Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

The only time scoring in autonomous is ever a bonus is if you score on a very evasive team that you couldn't hit in teleop. I would never run a scoring autonomous, or think of a team in alliance selection more or less because of it. It's really a gimmick in terms of strategy, though an impressive technological feat.

The supercell in the middle idea is really cool.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I think your view of 2007's auto that the only thing to do was score is too simplistic. Like in Lunacy, there was only one way to score, but also like in Lunacy, teams could do things to put themselves in a better position for teleoperated. Teams like 48 would drive to the other side of the rack and get ready to play defense. Teams like 27 would drive out towards the rack to get in position to score right away. Teams like 111 would bring their arm up to get ready to human load.

So, by IRI giving the keeper bonus, they did encourge scoring keepers in auto and thus discourging other behavior. In our 2 regionals and in Atlanta, in auto we drove out, deployed our arm, and got ready to score right away in teleoperated. When we found out about the keeper bonus, we decided to build a whole new system to do a 'drive by scoring'. After missing it twice and having to take time to deploy our arm, we decided to go back to the old auto and scoring right away in tele.

I liked the bonus in 2007 and hope IRI adds a bonus this year, too. While I think its a great strategy, seeing 5 of the 6 teams do human loading isn't the most exciting to watch nor challenging.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Whoa guys; before proposing so many rule changes, think about the original intentions of those rules:

Removing trailers of no-shows would create GP nightmares. What if all three robots on an alliance do not show up? Now the other alliance has no way of scoring. What if a team is barely able to move, and their alliance partners try to convince that they'd be better off leaving their robot (the one they spent six weeks building) off the field. What if an alliance's scoring and defense strategy would work better with two robots/two trailers instead of three of each? Is a team allowed to voluntarily stay off the field even though their robot is working fine, because they know the opposing alliance's strategy requires three targets? It just wouldn't work.

G14 adds a great strategy element provided the real-time scoring is accurate. The entire rule is based on the accuracy of real-time scoring. If accurate real-time scoring cannot be done, the rule should go away; otherwise, it can stay.

The Serpentine draft makes elimination matches much more balanced and fun, not only for players but also for spectators. While the current system of 6-8 qualifying matches generally does a good job of selecting the top eight teams, where a team ends up within the top eight is mostly a matter of luck, and using 1-8 1-8 draft order would reward the top half too much for something dependent on a random match generator. Remember that opponent's score is generally what ranks the top eight; the teams have no control over the quality of their randomly-selected opponents.

The goal in autonomous this year is not to score, but to get away from the PS directly behind you. Disallowing HP scoring during autonomous would defeat the entire purpose of the mode this year; most teams would simply do nothing. Adding a bonus for autonomous scoring would divert attention from the main goal of autonomous this year, which is the move out of the way. Rather than reward players for doing something in autonomous, the GDC decided to punish players for not doing something in autonomus; that appears to have worked quite well, as a do-nothing autonomous was virtually unseen this year.

As for the camera, teams who figured out how to use it had plenty of opportunities to use that knowledge in teleop mode, where a good camera tracking system could improve scoring accuracy considerably. Autonomous incentives were not necessary this year to encourage teams to use the camera.

Think about the rules before you change them; many of them have very deep. complicated reasons that may not be immediately obvious.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Your post makes a whole lot of assumptions that may or may not be correct.

<G14> -- Where do you see anything in the <G14> rule that talks about the realtime scoring system. The onus of <G14> is on the teams and does not require a accurate realtime scoring system.

Serpentine draft -- While it is true that you have no control over the quality of your opponents, you do have some control over the points scored against you. There are no rules about allowing an opponent to score on you, nor one against scoring on yourself. Doing so is a tactical decision that teams must make. If they choose not to make that decision then their RP will reflect that.

Autonomous -- Just because your main goal of autonomous mode was to get away from the human player does not mean that that was the intent of the GDC. Many teams used autonomous for much more than getting away from the human player. However, I do agree that we should not give bonuses for choosing 1 strategy over another.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I liked the supercell in the middle; it made for some intense races to move three feet. Plus it was hilarious watching the robots continue to drive forward as per their autonomous code, despite the other robot doing the exact same thing in the opposite direction. Probably the funniest was CHASS's bot vs. CHASS's other bot. Or else 2753 versus anything, only because of how fast and powerful they were.

I always like the serpentine draft; it makes the alliances much more equal. If Regionals ever did 1-8 1-8, I would lose all hope for FIRST since it would kill all hope of the lower seeds getting anywhere in the games and goes against the fairness and equal opportunity FIRST promotes. I hope serpentine keeps staying.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

If you really want to solve the luck and fairness arguement, then I, like many others, believe that FIRST should get rid of the 1-8 selecting each other and make the selections 1-8, 1-8. This is about as fair as you can get and also takes the luck of your qualification round groupings out.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Pure curiosity here. How does a 1-8, 1-8 draft actually make alliance selection fairer? Each time, the 8th seed gets the last of what's left, especially in the second round. Am I missing something?

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Well, those teams who won all or nearly all of their qualification matches should be rewarded with a fairly substancial advantage. For some events, depending on the distribution of teams (where teams 16 and 17 may be better than teams 2 and 24), it may be better to be seeded 8th. I don't think it is fair that a team who lost more gets an advantage.

The problem with the 1-8 1-8 is that the top 8 seeded teams are not always in the best teams. I don't think having a 1-8, 8-1 selection is the correct answer to solving the problem. It's more of a band-aid to the problem. The only way to fix the fact that 'bad' teams seed high is more qualification matches. Increase the sample size and you will get better results.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I would love more qualification matches. I think that even with 70 some matches at some Regionals, there are not enough. I feel that 7 games is not enough to display who you really are. Some teams get dragged down by bad alliances, like 423 did on the first day of Philly this year, while some bad teams get held up by good alliances when in fact their robot isn't very good, like 423's alliance captain in Trenton this year.

