Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

Don't forget that once an empty or super cell is put onto the field that any robot can gain control of it. There are bound to be empty cells floating around the field, whether an alliance is down a couple or not. An alliance down an empty cell or two can possibly pick up the empty cells from the opposing alliance, push them through the airlock, and get all their super cells anyway. If an alliance is down a super cell, and the opposing alliance's payload specialist haphazardly throws a super cell onto the field, then any alliance can pick it up and score it.

I really like this rule for that reason. It adds another level of strategy to the gameplay. If you're against an alliance that is down a couple of super cells, do you use yours and risk that your opponents will pick them up and get your 60 (your alliance's 4 super cells) points plus their 30 (the two super cells the opposing alliance still has)? Or do you hold your super cells back and try to outscore your opponent with just moon rocks?

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

The rule isn't fundamentally different from earlier rules which encouraged close matches.

I don't like the implication that if you play WITH a strong team and the match goes to a blowout, your next match will be played less supercells. In really bad situations, you could have your entire alliance being of low-to-middling quality robots, but have lost all of your supercells because those robots participated in blowouts in their previous matches.

I don't think the "what if nobody scores anything?" situation is too problematic because this is a game like 2006 and 2004 where the human players can actually score substantial points simply by being good shots. If none of your team's human players can score a single rock of the minimum 39 you start with, that's weird. Especially since the orbit balls can be caught by the trailer spikes and the human players start opposite an opposing trailer.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

Still i think it hampers your team too much. I think a good team should be rewarded but not so much that they just completely dominate. They should be rewarded though not hurt.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

I don't think this rule is that difficult. If you're looking at the game being a blowout, it's a lot easier to score orbit balls into your alliance's trailers giving the other team points than it is for you to score orbit balls into the other alliance's trailers. Granted, I haven't seen the math as to how high these scores are going to get, but I guess we'll just have to see once competition season starts.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

I understand FIRST's intent here but the rule does not make sense to me.

3 teams win match 1 by more than 2x < 3x. At match 6 one of those 3 winning teams plays (less one super cell via the rule) but their 2 partners in match 6 both lost their first match. Who are we penalizing??

Am I missing something here???

Could we have a match with 0 super cells. Team A won by 2x, Team B won by 3x, and Team C won by 2x, now they are all paired together in their next match. 0 super cells according to the rule.

Take it a step further, all 6 teams in say match 20 meet the above criteria = 0 super cells for both teams

More importantly, who's going to keep track of all this???

The more I think about it it still makes no sense

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

Still i think it hampers your team too much. I think a good team should be rewarded but not so much that they just completely dominate. They should be rewarded though not hurt.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

Another thing to think about is how hard is this going to be to manage? What I mean is this doesn't seem like a simple thing for the people running regionals to keep track of.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

I like the intent of the rule... it goes back to the whole co-opertition mindset they're always talking about. But I don't see how this prevents shut-outs. 0x(inf)=0, so if you win 6-0, you're not really winning by 2 or 3 times. Also, it is very unclear as to how the "demerits," if you will, carry through to other rounds. Finally, in the rule, it only states that you lose an EMPTY CELL or SUPER CELL. So which one is it? Do they start with the empty cells (in which case you couldn't use your super cells), or do they start with the super cells, so you can't trade up, or do they just select one at random?:confused: :confused: :confused:

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

I'd like to think that they've built this into their scoring/ranking program... but then again, I wouldn't be suprised if it never crossed their minds!:ahh:

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

I have no way of speaking to the intentions of the GDC, but this rule definitely has some odd ramifications with respect to parity among teams.

Consider what a top-tier team in this competition will look like. They're quick, they're accurate, they don't need to rely on Super Cells to totally crush you. Since they don't care all that much about Super Cells, they run up the score as best they can in every match to avoid getting burned by penalties. Their partners enjoy victory... and then are at a disadvantage in the next match. It punishes those teams, and also whoever those teams end up partnered with next.

The end result is that the best one or two teams rise to the top, and the rest of the seedings are muddled. We've seen in years past that the number of matches per team at some venues is not quite enough to establish a top-to-bottom ranking that reasonably reflects relative robot performance. Adding consideration for the performance of a team's partners in a match that team wasn't involved with can only add more entropy.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

Did anyone read over 9.3.5? You don't obtain ranking points based on your score...you earn ranking points based on your -opponents- unpentalized score.

To blow out a team is counter-productive. Therefore, if you and your powerful alliance can win the match and allow your opponents to have a better chance of scoring large amounts of points, you will be better off. In some ways, this rule can help the winning team, rather then hurt.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

Suppose you score 10 points, your opponents score 0. 2x0=0; 3x0=0. 10>0, so you have scored more than 3 times your opponent's score.

Now make it even worse. You score 18, your opponents score 20. But wait, they entered a Super Cell 2 seconds too early, earning a double penalty. Final score, 18-0. Even if there was a minimum x-point differential, it would likely be more than 18 points. You lose 2 balls next game. At a minimum, <G14> should be changed so that it is the opponent's unpenalized score that determines the 2x and 3x factors. You can score for your opponents to overcome a shortfall in their score. But you can't do anything if they penalize themselves to zero.

As for which balls you lose, Super Cells or Empty Cells, that depends on which position your Payload Spec takes up in the next game.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

Good call :) It should definately be the unpenalized score that is used for this judging

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

Seeing how this rule was just released less then 8 hours ago, lets give it some time to see if they update it during the next 6-7 weeks like FIRST dose every season with rules.

The intent of the rule is good, it will stop teams from destroying other teams, FIRST shouldn't be about blowing out the other team every time, and this rule helps keep not just good intent during the game but during teams strategy sessions. Now if you know you are going up against a poor team(s) you have to add into your strategy for the other teams to score. Makes sence to me, but I would also like to see a floor set to this rule and I like the idea of a 5 point rule mentioned earlier.

just my 2 cents..

Good Luck everyone.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

At first this rule had me utterly confused, but now that I really think about it, these are the conclusions I've come to:

1) Nobody feels good winning when they completely crush another alliance, so this will help keep that in check.

2) Also, this will make an alliance come up with a strategy to accumulate enough points to win, but not enough to lose the rights to the empty cell or supercell. In essence, it's a good "on-the-job" problem solving that has to be done quickly and efficiently.

3) As others have said, it's still January 3rd. I'm sure the necessary clarifications will be made. No need to worry.

4) We're pretending we're on the moon. We have to be able to succeed under any condition, right? :p