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

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

So far on webcasts I have seen about 5 robots with the kicker+possession combination good enough that I would make that tradeoff.

2 of those 5 do not have hangers, I know at least 2 of the other 3 do, although I only saw 1 of the 5 successfully use their hanger.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

In KC, we had a few matches today with two robots from the same alliance hanging. A few more individual teams hung, and some came very close.

Teams playing defense may not always be able to cross the bump, so it may not be strategy for them.

Penalties are very costly in this year's game. There was a team today that got down to -4. Yes, it only counts as 0 at the end of the game, but it is a large deficit to get out. There were a lot of matches lost to penalties.

Most robots probably were not sitting by choice. Most were disabled, and a couple of stations seemed to have problems more than others. It's probably just the "week 1 cobwebs," but things seem to be moving a lot smoother than last year.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

That almost scares me. Here at Kettering there are about 3-4 robots that can consistently hang, and only 1 out of the top 5 ranked robots hang.

I know as a team we try hanging every time, and we're only 1 of 2 teams that does that :ahh:

When strategizing this year we found that a majority of the "defense bots" this year did so because a) they couldn't traverse the bump and b) their kicker didn't work. Unfortunately a lot of these robots didn't want to be "defense bots" initially...

And this is certianly the year of the penalty. One team in a match this year racked up 11 penalties due to a kicker malfunction. Fortunately their alliance didn't score so it didn't hurt them.

And I have to agree with you on the field issues. There were matches where 5/6 robots were disabled because of field issues. When we first started today we had to program all of the radios twice because of field issues. Due to that there was only 1 practice match. Hopefully week 2 will run much smoother!

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

Peachtree had a few of the 0-0 matches but those were due to penalties. Most of the games were 3 or more per team which was more than what I expected. With what I'd heard about the scrimmage it was about an average of 4 points a game both teams combined. A lot of field problems plagued our regional too; ended up 1.5hrs behind schedule because of radio problems. After that they just decided you have 15 seconds to connect or you're disabled.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

Hours went by and numerous field faults on the districts in Michigan. Some experienced teams sat motionless for numerous matches and couldn't find out why. I sincerely hope that First comes up with a better solution that "15 seconds or you're disabled". That's pretty harsh considering the number of field issues we've seen that had little to do with the robots.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

My long standing prediction to our team was an average week 1 score of 10-8 without penalties. Maybe we'll get there during the elimination rounds.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

I was also wondering that I've seen plenty of teams with really great hangers over build season but non r are doing it at comp. Am I missing something? I'd ue your hangers if you have them or they could just use a ramp XD

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

I believe that they did not overestimated there own kickers, but more overestimated their ability to line up kicks and to have the ball in the right position. I'm sure there kickers worked fine in the shop when the ball want rolling away.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

To clarify, I think they misjudged how well their ball manipulation assembly would work, in terms of making and maintaining possession, aiming, and firing.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

Yea, I figured as much, thats why i posted what your really meant.


I think we are going to see a lot of teams bring ball handling mechanisms to their robots at competition. I saw alot of teams that were scoping out and gawking at the best handling mechanisms at Kettering. That includes the better teams looking at the best because only a couple of teams had a magnet that could take the ball backwards with them.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

At the Michigan Kettering competition we've had most games around 3 to 4 points per alliance, but some had as many as 15 and 16.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

FLR has had most matches randomly gyrating. Usually, when two good alliances play, it is 5-6, but when two slightly worse ones, it usually degenerates into a turtle (bad idea in qual) and ends up witha 1-0 lucky score, or the hanging team wins. The other thing that has been lowering scores dramatically is G46. I can not think of how many times I have heard the MC say "ball penetration violation" this weekend. In fact, NOT getting those penalties is one of our robots strengths!