Plus, more qualifying matches would mean longer competitions. That means less school and more robotics!

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

The rule itself doesn't mention it, but I honestly doubt the intention of <G14> was to penalize teams for doing well. All I can think of is that the GDC wanted "stop scoring or score on yourself when you're really far ahead" to be another strategy component, which depends on real time scoring.

Once again, this only works if the real time scoring is accurate. This year, at least, it was so laughably inaccurate, many teams probably would have been better of without it. I saw some matches in Atlanta where the real time scoring showed one alliance winning by 60+ points, then the final score showed the gap to be one or two moonrocks. When the real time scoring is that inaccurate, you can't expect teams to score on themselves; it would be more of a random crapshoot than a strategic decision.
[/quote]

If the GDC had intended for teams to score in autonomous, then yes, I think it was a serious oversight of them to not provide adequate incentive to do so.

Supercell in the middle sounds like a really fun idea. I like this one.

QFT. Without serpentine, I know my team would all but give up if we were on the 6-8th seeded alliance. The imbalance of power there is just too strong.

You can't get rid of the 1-8 selection one another. That creates huge GP problems; you would have many teams intentionally losing the last qualifying match (and therefore screwing over their alliance partners) to stay out of the top eight so they can be picked by #1 or #2. Which would you rather be - a member of the #1 alliance, who gets both first picks, or captain of the #8 alliance, who gets both last picks?

In most regionals, there is one team with a perfect record; this team is #1. #2-#7, sometimes even #8, all have one loss. On Newton in Atlanta this year, every one of the top eight teams had a 6-1 record. The RP made all the difference in sorting them. And, given the inaccurate real-time scoring, I don't think teams should be rewarded all that much for a high RP.
[/quote]

Yes, more qualifying matches would solve the problem for good, but until we can figure out a way to do that and still meet time constraints (Michigan district system, anyone?), 1-8 8-1 is the selection process which produces the most fun elimination tournament for everyone.

Also, I think maybe RP should be based on alliance score rather than opposing alliance score. The current RP is a remnant of coopertition that just doesn't fit the current competition model, IMO.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Have you ever watched IRI? the eliminations there are typically home to some of the best matches of the entire year. I know my team has from the #5 seed alliance helped to defeat the #1 alliance on two occasions 2006 and 2008, once the field gets strong enough the serpentine is worthless.


RP is the best way to sort teams with the same win loss hands down, its a representation of the quality of opponents faced due to the random qualification matches,

in newton we faced 16, 469, 148, 365, 2970 and made it out as 6-1
our ranking score was 71.1 meaning we fought tougher than the rest of the 6-1's through our matches and in our last match with 234 we scored on ourselves to keep our RP high.

i believe high RP should be rewarded as it filters out whos been facing what level of alliance.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

If GP is the highest standard that FIRST goes by then FIRST should uphold teams to that standard. At a competition, you can tell if a team is throwing a match and if so disqualify them from eliminations based on not following GP. I believe a couple years ago FIRST disqualified the championship winning team because they were not using gracious professionalism. Do the same for FRC.


Yes, more qualifying matches would solve the problem for good, but until we can figure out a way to do that and still meet time constraints (Michigan district system, anyone?), 1-8 8-1 is the selection process which produces the most fun elimination tournament for everyone.

Even with 12 matches 67 selected 217 at both the districts they attended and were clearly the winners of every match. Don't you think it would have been more exciting to have those teams select other alliance partners and compete. Think about it, How fun is it when you are the #8 and you get the 8th/9th pick but you compete against the #1/2/24 pick. I think I have a better chance going against only one top team than competing against the two best teams.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

About RP: I think it's a really awesome system for offensive teams and offensive games. If you have a stacked qualifier and win your matches, you deserve the first seed.

The problem arises in that it becomes unproductive to play defense. There were some standout defensive teams this year with powerful drive systems that could hold anyone down, but winning matches by plyaing defense would keep your RP low.

My initial thought would me to make RP the difference between the winning score and the losing score, with a low RP desired, but then rather than rewarding the best teams you reward teams that played similar caliber alliances.

Still, RP is the best we got. Sorry defense, that's what the second pick is for :P

The problem is, how do you define gracious professionalism? I've heard people say that playing defense on high scorers is un-GP, and I've heard people say throwing matches so your companion team can be in the top 8 is. You can't just say "that's not graciously professional" and call it at that.

Besides, I challenge you to find one team on Einstien that's not full of gracious professionals. (For your own sake don't post if you actually believe a team on the field was un-GP, we don't want internet drama)

I think you're missing the "tition" part of coopertition. Games are designed to be competitive, and one of the rewards for being the first place team is being able to pick your favorite partner. The Top 8 is stacked against the 8th seed, and that's completely intentional; what people forget is taht the first seed EARNED their spot. To the victor go the spoils.

Also, in serpentine 8th seed with 8th and 9th pick can be very deadly, since you get to pick exactly the two partners that work the most well together. While you're picking your first one you have your second pick waiting, so you can pick teams that complement each other.

And many times, there are gems in the rough. If we were 8th seed in newton, we would have our third and fourth choice as alliance partners.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Gracious Professionalism is a compass, not a set of calipers. It should be used to guide what you do rather than to measure it.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

This has turned into an interesting thread to follow and read. I'm sure Stephanie and the planning committee for the off season event during NI Week are very appreciative of the suggestions that you are offering.

If you have any more rules tweaks/suggestions, please contribute.

Just a small attempt on my part to guide the thread back on track...*cough*


Thanks again,
Jane