Elimination Rounds
 

I really don't like this new way for finals. I liked it much more for the best out of 3. I don't like when there are 2 matches and red wins one and blue wins the other and the one that has the higher QP's wins. Depending on the situation is the reason points came like that, and I think it's more fair if you give teams the third shot to see who wins. What do you guys think?

While I agree with you, this change was in response to the call for "the finals and the qualifiers to be the same game". While I never really had a problem with the way they were run before, it seems that a lot of people did, and so here we are.

What this does do is open up some interesting (some might say slightly weaselly) strategy options. Most notably, if you're going to lose, get off the ramp, knock over your own boxes, do whatever to bring the overall score down, to give the winning alliance as few points as possible, because every point that you earn means you have to make up another point in the next round.

Of course, the classic, "win every elimination round match" strategy still works, and that's what we'll concentrate on doing, natch.

I don't like it. If you win two of the three rounds you play, you should win. How do they determine not to have a third match? Isn't there a chance that you get two really high scores (118-114, happened in VCU) and your one really high EP score is higher than your opponent's others added up?

The elimination rounds will always be different from the qualification becuase the EP don't really count for anything, other than determing who wins. The only way to make it the same game would be to have all the Finals alliances face every other alliance and who ever has the most EP wins, second is second, etc. Everyone would complain about that though.

Robots that win the game by as much as possile should be encouraged. Robots that win by one(on purpose) don't exist.

I hated it too, we got screwed over in the semi-finals by that, because our alliance partner's wings didnt deploy and the other alliance partner didnt do a whole lot that match =/

I don't like the format at all.

It favors the first match far too much, I think, and leaves the second match only as a chance to play catch up. I don't think it gives fair chance to both alliances to employ strategies using all three of their robots.

What would've been so bad about running three rounds per match and adding the resulting Elimination Points? The potential for that large gap in scores would grow, surely, but it'll also mimick a best of three scenario and give both alliances a fair shot at winning the most matches and the most points.

As they are now, the elimination watches don't necessarily require the same consistency over time that other formats did.

Well, can they still change such a thing? I wouldn't't think it would be fair to the teams who already competed under these elim rules.

But I do agree, they should change it to the way it was before, best out of 3. The current method is very unfair, but is part of the game. If you strategize correctly, you should do very well.

I definitly liked last years formant a lot better than this years. The change of game/strategy was sort of cool :) And.. well, they don't seem to make much sense, seeing as there isn't anything left to really qualify for?

I know at the BAE Regional, during the finals there was one match that there was a match in which a team completely dominated another team, it ended up like 76-0, somewhere around there. However, while that score was up on the screen they announced the team with 0 points was advancing, it just seemed odd.

Don't even get me going on this subject. If you were at BAE then you know what I'm talking about.

Just because I really like strategy, I actually like this. It makes the game not only something whereu completely dominate another team, you really have to think. And as Dean and woody have both said, this was theyre objective, u win by imrpoving others. We made it to finals due to this, so of course I am gonna love it!!!

I'm in the minority, but I like this years system. It allows for suspense and more complex strategies.

I prefer best 2/3. Last year, it was somewhat contradictory because if your robots controlled every match (i.e. owned all 3 goals) you'd get fewer QPs than an alliance that controlled one goal and was decent at loading balls into that one goal; but when the time came for the elimination rounds getting balls was completely pointless in the face of an alliance that could control all the goals. The QP calculation this year fixes that, and thus a straight win/loss elimination is more similar to the qualifying rounds.
This year's elimination rounds are more similar to last years than is given credit. Last year, you could win a regional with 2 really good robots by going 2/3 every time. This year it's the same, if you win with one robot combo and lose with another, you can still advance every round.
FIRST just needs to prevent elimination your own points to make it easier in the next round. Last year, alliances would drive out of their home zones if they were going to lose (in qualifying) and hurt the opponents more than they hurt themselves. But in elimination rounds you aren't hurting yourself if you're certain to lose. It's kind of a balance issue, whether you're going to make elimination the same game as qualifying and allow these 'masochistic' strategies or make it a different game that is better fit for elimination gameplay.
^^Ramble.

This year's method of determining winners in the elimination rounds certainly will create some discussion and controversy.

It seems that if you don't win both matches outright, you'll suffer if you win one (even by a large margin) then lose a close match.

I've gathered some stats from this weekend's regionals (except for the Sacramento Regional because the results have yet to be posted on the FIRST website).

I've looked at three scenarios by which alliances can win an elimination round match:

#1. Win two games (including a third game if tied for QPs after two games)

#2. Split the two games; win on the basis of more QPs AND also beat the combined raw score of the opposition.

#3. Split the two games, win on the basis of more QPs, DESPITE having less total raw score than the opposition.

Results:

Four regional final matches:
THREE were won outright (two consecutive victories by the winning alliance.
ONE match decided according to scenario #2 (more QPs and a raw score advantage)

Eight regional semi-finals:
THREE were won outright
ZERO won by scenario #2
FIVE won by scenario #3 (more QP's, but lower raw score total)

Sixteen regional quarterfinal matches:
ELEVEN were won outright
TWO were won by scenario #2
THREE were won by scenario #3

In one of the St. Louis semi-final matches a team managed to get it's robot on top of the ramp late in the match - ultimately causing their alliance to lose the match! :ahh: Pretty interesting game where it's better to lose big than to come up just short...

I dislike the total points system as mentioned by everyone else above for the same reasons. It's just not fair. Different circumstances will result in different points, but in the end, winning a match is winning a match is winning a match regardless of whether it was a 2 point difference or a 200.

Of course, one good thing about this that stackers come into play here :) Consistent stackers can easily up the points and come out with huge matches one after the other.

What's the big idea?
 

I like the new system, because I think FIRST should encourage us to win, not by crushing the opposing alliance, but by maximizing the aggregate scoring.

Also, I never liked the idea that there should be one way to play the game in qualifying and another in the elimination matches. That idea flew in the face of what FIRST is really trying to accomplish, basically by saying that raising the overall level of the competition is fine for a while, but cutthroat is the way to go when things get serious.

The distinction between the FIRST ideal and raw self-interest is what separates FIRST from BattleBots.