Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106208)

Mr V 03-05-2012 15:35

Re: 2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pfreivald (Post 1166539)
It's been a little strange since its inception. We won the FLR Coopertition Award in 2010, and all we did was try to win every game by as much as possible...

I guess you must not have been successful at winning every game by as much as possible as that year it was won by winning by the least amount possible. I know our team won it in Seattle that year by specifically going after it. Once we got a fair amount ahead our driver would start scoring goals for the other alliance, that was also good for gaming one of the ranking order of sorts, the 2nd IIRC. It was a very bad way to have both set up, but I read the rules and explained it to the drive team and they agreed it was the "right" thing to do even if it felt wrong.

pfreivald 03-05-2012 16:07

Re: 2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr V (Post 1166559)
I guess you must not have been successful at winning every game by as much as possible as that year it was won by winning by the least amount possible. I know our team won it in Seattle that year by specifically going after it. Once we got a fair amount ahead our driver would start scoring goals for the other alliance, that was also good for gaming one of the ranking order of sorts, the 2nd IIRC. It was a very bad way to have both set up, but I read the rules and explained it to the drive team and they agreed it was the "right" thing to do even if it felt wrong.

Well, we did something right, because in addition to the coopertition award we were also #1 seed and tournament champions. :D

(Besides, what you say is not entirely true... The coopertition bonus had nothing to do with how much you beat your opponent by, only how many points they scored... So a 10-9 victory was just as good as a 20-9 victory in that regard.)

Mr. Van 03-05-2012 16:12

Re: 2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative
 
The Coopertition Award needs serious review. One of the major problems this year was that Coopertiton points were assessed as an alliance, not as individual teams. In many events, the team that won the award never actually participated in the act of balancing (or even attempting) to balance the Coopertiton Bridge. At one event, the award would have gone to a team that left at the end of the first day... Not really cooperating nor competing. It is difficult to inspire with an award that has such criteria.

If the award were given to teams that attempted the Co-op Balance the most, that would be more appropriate. Hopefully the GDC will make adjustments to next year's game.

For those keeping score, I think the Coopertition Bridge itself is one of the best things about a fantastic game this year.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

Mr V 03-05-2012 16:24

Re: 2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pfreivald (Post 1166570)

(Besides, what you say is not entirely true... The coopertition bonus had nothing to do with how much you beat your opponent by, only how many points they scored... So a 10-9 victory was just as good as a 20-9 victory in that regard.)

Oops. It was the ranking sort that was based on the difference in scoring IIRC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Van (Post 1166571)
The Coopertition Award needs serious review. One of the major problems this year was that Coopertiton points were assessed as an alliance, not as individual teams. In many events, the team that won the award never actually participated in the act of balancing (or even attempting) to balance the Coopertiton Bridge. At one event, the award would have gone to a team that left at the end of the first day... Not really cooperating nor competing. It is difficult to inspire with an award that has such criteria.

If the award were given to teams that attempted the Co-op Balance the most, that would be more appropriate. Hopefully the GDC will make adjustments to next year's game.

For those keeping score, I think the Coopertition Bridge itself is one of the best things about a fantastic game this year.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

Yes I agree that the basis for winning the Coopertition award this year wasn't the best but it does change from year to year. As I stated earlier in this thread they way it was done last year was the best in the 4 seasons I've been involved with FRC. 2010 was worse since it was easily gamed by scoring points for your opponent, as were the rankings.

Which reminds me having the Hybrid points being the second order of sort for the rankings was the best since I've been involved as it encouraged teams to have an autonomous routine or two. The bonus for "Hybrid" was also the best yet as it encouraged having an autonomous routine and allowed the 2 pt dumpers to score almost as much or even more than the 3pt shooters in Hybrid.

pfreivald 03-05-2012 16:29

Re: 2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr V (Post 1166579)
Oops. It was the ranking sort that was based on the difference in scoring IIRC.

Also not quite true:

"All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to the penalized score (the score with any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE plus 5 additional points for winning the match.
All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE."

I think where you're getting confused is that in general, you'd rather have won a game 10-9 than 10-1, but 15-9 was still better than 10-9. (For you and your opponents!)

Craig Roys 03-05-2012 16:54

Re: 2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 1075guy (Post 1166551)

The rankings look like this:
Code:

  Team  QS  CP  First Order    Second Order
1. 5555  40  20  ((20x2)-40)=0  20
2. 6666  20  0  ((0x2)-20)=-20  0
3. 7777  20  20  ((20x2)-20)=20  20
4. 8888  10  10  ((10x2)-10)=10  10

As you can see, team 7777 wins, despite being just as coopertative as 5555.

The real kick in the pants is that in your scenario, team 5555 with 20 CP points comes in 3rd in the race for the award...they even fall behind team 8888 who was only able to get 10 CP points. This is the first year I can think of that a team would have to purposely lose matches if they wanted to be competitive for the CP award. Weird.

bduddy 03-05-2012 17:16

Re: 2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pfreivald (Post 1166584)
Also not quite true:

"All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to the penalized score (the score with any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE plus 5 additional points for winning the match.
All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE."

