Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build - Counterpoint
 

We already have a default stop build day, we need to ship our crate within a week of stop build day. We attend a week 1 or 2 regional in California, then our home regional in Hawaii week 5. The crate is shipped right after the California regional directly to Oahu. We wouldn't be able to use the un-bag time between our events for improvements. A second robot is a stretch for us, but it may be the only way to get more practice in.

Our home regional is on another island, Oahu, we are based on Maui. I don't think we have enough teams for a district model, but even if we had districts, we would still need to crate and ship because we need to fly to Oahu, twice, three times if we make district championships.

We are trying to become more competitive, hence two regionals. Being competitive helps us get the word out(PR) and helps with student and sponsor recruitment. Which in turn leads to sustainability, which leads to program improvement. We run year round with FRC, Vex EDR and we also mentor a Vex IQ team at one of our elementary schools. We are trying to improve STEM education in our school community and robotics has given us a great conduit.

One thing that came up is, if they eliminate stop build day, maybe just go to our home regional. We could work on our robot until week 4, practice driving and make improvements and we may be better then if we went to another regional. I will be pushing for us to continue to attend two regionals.

I don't mind stop build day, but we will adjust to whatever happens, just wanted to share in the discussion.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build - Counterpoint
 

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build - Counterpoint
 

Another solution would be to build two robots. Not a lot of cost difference than building a practice robot. Probably close to to a wash if you attend worlds and keep one robot land side rather than a priority shipment back to Hawaii.

Admittedly not a perfect solution.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build - Counterpoint
 

Based on the ranking system for that year, the students from both alliances are essentially still scoring points.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build - Counterpoint
 

In this example, all six robots on the alliance are scoring as many ranking points as possible. They are achieving the competitive objectives of this game. What's confusing is the way the real time score displayed conflicts with the way ranking points are calculated. The match isn't being thrown to deliberately make the teams perform worse than optimal - they are genuinely trying to increase the score as much as possible. It's just that in 2010, if you were going to lose the match, scoring on the goals your alliance is "supposed to" score in only helps your opponents.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build - Counterpoint
 

This is a strategy choice, not a complete lack of robot functionality.

Choosing to not score as part of a strategy is one thing, being completely unable to score regardless of choice is what I was commenting on.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build - Counterpoint
 

In this match, 1114's alliance does prefer scoring points over not scoring points, but they are prioritizing seeding points over game points.

<tangent>

For anyone curious how this works, in 2010, ranking points were awarded for each match as follows:

Winner: 5 + (Winner's Score) + 2 * Loser's score
Loser: (Winner's Score)

Seeding points from that match, if blue tried to win and the final score was, for example, 20-10:
Red (469, 111, 888): 5 + 20 + 2*10 = 45
Blue (1114, 231, 288): 20 = 20
Top two ranked teams and seeding scores:
1) 111 296 (251 + 45)
2) 1114 291 (271 + 20)

Seeding points from that match as it happened (30-0):
Red (469, 111, 888): 5 + 30 + 2*0 = 35
Blue (1114, 231, 288): 30 = 30
Top two ranked teams and seeding scores:
1) 1114 301 (271 + 30)
2) 111 286 (251 + 35)

By playing a 6v0 match, the blue alliance was able to claim ten additional seeding points and deny their opponents ten points compared to a hypothetical losing 3v3 match.

1114 and 111 had been going back and forth for the #1 seed, and this match gave the Simbots the ability to earn that coveted first opportunity to pick. Whichever alliance had 469, in all their game-breaking-ness that year (watch the match if you don't know what I mean), would be nearly unstoppable at the division level and a powerful contender to win Einstein. Essentially, this match and its strategy won 1114 the division.

This is my go-to example of how important it is to analyze the ranking system each year and that the best strategy may not always be the most intuitive one.

</tangent>