Week 1
 

So what strategies and problems are we seeing so far at week 1 regionals and what do you think elimation will look like?

Re: Week 1
 

I am seeing WAY TOO MUCH DEFENSE. The defense is causing way to many 0s and 1s to count. I am also noticing way to many penalties (I saw 9 for one team) these are the two main things to consider moving forward in the next four weeks.

my $0.02

Re: Week 1
 

I'm seeing way too many bots that have a large gap between the ground and their belly causing upwards of 3-6 penalties from the 3" rule. Also a lot of bots that can't acquire or shoot much more that like 5ft.

Re: Week 1
 

I definitely agree with the poster above

1) Lots of defense in the qualifiers, even when the team is up by 5+ points. With the new ranking system, this is not to your advantage

2)Tons of penalties. By far the most common was having the ball come in more than 3". Some robots did not appear to have anything at all to stop this, others had devices fairly high up on the ball and they would drive up over the ball, getting it trapped beneath them.

3)With these low scores, fast consistent hangers will definitely have a big edge in qualifications.

4)Don't try to hang before the finale unless you've practiced this maneuver! Expanding while touching the tower, then backing up to reposition a hook was another good way to rack up some penalty points.

5)Stay away from your opponents tower and any robots around it during the Finale. This was the last of the penalties I saw being racked up frequently

Re: Week 1
 

The new ranking rules are REALLY hurting teams. There are teams in the top 18 who really should not be there and teams down lower who should be higher.

To the GDC: It is not bad to help out teams who are not doing well, but don't drag down teams who build good robots.

I have a feeling that several good teams at regionals will make it into elimination due to the alliance captains being robots that can't do much. :o No offense.

Good luck tomorrow everyone! :)

Re: Week 1
 

Although there were no penalties called today in NJ (practice day) I couldn't even keep track in my head. A lot of teams just don't know the rules. I heard, "Someone told me that [blah blah blah] was a rule, you better watch out so the refs don't call a penalty for that."

Teams were just confused. I don't want to hear "somebody told me, so I am going to ask someone else." It was disconcerting.

Other than that, it was interesting that the primary source of scoring came from just herding the ball into the goal. Not so much in the ways of distance shots.

Also hanging appears to be quite challenging for a lot of teams.

On the plus side, scores were higher than I expected... then again there was no defense or penalties on practice day.

Re: Week 1
 

We have almost the exact opposite problem. The rule regarding contrasting bumper colors showing is not being upheld and teams are not consistently getting penalties for shooting balls out of the field.

Re: Week 1
 

If bumper color isn't being enforced, that is crazy! Are you supposed to memorize who is on your team each match? Especially this year the teams look so much alike.

As far as shooting the ball off the field, it should only be a penalty if there is intent.

Re: Week 1
 

I see what you are saying which is sort of what I meant. I did not go to a regional however I watched countless rounds on web casts. I did notice a couple teams at every competition with bumper colors that were nowhere near what they should be but somehow they were allowed...? I did also see many balls getting accidentally kicked out which is not a penalty unless it was clearly aimed to go out. But, I completely agree with your statement about bumper colors...the rule should be much better enforced.

Re: Week 1
 

1. it's the only way to win regardless of how mean it is

2. we broke some stuff on ours and it will be fixed tomorrow

3.we got the most consistent one at kansas city and thats what were hoping we didn't have good teams with us

4. we did and don't get any penaltys that way

5.that lost us lots of games with our partners geting unecessary penaltys we're up on the tower by then

Re: Week 1
 

My point is that if you win every match 1-0, you will end up with just 1 QP per match which will put you near the bottom of the standings, you would have a better chance at seeding in the top 8 by losing every match 5-1 then winning 1-0.

Re: Week 1
 

If I lose 0-3 I'm still three times better off than I am if I win 1-0.

Re: Week 1
 

It is frustrating because our team made two sets because we did not want to get a penalty for having ANY contrasting color showing. But that rule apparently does not matter. Oh well! :o

Re: Week 1
 

Ball posession is EVERYTHING. Even if you don't have a kicker, possessing balls and being able to maneuver consistently with a ball in tow triples the amount of points you'll get. With only a few balls ever accessible, everything you can do to make this number higher is necessary.

Hanging is really, really nice to have.

Re: Week 1
 

Winning doesn't matter until the final eliminations.

Re: Week 1
 

This baffles and quite frankly upsets me. After reading the rules over and over I have come to see that it is more beneficial to just sit still on the field and purposely lose every match in order to be ranked higher. Where is the "spark" to make winning the match worth it now? Why are we rewarding mediocre play and condemning teams who perform well match after match. The GDC should have a serious re-look at this rule as I believe that it is completely backwards. Teams should be rewarded for performing well. The system should be based off of wins and losses, THEN match points, not match points alone.


Here's what I've taken from this. Want to be ranked #1 at the end of quals? Go out every match and fill your opponents goal. Lose by a HUGE margin AND take as many penalties as you can. Guarantee that you get the max seed points. If your opponents can't move, pick a goal and keep filling it. The larger the margin the better, it doesn't matter as long as there is a big deficit. This ranking system is promoting poor play.

Re: Week 1
 

But what about the teams who don't score at all?- (The GDC's opinion based on the rules and what they have said)

Re: Week 1
 

It does not however help the winning seed higher by the opposing alliance scoring zero. It is in the best interest for both teams to have high scores in order to seed highly. ( if an alliance is winning and the other has zero it would be best to score on the opposing alliance to get more seeding points) The gdc does not reward mediocrity as much as you think but you do have a point that they should still count win/loss into the seeding score (even if it was +5pts per win).

Re: Week 1
 

I agree totally Chuck. I was pissed the second I read the ranking rules.

Dean's original intent was to create a sports like atmosphere and these rules have created something like a preschool soccer match where they don't keep score.

Winning isn't the most important thing but it does need to have meaning.

Re: Week 1
 

If both alliances did this, you'd be in a pretty bad place with both of you ending up with a seeding score of 0. :cool:

It's designed to make both alliances play all out offense. Don't bug them, they don't bug you, it's as close to 2001 (4v0) as you can get and still have two opposing alliances on the field. :)

Art is right, playing defense is just silly. It's not in your interest as an alliance, win or lose! You'll get fewer points if you win (lower coopertition bonus) and fewer points if you lose (you get the winner's score). It matters in a close match, but IMHO that's a very hard line to drive along. It'd be safer to just go all out offense (again, my opinion).

Re: Week 1
 

Unfortunately after nearly 20 years of FIRST being a competitive outlet for those interested in engineering they are trying to change that... BAD IDEA. My grandfather plans to write Dean Kamen about how those who build good robots should not be hurt because other teams don't do well.

Re: Week 1
 

This is fine in theory, except for the fact that only few people actually READ and UNDERSTAND the manual. There are several posts now from people who don't understand why they moved up in rankings even though they got blown out in their last match. This is inexcusable. The GDC doesn't want people to "lawyer" the rules, but things like this are what make us have to.

Re: Week 1
 

It is still very difficult to break the mentality of "must win" in a match. The idea that you can lose 9-0 and suddenly be 5 places higher in the standings is completely backwards, in my opinion, and having to explain to your teammates that it was "good" to have been blown out just causes confusion.
There is at least one team in the top 10 in our regional that has no place being there.
Seeding complaints aside, the strategy evolution is interesting, to say the least.
Like I said, it's difficult to break the mentality of needing to win in the match. In our second match, we were behind 2-1, and I originally told our robot to play defense on the other robot so that we could pull ahead. The defense isn't really the issue here, it's more that many teams are playing ineffectively. If your midfielders/defenders aren't able to cross zones and can't effectively pass balls forward, you will be dead in the water not getting any balls. Our team has had to transition zones much more than we anticipated during matches, just because we had to accommodate our alliance's needs.

Re: Week 1
 

and we have hanging and the most consistent own 6/6 attempts

and we have a vac but we need to be more aggressive with getting the ball

Re: Week 1
 

going over the bump is really a must have good thing we can do it well:D

Re: Week 1
 

Before we bring the torches to FIRST's headcourters, let's remember that the previous system was not perfect either. You could have a team that didn't make it on the field earn 2 ranking points if they had good partners. There were always teams in the top 8 that were not one of the best 8 teams. Also, there are still 3 or 4 more matches tommorrow that will help reduce some of the variability and improve the rankings.

I do think this system isn't the best, but the last system wasn't perfect either. The only thing we can do now is just work within the system. Next week when my team plays, you can bet we will only be focused on scoring; no defense (until the elmination rounds...).

Re: Week 1
 

We're seeing a number of teams that haven't even got a fully functioning robot yet. They're struggling to make that work, not understand some esoteric rules that make no sense.

Even teams that are fully functioning and understand the "coopertition" and excessive penalties, want to win. It's human nature to want to win. Try telling your teenage drivers to stop scoring and let the other alliance catch up.

Plus, it's confusing to spectators who are struggling to understand the game that we've had seven weeks to figure out. How do we sell a game to the public where winning is a secondary goal?

I liked the mechanics of this years game, but the rules have spoiled it for me. It may get corrected somewhat after the first week, but how fair is that to those who play in the first week of regionals?

Re: Week 1
 

I will not be telling them to stop scoring, I will either be telling them to stop defending or to turn around and score for the opponent.

It definitely does NOT benefit your alliance to stop scoring at any point.

This is the coach's job, and if my teenage driver's don't want to listen to me during the match then I will go find some new driver's and see if they're any better.

Re: Week 1
 

I am just going to tell my alliance to score in their goals at will. Hopefully the mass amount of balls will rack up a few DOGMA penalties and get me more seed points.

Re: Week 1
 

Based on just penalized scoring points only, we found that about half of the top 20 teams at our regional are misplaced. We have about 10 teams that are ranked pretty high by our scouting system, yet have a very low FIRST ranking. SCOUTING is key here folks. If you don't have a good scouting system in place get one!!! We just finished our beta test on our DS scouting system and the database and it really, really, shows some major discrepencies. Assuming you want offensive robot rankings (not always necessary in elims).

Re: Week 1
 

We actually thought of that as a strategy so we wouldn't blow teams out. Unfortunately here in Kettering some of the top teams don't realize that. Looking at the scores you see that many of them are all 0 - x. If not that then ridiculously high scores, and an opponent with one or two points.

Another thing is for us teams here in Michigan we get more points for matches we win. I myself am finding this really hard to decide between state ranking points or our rank within the regional; or at least finding a balance between the two.

Re: Week 1
 

I thought some of you would find these numbers interesting.*

<EDIT>Info deleted. See below for correct numbers.</edit>

Re: Week 1
 

KC's only had 69 matches so far.

Re: Week 1
 

Since we're throwing out interesting numbers, I haven't had time to do this for all regionals, but here are the average seeding points per team per match and average team numbers for a few regionals:

BAE
Average Team#: 1099
Average SeedPts per Match: 6.60

FLR
Average Team#: 1332
Average SeedPts per Match: 6.46

KC
Average Team#: 1739
Average SeedPts per Match: 6.19

WAS
Average Team#: 1908
Average SeedPts per Match: 4.06

I know this is an incomplete set of week 1 regionals, but I'm heading to bed, and wish I had the time to crunch them all =).

Re: Week 1
 

I'll do the rest of them and add them to this post when I'm done

SDC
Average Team#: 1656
Average SeedPts per Match: 5.30

GA
Average Team#: 2029
Average SeedPts per Match: 4.23

Bayou
Average Team#: 2096
Average SeedPts per Match: 4.76

OR
Average Team#: 2129
Average SeedPts per Match: 5.65

GG
Average Team#: 1215
Average SeedPts per Match: 6.85

GT
Average Team#: 1783
Average SeedPts per Match: 5.24

Re: Week 1
 

I would say this year's qualification seeding is consistent with the much of FIRST's history (at least since I joined in 2000). Last year's Win-Loss-Tie seeding is a relatively new concept (introduced in 2004 making its run for 5 years, RIP). Before that (if you think back) we had a system of Qualification Points that were determined by an annually changing formulas of the winners and losers score. I guess it is true that "you don't know what you got till it's gone". The only thing I believe to be a new concept is that the loser gets the winner's unpenalized score (correct me if I'm wrong). This allows for a losing alliance to get more seeding points than the winning alliance if the has more than twice as many penalties as the loser has unpenalized points. I'm sure this has happened several times already with all the blowout wins and penalties. This concept still baffles me ;)

I dont know about "closest to 2001". The years immediately following 2001 and before 2004 it were pretty close.

