Chief Delphi - What changes to this year's game...?

Quote:

Originally posted by Wayne C.
My only change- go back to the best of 3 eliminations. I know 2 rounds in FIRST's eyes is better than 3 and that the format this year assured that the eliminations were the same as the seeding game. But it was real disappointment to battle back from a first round loss, win the second round and then have everyone sit there waiting for the judges to tally the scores, do the math and decide then who won. It worked both ways for us at various time this year but I think it really detracted from the game. It should be win the round or lose the round.

I agree. In fact, I have heard that a number of the post-season competitions are planning on changing the elimination rounds to best 2 out of 3.

Personally I would have to add getting rid of the system of getting your score + 2 x opponent's. I saw the game go down hill due to "opponent agreements", (boring matches, "highest scores" made through agreements, ...) and I know they would not occur if the scoring didn't favor them. I think we do need to keep qualifying points so that a dominant robot doesn't just get a comfortable lead after 10 seconds and then have no reason to compete for the rest of the match. However to get rid of "collusion" forever, I once again propose that Qualifying Points be equal to the gap in the scores. Yes, that will favor beating your opponent by as much as possible. Fine, so go back to work on the FIRST gear boxes to enhance them and add some features to the game that favor rookies like the midfield bar. Then just play the game. When was the last time you saw the Chicago Bulls trying to increase their opponent's score? We didn't have nets to catch tipping robots. Let's not worry about falling scores. (The losing team would get a negative score equal to the gap. All teams start with 10000 points.)

Quote:

Originally posted by Wayne C. As for the favoritism expressed towards stackers in the thread above- well the name of the game WAS stack ATTACK. It wasn't "see how big a stack you can make in 2 minutes". We tried a game like that in 2001 and everybody or or less panned it. Obviously the stack building didn't work well for most and robots that could attack or defend stacks did.[/b]

Hey I want to keep the stack attack. However here is a quote from the kickoff animation:

All the time, the teams will be trying to strike a balance between the number of scoring containers and the height of the maximum stack which we use as a multiplier for their overall score.

That didn't occur despite the best efforts of a lot of teams. It was supposed to occur. So what went wrong?

Quote:

Originally posted by Wayne C.
The ATTACK and KOH part of the game is what made the game exciting to watch this year. I'd say we need more of that, not less. Testing the mettle of one robot against another seems to be what the public and most teams want. That's why we are told each year to "build robust robots".
WC:cool: [/b]

True, those were key elements to the game, and I am not suggesting they be reduced. But imagine if a stacker was over trying to put the 5th bin up on their stack in an alcove while all the other robots were on the top of the ramp. What if that bin might make the difference between a win or a loss. The stacker has 5 seconds to get the bin in place. Will he make it? Will he have enough points to win?

I think there was room in the game for stackers as well as attackers, and I think the game would have been even more exciting with some big stacks being built. After all, that would have meant more stacks to attack. The opponents on the ramp would have to decide: stay on the ramp or charge the five stack at the last second. Trying to figure out who was ahead might even have improved all our math skills.