Maximizing the aggregate score sounds good, but....
 

.... it's not about maximizing, in the end, it's about scoring more than the other team (which is similar to beating them 2 out of 3).

Also, it's not really like the qualifying rounds, as expressed by the second post in this thread and the one just before this one, because of the 'masochistic' strategy which can be used (since you do not keep the points going forward).

As the lead member of alliance who lost to the so called 'masochistic' strategy used during the semi's at the BAE today, even though we won the second match 79-0, I'd to take a moment to explain it in some detail, and hopefully help those who might have it used against them.

Let's suppose you're in the playoff rounds, and lose a close fought, "typical" first match (about even boxes on both sides, no stacks (as there are very few stacks standing in the end), but you only had one bot on the top and they had two) . This would typically put you behind by more than 100 pts.

The other team now has a distinct advantage, as they can win one of two ways (and even switch back and forth between them!!!):

1. Win the next match (which most would assume would be the strategy).

2. Utilize the 'masochistic' strategy, which calls for the lowest score possible (by removing points from their own scoring zone, which is pretty easy, especially if you're helping them as you need to win!!!), and allowing no stacks (which is pretty much the rule, as there are very few stacks standing in the end).

The reason the 'masochistic' strategy works is that if they score zero (which isn't difficult to do), and even if you have all of the bins and both robots on the ramp (but no stacks), your point total is limited to below 100.

The real difficulty in this is that they can start with method 1, and if you start winning, they switch to method 2 before you realize it.

Now, while this may not seem "fair", nobody said it was going to be fair. You must simply understand how this works (which we didn't before today), realize how important it is to win the first playoff match, or be ready to deal with this difficult situation.

We've learned a very valuable lesson the hard way, and hopefully you find this information helpful.

Regards,
Scott358

PS - One way to "reduce the spread" is that if you know you're going to lose the first round, employ a 'masochistic' strategy of your own in the first match. I wonder if all this masochistic behavior is good???

PPS- To be honest, I would prefer 2 out of 3, as it forces both teams to try to win each match, which is more exciting to watch.

PPPS - Good luck to all, and have fun!!! See you in LI, and in Houston!!!!

Wow. The more I read here, the more I dislike the rule. This is destined to be one of those things that FIRST has for a year and then decides that it was better without, like 4v0 and Flock of Seagulls haircuts.

Did anyone think about the spectator sportlessness of this before it was approved?

It really seems like just about anything that expands game strategy outside of a single match makes for a worse game.

Also, you can feel free to use "spectator sportlessness" in your everyday speech.

I like this years method much better.
In the best 2 out of three first robot up to the top and knocking down all the bins basically wins just like last years deadly dull elimination matches which were settled in the first few seconds.
At least this one requires a little thinking like the qualification matches by giving your opponents some points to max out your score so it doesn't absolutely change the game into something else like what happened last year.

Elimination points bad for FIRST
 

Is this what first really wants? In the National finals with everybody (including the media) watching do they want to see two alliances fighting for the ramp then in the last second the alliance that looked like they might get on if they kept trying all the sudden charge back down the ramp and start knocking their own bins out of scoring? I'd like to see Joe try to explain THAT to his Mom. Do they want the 2003 national champions to be the team that lost the last finals match of the season with a zero score?

I know it's probably too late to change but I wish they would consider it. Anybody that thinks that now the eliminations are the same game as seeding is kidding themselves. This year I think the ineffective cure (elimination points) is far worse than the disease (different strategies seeding vs elims).


James
Engineer/Coach
Team 180 SPAM

I agree that the best 2 out of 3 is a much better way to finalize things. If you really think about this game, its not about winning as much as it is about maximizing your QP. I like the challenge of two different games. In 2000 and 2002 the finals were completely different than the qualifying. You had to play one way in qualifying just to play in the finals, then you had to change strategy to play in the finals...

A "middle" ground????
 

Let me be very clear in stating that I think FIRST does an excellent job, and I think the original intent of this rule change is good.

In order to achieve the original objective of the rule change, which was to have the finals be more like the qualifying rounds, you could simply eliminate the x2 factor on the losing alliances score (in other words, the winning alliance would get there points plus the losing alliances points, not 2x the losing alliances points).

While this would not be the exact same rule for scoring in the finals and the qualifying matches, I believe this would better achieve the results they were looking for, and eliminate the effectiveness of teams purposely losing the battle to win the war.


If they change it for the Nationals, then we'll play by whatever rule they change it to. If they don't, then just know how to best play under the existing rule.

In the end, just have fun.

Regards,
Scott358

A "middle" ground????

Yes, yes, yes. If the matches were decided after comparing the two raw match scores and seeing whose was highest, it would be much more interesting.

Of course, this leans more towards the 2 out of 3 Match Play rounds.

It's a good thing I searched before I posted, or I would have started a thread about this.
~~

The game of STACK ATTACK is exciting, fun, beautiful, and variable. I love strategizing for it, and the combined aspects of human playing, autonomous mode, and remote-control periods made the game incredibly cool.
But in a game as variable as this, it can all come down to just one second or one half inch in just one match. Just one match can eliminate an alliance. Then the second match is full of despair, hopelessness, and boredom. This ruins the spectatorness and doesn't leave the losing team with a sense of loss, in my experience.
Last year, when we lost in the final, third match of Nationals, I really felt like we had lost, because the other teams had beaten us twice. This year at our regional, I felt as though one match had sealed our alliance's fate (and it had), and that we had not been given a chance to lose properly.
That might sound strange, but it is just...well, I suppose I am having difficulty expressing my feelings. I do not want to sound bitter, or as though I felt we should have won or want to complain.

When the last match of the finals ended with the winning team losing, I was just disinterested, that's all. I don't think it should be allowed to happen. It's not right. It's boring, and that's not what robotics competitions are. They are awesome and captivating.

I think FIRST should reconsider this aspect of the game even before Nationals. What would be the harm in changing it? I do not expect anything, but I guess I have a .04% hope that maybe it could happen. Bring the suspense, thrill, and fulfillment of the second elimination round back. Make the winning team win more than once. The Super Bowl is not played in two possessions.

Congratulations to FIRST for designing an amazing game, but I consider this a flaw not too late to be corrected.

I vote for last year's (and every other years). To me it looks like the main reason for this season's scoring is to shorten the elimination rounds to 6 matches instead of 9.

The best of 3 tourney actually showed which team had the better robots. This year there is so much luck involved and the doubler changes the score so much that if you don't win the first round it is nearly impossible to come back from it.

Lets face it- isn't it a kick in the pants to battle back from a loss in the second round only to find that the QPs came up short. Kind of anticlimactic to hear the announcer say "hey the blue team won but the red team moves on because of points"

At least let the game be actual points vs actual points so the loser has a reasonable chance to come back.

My opinion

WC

I agree with Wayne C. about the straight points system. That would actually make it more competitive than the current way. But I will always prefer the 2/3 situation. It seems a little more fair that way.