I think where you're getting confused is that in general, you'd rather have won a game 10-9 than 10-1, but 15-9 was still better than 10-9. (For you and your opponents!)

That was almost certainly the worst seeding system in FRC history... it was the only one where the losing alliance got points based on the winning alliance's score, which really doesn't make any sense.

Solidstate89 03-05-2012 17:21

Re: 2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bduddy (Post 1166603)
That was almost certainly the worst seeding system in FRC history... it was the only one where the losing alliance got points based on the winning alliance's score, which really doesn't make any sense.

It really was. And due to the extreme rule changes that year, you could see the drop in registrations for 1st week regionals the proceeding season. It's why we skipped FLR last year because it was a first week. Thankfully they switched to a second week so we went again this year.

torihoelscher 03-05-2012 18:57

Re: 2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sircedric4 (Post 1166337)
I am pretty sure the reason they do speeches during Einstein is to give the robots a chance to cool down and for the teams to perform maintenance/battery changes on the robots between matches.

So its either speeches that are gonna be made one way or the other, or another 5 minutes of dancing to Cotton Eye Joe.


I say we dance to the 5 mins of Cotton Eye Joe even though I love the speeches, it would get energy pumping again!! I know I danced the cotton eye joe when I was down near the stage! It got me extremely excited to watch the matches! :)

Grim Tuesday 03-05-2012 18:59

Re: 2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by torihoelscher (Post 1166661)
I say we dance to the 5 mins of Cotton Eye Joe even though I love the speeches, it would get energy pumping again!! I know I danced the cotton eye joe when I was down near the stage! It got me extremely excited to watch the matches! :)

All stand for the FIRST National Anthem.

torihoelscher 03-05-2012 19:08

Re: 2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday (Post 1166662)
All stand for the FIRST National Anthem.

Ha ha ha ha ha! Amazing!

I cant wait to see pictures of the Championship!!!

R.C. 03-05-2012 19:30

Re: 2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BJC (Post 1166436)
Jim, don't forget the elim's match where we had a ball jam up in the collector. (which had never happened before.) I thought it was just really bad luck at the time, but now I think it could have been that the balls were actually different from the rest of the season.

1323 had the same issues in Semi Match 2 on Galileo. We had not jammed all weekend until then...

I wouldn't mind if I played with a certain set of balls all comp or all division!

-RC

kmusa 03-05-2012 23:11

Re: 2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Joon Park (Post 1166185)
Actually, from what I gathered at regionals/champs, quite a few teams considered the variable. It's just that very few teams actually built to account for it.

I know I was skeptical during week 1 about the ball deterioration being a huge factor, I was proven dead wrong during shooter testing. We then spent the rest of the season, right up until the championship, trying to build a ball compression tester that would account for that. We never got it to work.

[this probably belongs in 2012 Lessons Learned: The Rebuttle]

Sorry about digressing, but I need to offer some clarification. Our big problem was that our shooter's performance wasn't very repeatable - we need more research in the off-season.

The balls are cheap, foam basketballs. Early in the season, they were described as all from the same lot (Q&A, maybe?). From comments from Championships, sounds like there was a second lot. They vary in size, weight, and compressibility. From what we saw, as well as others (525 posted their ball data, 12.5% was the highest range of values for a single ball), each ball also varied in uniformity - orientation was significant. (And there was a hysteresis effect as well.)

And what did we ultimately see? Some teams shot well, some didn't, and 16 was in a class by itself.

I will echo earlier comments - whatever game peices the GDC selects, they need to be available quickly in reasonable quantities, and for a reasonable price. Companies deal with these issues all the time - sign the NDA, and get ready for a really strange purchasing cycle.

I am so glad we went to Championships, and I can't wait to get back there again.

nitneylion452 04-05-2012 15:08

Re: 2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative
 
I think the issue with the extreme variability in the balls at CMP (though I was not there) is this:

In the beginning of the season, the GDC ordered what they though at the time were enough balls, one "batch," if you will. As the season progressed, they ran out or were running low on balls from that batch due to the high number of balls that were getting ripped to shreds (the no damage to game pieces rule was very difficult to enforce and very easy to commit). So for the CMP, rather than use old balls, FIRST ordered more from the manufacturer, but these were different. Thus different balls.

techhelpbb 04-05-2012 15:11

Re: 2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nitneylion452 (Post 1166966)
I think the issue with the extreme variability in the balls at CMP (though I was not there) is this:

In the beginning of the season, the GDC ordered what they though at the time were enough balls, one "batch," if you will. As the season progressed, they ran out or were running low on balls from that batch due to the high number of balls that were getting ripped to shreds (the no damage to game pieces rule was very difficult to enforce and very easy to commit). So for the CMP, rather than use old balls, FIRST ordered more from the manufacturer, but these were different. Thus different balls.

This is logical. However, logically they should have checked and mixed the batches so that one doesn't eventually find that almost all the balls on the final playing matches are unusual from the original standards.

This would also have given people a little warning of what was coming.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:52.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi