2010 week 1 low scores
 

Is it just me or are the scores lower then you expected?

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

The scores are very low, but are exactly what I expected.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

Yeah, after going to the mini-regional in MN, I figured they'd be around here.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

Out of the first 43 matches at Bayou, an incredible 29 matches ended up with a scoreless team (X-0, 0-X, or 0-0). With a whopping 7 matches going scoreless. (which is just about 1 in 6 matches being a big fat goose egg for both teams)

It's much much lower than I expected. The highest scoring alliances were 9 points (once) and 8 points (once). It seems most matches ended with a sum score between both alliances to be less than 6, which quite honestly is a little bit of a disappointment.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

Where are the Hangers?

The points from Hanging are very very low. I just did an analysis of the Kettering Districts.

There is only 1 hanging robot on average per MATCH. That is right, only 1 robot in 6 is hanging!?!?

Crazy.

Especially when you consider that the average WINNING SCORE is 4.3 and the average losing score is 1.3.

That means that in a typical match 6 robots are scoring 3 goals in 2 minutes and one robot is hanging.

Is it a snooze fest?

Joe J.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

Even though the scoring is very low, i was expecting ths low of scores just because teams dont understand the true value of the Coopertition bonuses. Though, this being said, there is no snooze fest going on out there, it is probably the most strategic game in at least 3 years.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

Let's hope it just week 1 cobwebs.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

Even better question: why are teams playing defense in the qualification rounds?!!?

With the ranking algorithm this year, you are shooting yourself in the foot (ranking wise) by keeping qualification match scores low. W/L records don't matter this year during the qualification rounds!

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

We encountered a team that told us that as an alliance they would play in the spirit of FIRST and win or lose. My only thoughts were that they wanted to advertise as a defensive robot for eliminations. Oh well, we gave them a chance! ;)

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

If you're not going to be in the Top 8 anyway, you might as well show off your defense.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

It's the worst I've ever seen it.

Imagine both alliances playing for 2 minutes 15 seconds and not a single robot being able to herd a SINGLE BALL across the scoring line. Not once. It's happening with frightening frequency. Issues I'm seeing:

1. People drastically underestimated the importance of an effective ball magnet.
2. People drastically underestimated the importance of hanging.
3. People clearly do NOT UNDERSTAND the scoring rules and are playing big-time defense, and the teams who DO understand the rules are absolutely running-away score wise.
4. The penalties this year are epic. In one match we saw a bot waved for 12 penalties because their kicker was staying out of package to long - and they continued to kick over and over.

I thought last years game was slow. I stand very, very corrected.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

I don't think teams underestimated hanging. If hanging was a bigger bonus, say 5 points. There would definitely be more hangers. Making a good, reliable kicker that can pump out balls quickly is not worth the sacrifice to hang especially if you can score more than 2 balls in the finale. I don't think it is teams underestimating it, it is just that it isn't worth it.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

I think people overestimated their own kickers when making this tradeoff. Teams never fail to overestimate their own scoring ability.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

Very, very true Chris!

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

Update from Autodesk Oregon:

Not a single team has hung yet through 61 competition matches