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

We saw a large jump in scores for the end of qualification matches I'd say. All of elimination I think we never missed a match without at least an attempted hanging, and usually both alliances went for it. The major problem though was field errors. 2 of our 3 alliance bots died in quarterfinals (no comms), leaving just our team to try and pull a win out. We actually could have if the refs called all of the penalites and we successfully hung.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

it was actually a bummer, in my experience, I watched one elimination match be decided by one team, because they pushed out of there zone during autonomous and "encouraged balls" to put them at -6 their score.

if it wasn't for those penalties, they would've won 5-1.

for our team, we won one match with 5 points, and most of the others was because of faulty systems (be the Operator Interface or field).


In my opinion, this game had a lot of potential, but a lot of teams (a lot of eastern coast teams) got screwed over with weather, and critically crippled week 1 (or at least DC)

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

Average score throughout ALL week 1 matches = 2.72

Highest score = 15
Teams 67, 70 & 910 at Kettering District

Highest combined score = 22
Teams 33, 894 & 2619 - 12 points
Teams 27, 494 & 2834 - 10 points

I'm surprised at the low average score. I would have thought there would be some real knockout teams out there scoring like crazy. The biggest surprise is the number of matches that end in a 0-0 tie. It is disappointing to hear about the field issues although in my previous experiences we've had some pretty quality field techs on the case and hustling to resolve issues. Into each life a little rain (and snow) must fall.

Bring on week two.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

Scores were a lot lower than I expected but I can definitely see that getting better.

If teams get their cameras working then they have an excellent chance of scoring a lot more points. Team 25 in NJ has a working camera which locates and shoots a ball that scores 75% of the time from the middle zone.

As for penalties, they are crazy but in NJ the refs have been excellent in my opinion. The penalties just come with the game rules and most of them are from design errors such as allowing the ball to be caught under the robot.

The most penalty points I saw was 71 in an early qualification match :ahh:

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

I'd argue it would be more beneficial for your team to learn how to score. Continuous improvement isn't rocket science.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

I'll put a big caveat here that I was only watching webcasts, and do believe that the competitions will get more challenging each weekend.... and with the BIG caveat that there are always a few great rookies teams (those aren't the ones I'm talking about) but....

Is it possible that FIRST has expanded the number of teams so quickly that the average level of robot competency has dropped?

I expect to see a certain number of incompetent robots (meant in the sense that the robot is not competent at playing the game... not as a slight to those who built it) on Friday morning... but I was watching elimination rounds at several regionals and saw an unusal proportion of robots that appeared to be... playing like it was Friday morning rather than Saturday afternoon.

It is also possible that the rules this year prohibit a team from building an uber-capable, ultra-dominant robot of the kind that 1114 built for Overdrive. I have to say that after watching 148's video, I'm looking forward to seeing them play. Or perhaps I have underestimated the difficulty of the challenge... or maybe I'm just getting grumpy in my old age ("Back in 2004 we had to climb steps... not these sissy ramps! And we had to do it with just two robots! And we had bigger ba..." oh, never mind.)

So yes, the scores were lower than I expected, the matches were less exciting than I expected, and (some of) the robots (in semi-final action) were less impressive than I expected (for robots at that stage of the tournament).... BUT.... BUT.... I want to make really sure that I leave myself lots of room to change that opinion once I've tried playing the game.

Jason

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

I watched webcasts on Friday, paying attention to see when my team was on the field.

I was disappointed, 3 out of the 4 matches I watched, they did nothing (lights blinking but no movement). I also remember that during one of them, another alliance member was also disabled. I'm not sure if it's just our team (i.e. our programming was bad), or it was the field.


I expect that regionals in weeks 3-6 will have high scores of around 20-25 points, and that there will be one outlier of 32 points (six, really really good robots pumping one goal full of balls).

Also, penalties are too much in this game. Seeing that in attempting to score one ball, a team can get 2-3 penalties, is just outrageous. A point value of 3-5, with penalties being 1 would be more appropriate (reminds me back in 2005 when tetras scored were worth 3? points, yet penalties were 10 each, killing scores).



Teams need to remember: defense does not help you at all when qualifying.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

Am I the only one who thought stuff like KC elims scores weren't really that low? 10-5 sounds like a good match to me...

