[Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

This thread is a spin-off of this discussion, and has been started to focus on radical tournament structure changes. This thread is intended to collect innovative ways to structure tournament play. Using previous years as an example, this might include ideas to add human players to a robot-only format, or to change the three robots playing at once to a two-team alliance format. Like the above thread, this thread is meant to collect creative ideas that can be applied to any game concept.

-dave

Re: [2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

I think they should design a 4 on 4 relay race through an obstacle course.
Not sure how to utalize the human player though.

Re: [2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

I'd personally like to see a couple of things happen in this department.

1) Ensure there's a tiebreaker. It makes things simpler for the audience (especially from the football-heavy south, where there's hardly EVER a tie). The tiebreaker could be anything--distance of your mobile goal from your alliance's wall, as a 2k4 example.

2) Dump ranking points as it was this year. I've seen a lot of matches from a lot of good teams this year, and there just doesn't seem to be an easy way to bring the scores of a weak alliance close without running the very real risk of gift-wrapping them the match. I guess the more radical way to handle it (assuming we've got a scoring system fairly similar to this year in total points) is what I call the 150 rule. If your alliance outscores your opponents by 150 points or more, YOU lose. (Kinda like the breakout rule set at some R/C tracks--go faster than this time, and you're DQ'd.) It still allows for wins and losses, but it forces teams to consciously mix things up.

I'll think of more later.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

Instead of a NCAA tournament finals, have the finals like the little league, double elimination. Let the play countinue without all the alliance picking, and let the best robot win.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

I loved 2004's ranking system.

In future games, though, we shouldn't penalize the winning team for the losing team's transgressions. In 2004, your score was worse when your opponents commited penalties. The winners should get the losers' unpenalized score.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

I also truly loved it too.

I know I am prolly opening a can of worms by saying this but I'd love to see a 3v3 game or better yet a 3v2 game where alliances switch and the point is to limit the opposing alliance to a certian amount of points and then you try to outscore them. And to make things even more odd it changes half way through the match so your alliance has all three on but it may only have two active or three active.


just some ideas.
-Pat

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

Dave, you asked for it. Here comes radical: The requirement for my idea is that there must be an even number of qualifying rounds (6, 8, 10, or 12). Have an offense and a defense, much like football. In the qualifying rounds, you play half of your matches on defense and half of your matches on offense. Your qualifying ranking could be based on a few different methods:

1. Points allowed vs. points scored. Take your points scored * X - points allowed *Y + B. X and Y could both be 1 (I see lots of negative scores) or you could bias a little toward points scored or you could shift the score using B as an adder.

2. You could have a defensive ranking and an offensive ranking combining them to have an overall ranking. Let's say there are 40 teams in your regional and you are 40th in defense and 1st in offense you would get 1 point for being 40th and 40 points for being 1st giving you an average of 20.5. Teams would then be ranked by the combined points. Encourages well roundedness.

3. You could keep the offensive ranking and defensive ranking separate and have the top 4 offenses pick and the top 4 defenses pick during alliance selection (I don't really like that one).

The elimination rounds are where it gets interesting. There would be a minimum of 3 teams per alliance, but 4 would be preferred. You play 4 periods: 2 on offense and 2 on defense. You add up the points you get on offense in each half and that is your score. This focuses the game on one team scoring at a time, not both teams trying to score at opposite ends at the same time. If the score is tied, then we go to overtime and each team gets another crack at offense.

This would really mix up the tournament format. You want radical ... you can't handle radical!

-Paul

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

I mentioned something about an alliance switch in the middle of the game in front of a team member once and they told me they would kill me if I told Dave... One thought was that either you did not know whom your alliance partner was until the end of the match, which would make all robots work together but would take away from competitiveness possibly. But it could be set up that you don't know who your partner will be until the last minute of the game... or something on the field that can be pushed to randomly change alliance partners at any time during the match. It could be pretty evil...

I think it would also be interesting to see a game that can be played completely in autonomous mode, but the teams can take over their controls at any time but points are worth more in autonomous mode.

Heidi

<=========>
I'm your only friend I'm not your only friend But I'm a little glowing friend But really I'm not actually your friend But I am –They Might Be Giants

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

here is a radicl idea for the structure of elimination rounds:

after qualification rounds, take the top [however-many] teams (no alliance picking) and send them into a second series of rounds similar to the qualification rounds. it would be set up so that each possible alliance of robots is used once. then the top 4 are taken to move on.
the team with the most wins from that series of rounds would choose an alliance partner, and the other 2 robots would be arbitrarily paired together. these two alliances would then face-off in a 3-out-of-5 final for the championship.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

This one will bake your noodle, I dont think it gets much more radical than this....

Kit is released, teams have 6 weeks to build a robot to perform the game challenge. Competition begins...the qualification round structure is as follows.

