![]() |
Re: Week 2 Impressions of Rack 'N Roll
Quote:
Pavan. |
Re: Week 2 Impressions of Rack 'N Roll
Quote:
The requirements can be made for full point bonuses, actually. Say if no tube is scored for the ramp bot alliance, then they recieved a reduced point bonus, such as only 1 - 15pt bonus allowance per robot on top of the ramp for 12 and 4 inches so 30pts (ramp) can be won over by 32 (5-ringers) which I feel is a lot better. Fighting, very hard, for 5 ringers just to over come a ramp deficit, against a very reliable ramp alliance, fighting very hard to defend the placement of five ringers. Each alliance would really have to fight for their win, and that's an exciting match. Oh well, I still LOVE this game :) GDC does a great job every year, so it's not a problem to me really. It's just a thought for next year. Imagine a game where you had requirments for scoring, and a task accomplished means more scoring?! Makes it a lot harder, and possibly encourages more innovation, and competitiveness. :cool: just a thought Rameez |
Re: Week 2 Impressions of Rack 'N Roll
So I see all this discussion about ramp bots. With ramp bots you can only get up if you have enough traction and clearence. What about lifters? ;) Wouldnt they be harder to beat?
-John |
Re: Week 2 Impressions of Rack 'N Roll
You could look at the issue of awarding points for elevated robots from a marketing perspective also. When people watch athletic events, they want to see action, with offense and defense, and through all of that action, eventually a winner will prevail. Consider the most popular spectator sports, they are all like this. Think of other sports, ones that are really not so popular, often ones that people only pay attention to around Olympics time. Examples being swimming, diving, skiing, speed skating, track, etc. There is no offense versis defense there. Is it a coincidence that they are relegated to being popular every four years? You need the Olympic Spirit stuff to make people interested, otherwise most really would not care.
So, yes I agree that there are too many points awarded for elevated robots, and I think the above perspective should be considered by the First Administration. Know your customers. |
Re: Week 2 Impressions of Rack 'N Roll
Well, the way i look at it:
1. saying that the point values are not as good as they could be after thinking about it even for as much as 3 hours is a shame. I think that for us to say the TONS of hours put in by the GDC deciding point values are wrong takes some serious guts (maybe even some gall). Are you sure that you want to take on the entire GDC? ( i wouldn't, they work hard and i've talked with some OCCRA planners. Deciding point allocations is hard, and the commitees come up with the game They want) 2. The use of spoilers skyrocketed. Some will say that alliances like the one my team made (using ringers to limit rows) will be more effective, but if we had put the spoiler on we would have won. Think about that for a second. Also, the more you argue that spoilers aren't big, the more i point to 1596. They.were.sweet. They capped spoilers a lot, especially in the elims. It was hot watching that shiny black tube going on, no matter what. They played smart and i was surprised to see them lose out eventually. Props go to them as one of the best spoiler placing teams so far this year. 3. Week 2 owned week 1. No offense, but dang. That was a big step up. 4. You already know my concern with the randomizer, inspection, and other faults. (sorry if i already posted some of this. My brain keeps thinking about it. And if anyone has video of QF1 at GLR, let me know cuz it rocked. Edit: If you think you can come up with better scoring, make your own game for vex or something else. Put your ideas to good use! |
Re: Week 2 Impressions of Rack 'N Roll
Quote:
with our dual lifting platforms, when one platform was unstable or had a problem, we could always abort that lift with the simple press of a button. and we'd still get the 30pts from the other lift :D anyways, LA was great. With our "hybrid" design and some great strategy (as what sanddrag mentioned a while back) we were able to win every single tournament match up until the finals when we were annihilated by 330/254/4. |
Re: Week 2 Impressions of Rack 'N Roll
I was at GLR saturday only, so I didn't see the qualifying match-ups, though I read that they were slightly better than before.
I truly think the best solution to this is to generate a list of matches for every number of teams possible at a regional and draw team numbers out of a hat to match them with the random slots. (For a better job describing that, see the thread about the "random seeding") While it's very easy to say the ramps are worth too much (I generally agree), I did realize at GLR that there was definite potential for teams to easily overcome the ramp points with sufficient ringers. As mentioned previously in this thread, however, strategy does an excellent job negating the full ringer potential. GLR would have kept seeing 100+ scores throughout elimination but for this. If points were to be downgraded, I wouldn't make it much... maybe to 20 points. I would say we should consider whether the GDC accurately predicted the number of rampbots, but I think that's irrelevant. I think the "two scorers, one rampbot" alliances in the finals are almost universal and would probably have been predicted accurately enough for the GDC to decide it's scoring rules. I like the game. :) |
Re: Week 2 Impressions of Rack 'N Roll
Re: ramp points. Onboard ramps are new this year. I'm sure the GDC made a decision to make sure they were worthwhile to build. It's what differentiates a tetra scorer from a ringer scorer. (That, and about 6-8 pounds of field element weight out on the end of your arm.)
|
Re: Week 2 Impressions of Rack 'N Roll
Quote:
|
Re: Week 2 Impressions of Rack 'N Roll
Quote:
|
Re: Week 2 Impressions of Rack 'N Roll
SO many people have said that 2 ringer scorers and a ramp bot that can play their fair share of D is the best.
Wrong. All three robots should be able to score, and one needs to have ramps. Defense is not needed if you play proactively and eliminate the possibilities of long rows (QF 1 GLR was a good example of how close it can get you) . Pushing power isnt bad, but i think its best when used to help alliance partners up the ramp. |
Re: Week 2 Impressions of Rack 'N Roll
To those that are complaining about the score for ramping: You all knew these points when the game was announced. Now that you are seeing that some teams are ramping easily you want to penalize them because you overestimated your ringer capability and underestimated the ramps. I say we all have to live with the design decisions we made.
This game (more than any other I've seen in FIRST) is an alliance game. Very few times can a single bot beat an alliance. Ramp bots are the ultimate alliance robot, but they are only effective when: 1> Their alliance partners can score ringers. 2> They are able to play strong defense. 3> Their alliance partners are able to climb their ramp (both designs must be compatable) When the alliance partners are compatable with the ramp bot, the ramp bot becomes devestatingly effective. If they are not compatable, the ramp bot generally loses big time. I know this because we built a ramp bot and we were part of the winning alliance at BAE GSR (along with our wonderful partners 175 and 501). During the seeding rounds we won many matches due to our partners climbing our ramps and lost many matches because our partners couldnt climb a ramp. As I said, this is an alliance game and to win you must bring value to your alliance. |
Re: Week 2 Impressions of Rack 'N Roll
Quote:
Get that 128, and I'd bet that the other team would have been too busy trying to stop you to get 64 and then the ramp. But, because of a slight deficiency in excellent scorers (how many alliances in the elimination rounds have autonomous scorers? not all. see the point? :) ), two scorers and a ramp is much more common and still rather effective. |
Re: Week 2 Impressions of Rack 'N Roll
I, for one, really dislike this game. It relys so much on team work that if the other robots on your alliance cant do anything or if the break down that the alliance has almost no chance no matter how good the other robot is. At chesapeake, My team played one bot short for 4 out of 7 matches (we managed to tie one and win one but only because the other alliance was unable to score or ramp well). In these matches we put 5 tubes up each time, but the combined team work of just one ramp at twelve inches and a ringer would tie us and a second ringer or elevated robot would beat us. We were one of the top scores at both of our regionals but ranked low because of our unlucky drawings in the seeding matches. In my eyes FIRST should design a game that allows good robots to rise to the top even if they are on bad alliances every time (and im talking about an alliance who only have one robot moving for 4 out of 7 matches). In this game, it is fifty percent luck of the draw and fifty percent skill. Also the ramp bonus is too much. It almost completely defeats the main objective of the game, which is scoring on the rack. When all two robots have to do to socre 60 points is drive up a ramp while it take six tubes in a row ( not easy to do) to get more it makes it that much less valuable to be able to score well. They key to this game is a good defense, and a good simple ramp bot. I dont beleive this is what FIRST intend the game to be but this is how it turned out. Please i ask the GDC to change the sorting program and to make a game that is doesnt rely so much on luck of the draw.
PS. I dont mean to insult any teams who won or did well with out scoring on the rack. You guys all did well and played well and figured out how to win something that is not easy to do. Good job to every who played this year. |
Re: Week 2 Impressions of Rack 'N Roll
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:03. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi