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.

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.