Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

I think most of us who have ever attended week one regionals (when the field software always has a few kinks yet to be worked out--as in 2006, when the scoring couldn't keep up with rapid-fire autonomous) have learned the risks of trusting live scoring... :rolleyes:

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

That's not exactly right though. In the next match, each alliance will be down two of their FOUR super cells, and that's only if those alliances decide to put the teams that are down super cells in one of the two corner fueling stations.

If both that dominant team and that decent team from the previous match are put into the outpost stations, then there will only be four empty cells available in the entire match, two per alliance.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

How are they going to keep track of all this? What if someone makes a mistake and there is a cell were it is not supposed to be and one of the better scouts catch it at end of match. do-over? Looks like refs aren't going to have it that easy.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

Yes, that's how I see it. From page 3 under "Tournament":

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

By delaying the impact for outscoring the opponents by a large margin,
I wonder if teams that can score alot, will still demonstrate that ability in their last match, to encourage high ranked teams to pick them as an alliance partner?

As the rule is now written, they really wouldn't be putting themselves in danger of having less balls to play with, in their next match would they.(Unless, I misread the rule).

This might put them in a difficult situation, especially if their alliance partners for that match still have a match to play.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

Wow, this is a pretty horrible rule...If you're part of an amazing team/alliance, you should be rewarded for it. They earned their ability, and should not be discriminated against.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

Could you clarify what you're talking about in 2007? I don't remember anything of the sort happening... and I also really liked 2007.

I also really like Lunacy so far, and <G14> is part of the reason why. It may seem unfair in various ways to some people, but it is a part of the game, and we have to accept that and work with that. The complexity <G14> adds to the game and the amount of strategy it brings in is why I like it so much. It may not end up leveling the playing field the way we're expecting it to now, we're going to have to wait to see how the game plays out as the season progresses. There are a lot of directions this rule could turn, so you shouldn't write it off as bad right now.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

I don't see anything that wipes out the blowout penalty going from Qualifying matches to Elimination matches. If you score big in your last match, you bring a burden with you into your Elim alliance.

I'm guessing he's talking about the tiered scheduling algorithm. Each Qualifying match alliance had a team from the lower 1/3 of team numbers, a team from the middle 1/3, and a team from the highes 1/3. This was under the vendor's theory that lower numbered teams were veterans, and that automatically made them better; upper number teams were rookies and that made them worse.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

There is a new position this year, the Official Scorer. Regional volunteer coordinators were told to get 4 referees, who were to be trained and certified. In addition there will be 6 scorers, who do not need pre-certification.

I'm guessing now - These scorers will attempt to provide real-time scoring using the shown handheld. Then at the end of the match they will come onto the field to confirm the ball counts, based on <T13>.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

That may be a valid idea, but it's beside the point.

Whether or not Team B planned to get 3x the score or not, or alerted my alliance that they were getting 3x the score or not, they did. And now my team is paying the price for actions committed by another team in a match we didn't even participate in.
Even having a fair warning beforehand does not make that situation fair to my team.


To take it a step further, what if Team B's partner in the previous match, Team D, did it intentionally? Team A (my team) is ahead of Team D in the standings, and they know that Team B is paired with us next. So Team D then decides to triple the score of the opponents to put my alliance at a disadvantage in our match.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

It's a stupid rule...

But who cares? Just build a robot so good it doesn't even need the fancy pants super cell (or whatever the dumb terminology is) to win.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

Cory, what happens when you then run up against another team that built a robot that doesn't need the fancy pants super cell to win? When you're facing a team as good as you are, suddenly it becomes important again...

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

I totally agree with this. Those who do well should be rewarded not hurt. Thats the survival of the fittest and it adds motivation and competition. Its a good thing.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

Someone already brought this up, but it wasn't really talked about; the situation:

Blue Alliance scores 30 points.
Red Alliance scores 0 points. (or after penalties the alliance score is reduced to zero)

Technically, the Blue Alliance had an infinite multiplier (because 30 divided by 0 = infinity). Does this mean the teams won't have any super cells to work with next match? Maybe I've overlooked something here, but it would be nice if someone could clarify this.

Re: <G14> Shenanigans?
 

If an alliance is good enough to win by a blowout, then they are good enough to win by something less than a blowout.

The only place where I would be too concerned about this is in matches that aren't really blowouts... say 20-10, or even 30-10. Perhaps, however, with even moderately competent human players the minimum scores will be in the 30-40 range.

Mostly, however, I think Cory hits the nail on the head when he says to plan to win without the supercell. I'm suspecting, given the effort that is required to score a supercell that the chances of seeing four of them (or even three of them) come into play in one match for one alliance will be minimal. I suspect they'll be kind of like the spoiler rings in Rack-n-roll... good for a bit of drama, sometimes, but rarely a match deciding factor.

Jason