32 is impossible, basically, given time and bot constraints.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

I just don't understand how 3 teams can only score 1 ball in 2 minutes. I mean most times you are starting with 4 in your home zone (the freebie plus the ones your opponent/partners miss).

What are the issues on the field? Is it exceptionally hard to drive this year?

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

Ball control without a magnet is impossible, basically. If the back kickers miss and your front robot has no posession mechanism, it's tricky to push the balls in.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

I don't think that 10-5 is a bad score, if it were to happen a lot but, most teams have a hard time scoring 1-2 times, even though they are given 6 balls right in front of them.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

We determined it is quite difficult to get a ball away from the side of the field if you do not have a superior ball magnet, since the bumpers limit your proximity to the wall.

Balls against the bumps were also tricky, as a miscalculation would result in the robot overrunning the ball, and vision is limited.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

It's possible, but this year is a very different year, as stated by the next thing you said:

Yes. It is very possible, and I think it's the case, though I'm not ready to pass judgment. I actually find this year to be a lot more cumbersome then it needs to be. Imagine if the tunnel was wider and there was less bump, so the platform could hold two robots rather then one. That would change the game SO much.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

In general from what i saw teams struggled with balls getting stuck on the edge of the wall and they could not get it from their to the goal easy. A big challenge is the simple fact that they are driving toward themselves. THis is making it hard to judge robots in the front zone. On top of this deffensive bots are making it impossible for teams to score unlesss they have an effective way to control the ball. In general people overestimated how quickly they could kick and score. Accuracy is low in comparison to what it could be and i have a feeling teams underextimated how easy it is for a ball to bounce out. Mteams aren't hanging, which is fine, but they can't score two points in the last twenty seconds like they thought they could. Also teams aren't allowing enough time to hang becuase some get almost all the way up but time runs out.....

I was at the KC regional and overall saw a lack of team work among bots. In autonomus so many bots blocked teamates shots. If your bot is not accurate in autonomus, then don't risks blocking your teams. Also there was minimal passing. A sound strategy would be clearing all the balls from the middle zone into your scoring end then crossing the buymp for a two on 1 in your scoring zone. This makes the deffensive bot only able to block one scorer and the other can just push balls in. Also it virtually eliminates the middle player becasue he can't do anything with a very small numebr of balls. Finally the defender can't clear all the balls if there are two attacking robots, and if you delay your ball re turn by makign it roll slow, your alliance won't be scored on to much. Strategies like this are worth considering but it seems that no one used strategy, they just played their game their way.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

I personally have been surprised by overall lack of a cohesive strategy between alliance partners, many matches that I saw in qualification rounds appeared to demonstrate a lack of communication in either pregame strategy or in-game between drivers. It looked like a lot of individuals rather than an alliance.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

Towards the end of the qualifying matches, one of our alliances decided to go for coopertition points. Our driver had been hesitant to try the idea earlier, but everyone had been talking about it during the day. So the teams decided to try it. Nothing else was working. Five robots were trying to get balls into the same goals. One opponent robot stayed on defense. They still only managed 3 points and 2 were from our alliance. It was very frustrating.

Ball handling is an interesting engineering problem, but that subtlety is lost on the audience. We also need games with the drama to draw them in, and I don't think they got it right this year. The finals were more exciting, but for the first day and a half it was about missed kicks and trying to get balls out of the corners.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

Balls that roll into th wall are near impossible to get without a magnet, and good ball handling devices were few and far between. Way to go for anyone that got the ball magnet down, and if you don't, I hope you have weight because i think for week 3 and beyond I think it will be as tough to get selected in an alliance if you dont have a handling mechanism. About as hard as getting the ball away from the wall without a mechanism.

Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
 

Our robot, by just being a large, flat front, was able to motor balls away from the wall much easier than other teams. The memory foam in front of our kicker also stops balls from bouncing off of us. In fact, I would call it a passive ball control system, as opposed to an active one, such as the vacuum at FLR.