Qualification Round 1: Team A + B vs Team C + D

Team A: Drives Team B's Robot
Team B: Drives Team A's Robot
Team C: Drives Team D's Robot
Team D: Drives Team C's Robot

Ipes! You don't mean? We have to let other people control what we build? Thus deciding our fate?

Oh yes...

Here is why. In many cases in the real world, you have to design product for use by other parties. Doing this in the game would make for teams to not only come up with a solid engineering design, but also ease of control and learnability. It would promote more team interactivity before and during rounds, as well as hopefully promoting teams to reach out to struggling teams in the pit, and help them if they are having issues.

Elimination structure would remain essentially the same...

Top 8 Teams select 2 alliance partners. Best 2 out of 3 in rounds. Robots do the ol' switcharoo once again in each round...with the exception of the final round, where all teams must drive their own robot!

I think the whole selection and elimination would add a very interesting twist. Imagine teams having to not only base selection on the strength of robot, but also on the driver skills and fast learning abilities of teams.

Very evil if you ask me...I kinda like it ;)

-Andy Grady

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

This bring the whole "1 Joystick, or 2 joystick" debate to a whole new level.

Andy, I like it.
What happens when your inexperienced partner smashes your beautifully hand crafted machine into the wall accidently, and breaks something.

Ut-Oh.
Better build em tough, or risk bad blood.

John

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

Robust, robust, robust...thats the key. Plus I think FIRST could allow for an extra coach on each team to actually be part of the other teams drive crew...just in case something goes wrong with the robot. I dont think bad blood would be any different than that of a team that slams into your robot repeatedly...when they are on your team. ;) Of course, there are all sorts of small logistic things that would need to be worked out for that to work.

-Andy Grady

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

Here's one that I've been kicking around for a while. I know it will never get implemented for a variety of reasons, but it's still fun to think about.

You play the five week regional season as you would in any other season. The only change is that there is a video database of every single match throughout the season, to make scouting much easier. (You'll see why this is so crucial)

After the regional season, all the teams are ranked from 1 to x in an order determined by some accepted method. This would be based not on potential, but sheer performance. eg., A certain amount points for winning an event, your seed, where you got picked, technical awards. There would be some sort of factor that looks "strength of schedule" which could make up for differences amongst the regionals.

A certain cutoff ranking would be determined by the capacity of Nationals, and only teams at this ranking and above would be invited to Nationals. (Exceptions could be made for Chairman's, original teams, etc.)

The Thursday of nationals would proceed normally, and then at 5:00 pm there would be a dinner break. After the break, the largest draft in FIRST history would take place. The top ranked team would go and pick another robot from the entire field, to form an alliance which would last for the entire event. This time instead of the top 8 picking, every team from the top third would get to pick. By the end, the event would consist of a whole bunch of alliances of 3. From here the teams would begin a massive elimination tournament, until only one alliance remains. This tournament could be setup in a variety of ways. There could be a round robin portion to eliminate some of the alliances. We could play best 3 out 5 series, and go double elimination... There are lots of possibilities. The choice would be determined on size and time...

The pros of this setup:
1. Those dream alliances people are always talking about, can actually happen. If this was in place this year, Team 254 would most likely have had the 1st pick, and selects Team 60.

2. The Championship becomes a true championship, with only the best of the best competing.

3. This would be a great setup for TV audiences. If FIRST could get regionals on the air each week, fans could follow teams through the season and into the finals. It would have a real March Madness feel to it.

4. This system eliminates the flukey nature of the ranking system at nationals. With only seven matches, the best teams don't always end up at the top. (Then again, if they don't make it to the top, are they really the best... not this argument again)

4. I can't picture a way to make this event more exciting. I get giddy just thinking about it.

The cons:
1. Way too much emphasis on regional performance.

2. Who makes up the ranking system, and what does it consist of. How do we prevent it from becoming the BCS?

3. How do you account for teams who attend multiple regionals?

4. With the final rankings only being released after the last regional, travel arrangements would be a nightmare.

You guys asked for radical, I gave you radical. :)

Let me know what you think...

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

I LOVE Karthik's idea. However, I would love it even more if they did the following:

- after the 5 week season, the teams are ranked 1 through N (just like Karthik suggested).
- If the championship capacity is X, than the top X/3 teams earn automatic bids to the championship.
- The draft is held immediately after the end of the season (say, one week after the season).
- The teams then each pick 2 partners who will accompany the picking team to the championships.
- It then continues like Karthik suggested - where each alliance stays together.

Now this is radical.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

More than 4 robots on the field at a time. No nessesarily all moving though. An alliance in finals plays all 3 teams at the same time but has switches to disable the robots and only two are allowed on a time. 2003 Ex Team A has a ramp dominator and goes up to the ramp, locks into the mesh and shuts down, enabling team C to move around and stack while team B is destroying the other opponents stacks. 2002 Ex Team A starts the match by dashing forward and grabbing all 3 goals and moves into scoring position. Team A disables themselves and turns on robot C who works with B and both fill the goals with balls.