to: perceptions matter posted by Joe Johnson on 1/19/2000 3:41 AM MST:



Yes, since perception matters, teams that are the have-nots will stop scoring and start to flex their defensive muscles to 'show' all other teams that they may still be a worthy alliance partner to be picked.

I think defense will play a greater factor than we may think. If I know I cannot out-score you, then I will do everything in my power to stop you from scoring, whether that is at the goal or at the chin-up bar and ramp.

Raul

multifaceted defense.
 

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team #483, BORG, from Berkeley High School and NASA Ames & UC Berkeley.

Posted on 1/19/2000 10:25 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: perceptions matter - Yes posted by Raul on 1/19/2000 6:26 AM MST:



Defense doesn't always equal low scores. Remember TKO at nationals last year?

Re: Defense = Low Scores
 

Posted by mike aubry.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chiefs, from Pontiac Central.

Posted on 1/19/2000 8:16 PM MST


In Reply to: multifaceted defense. posted by Daniel on 1/19/2000 10:25 AM MST:



I disagree and do not accept the rational that last years game is even in the same league strategically as this years game. Pure defense means that a team will act just as Raul describes. Keep the other alliance from scoring. This would require them not to score as they also would be pretty busy attempting to meet their defensive goal. 2 minutes goes by pretty darn fast and as a result a fury of activity at the end would determine which team wins, but with a pretty low score for both parties involved. The defensive alliance has won a moral victory, the winning team has 3 times a low score and as a result is not all that happy. Winning against a defensive alliance is not a rewarding experience, Losing while playing defensively is not that hard to swallow, because they had not intended on scoring much anyways. The Losers end up being the winners, because they were successful in showing the one characteristic that the lucky picking teams will most likely be looking for, a very good defensive partner! Thus, low scores in rounds 4-6or7.

true....maybe teamwork?
 

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team #483, BORG, from Berkeley High School and NASA Ames & UC Berkeley.

Posted on 1/20/2000 1:26 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Defense = Low Scores posted by mike aubry on 1/19/2000 8:16 PM MST:



You're very right. I didn't realize what I'd done until I posted that message. The thing is, there's a counterexample for everything in life. Sometimes it's a trend, and sometime it's just an exception. What I pointed out was not only an exception last year, but is even more likely to be one this year. In fact, I tossed around the idea of going pure defensive myself, until I realized what it does to those who you play with. Many people will either not have realized this or just plain not care, and that's not the kind of thing you want to worry about when you're out there on the field.

I think a lot of where this problem gets resolved is when you talk to your alliance partner before the match. This is where the whole teamwork deal comes into play. Now, I don't play out there on the field so I don't know how nice and flexible these people tend to be, but can't you work something out with your partner so that you go for the best score possible and they still get to show off a little defensive action? It's all about the strategy, and most people are open to suggestions, right? Or am I totally overestimating some of the people involved with FIRST?

-DL

Teamwork and strategy
 

Posted by Lora Knepper.

Student on team #69, HYPER (Helping Youth Pursue Engineering & Robotics), from Quincy Public Schools and The Gillette Company.

Posted on 1/20/2000 7:52 PM MST


In Reply to: true....maybe teamwork? posted by Daniel on 1/20/2000 1:26 AM MST:



Daniel,

Having been on the stage and in the middle of the quick 2 minute strategy sessions, I do not think you overestimate anyone. Though I understand that last year's game is NOT this year's game, going off my experience, every match is going to be a challenge to strategize for. Coaching is a huge job this year, and judging by the great people I worked with last year (GRT is one that immedately comes to mind :-), I'm sure that even though there will be defensive bots, and some poor pairings, the strategies employed by an alliance will be interesting.

Good Luck,
Lora

Re: We can do that? You can do what?
 

Posted by mike aubry.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chiefs, from Pontiac Central.

Posted on 1/22/2000 4:59 AM MST


In Reply to: true....maybe teamwork? posted by Daniel on 1/20/2000 1:26 AM MST:



Okay, I was on the floor last year and without going into extreme detail the problem with the teamwork and strategy planning that is allowed 2 minutes prior to the match is (1)Some teams really thought that their robot and drivers could do things that were important for the overall strategy to work and then the machine either broke or couldn't do what they said it could. (Maybe it could in practice - but then was unable to in the heat of the battle) and (2) Some teams said they would do certain things, then for whatever reason did something totally diffferent. I don't think and would hope that those teams didn't purposely do that but, in either case - Strategy and Teamwork is only as good as the alliance partners ability to be forthright and then complete the tasks that they had agreed to. I love strategic planning, particularly when a good plan comes together. Some of our best and most exciting matches last year were in the nationals with our 2 partners working together as a team, interchanging places between fixing each others robots, struggling and fighting together to survive. We didn't, but we made a great team! Sorry , I'm rambling ..... so anyways - Yes, most teams are very, very open to suggestions, but then comes the ability to execute the plan!

Re: Answer me this first...
 

Posted by Joshua Berthiaume.

Student on team #131, Chaos, from Manchester Central HS and Osram Sylvainia.

Posted on 1/19/2000 9:04 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Answer me this first... posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/16/2000 9:35 PM MST:



No think it is going to be Vital to score just a little more then you opponents to stay there above everyone else in seeds, so I think it will be better to make it a close match

Josh