2002: Zone Zeal. Winner got none of their score and 3X the loser's score in QP which lead to interesting strategies like this . Highest QP was #1 seed. Everyone remembers Beatty's BEAST (Team 71) that year as one of the most dominate bots ever. Few remember that this domination caused them to seed near the bottom before being picked 1st overall on route to a National Championship. Since the nature of the game was to battle over a finite number of points (the 3 goals) that is significantly different than 2001

2003 Stack Attack. Winner got their score plus 2X losers score in QP. This lead to some collusion and debates about its role in the game. Even in the Elims wins didn't really matter all that much. Each round, two matches (no more no less) were played between opposing alliances and whoever compiles more Elimination Point (scored exactly like QP expect renamed EP) advances. Often the winner of Match 1 would purposely score very low in Match 2 to assure victory. I think this makes it the closest game to 4v0 and 2001. (Note: I don't like to make that comparison because 2003 is infamous and I personally loved my first full year in 2001. At least 2001 was advertised as 4v0 point scoring competition instead of sometimes being a defacto 4v0 like 2003)

Even before 2001 in 2000, Team 25's National Championship bot was able to descore and score balls between alliances to ensure a close victory and tons of QP in the Quals. With the W-L-T seeding, some teams still scored on themselves to improve their ranking. FIRST Rules always encourage high-scoring, close matches and lead to strategies to accomplish that (and perhaps debate about those strategies). The new qualification seeding is not unprecedented, but it is perhaps a step backward.

Re: Week 1
 

Thanks, my mistake. I should have taken a closer look at the raw data.

Summary of scores as of Friday night week 1:

Autodesk Oregon Regional, Avg:2.27 Max:9.00 In 62 matches.
BAE Granite State Regional, Avg:2.55 Max:9.00 In 55 matches.
Bayou Regional, Avg:1.93 Max:9.00 In 43 matches.
Finger Lakes Regional, Avg:2.55 Max:11.00 In 51 matches.
Greater Kansas City Regional, Avg:2.33 Max:11.00 In 69 matches.
Kettering University District Competition, Avg:2.79 Max:12.00 In 41 matches.
New Jersey Regional, Avg:0.00 Max:0.00 In 0 matches.
Peachtree Regional, Avg:1.64 Max:8.00 In 57 matches.
San Diego Regional, Avg:2.03 Max:8.00 In 57 matches.
Traverse City District Competition, Avg:2.04 Max:7.00 In 46 matches.
Washington DC Regional, Avg:1.47 Max:7.00 In 59 matches.

Re: Week 1
 

I can't wait to the off season events start up so I can see how this game is played without he dopey ranking system dragging people down and let people cut loose with their robots all day long instead of just in the eliminations.

Re: Week 1
 

It's easy to criticize when you dont have to come up with a system of your own.

If you believe there is a better system the put it forth ... otherwise it's useless chatter and noise.

**note** don't point to last years system which allowed a bot that was broken and never reached the field to be an alliance captain because of favorable allience matchups. ;)

Re: Week 1
 

Perhaps I missed it, but I'm surprised that there isn't a general good/bad sportsmanship rule. If it were my decision, I would yellow card any team that chose to use a strategy to "game the system."

In the first place, participation in FIRST is not about winning. But I won't try to argue/defend that point.

Because regardless of if you want to believe that, the spirit of the rules for the game and tournament is to score points. If the rules system doesn't reward the best teams and alliances of teams for scoring, then the system should be fixed. However, the answer IMHO is not to become a NASCAR pit boss and find every trick in and out of the book to win.

The answer is to keep scoring points and let the community judge the true winner of the event, and the true winners of participating.

George

Re: Week 1
 

Good stats! Thanks for calculating all of this. In that data, do you have the penalty info as well? I think it would be interesting to see the average number of penalties in each match, too!

Re: Week 1
 

It doesn't surprise me that DC is so low. Most of the teams in DC were severely impacted by the multiple snow storms during the build season. I would expect similar numbers at Chesapeake, Philly, and maybe even in NJ. Many teams in the Mid-Atlantic shipped incomplete and non-functional robots.

Thanks for doing all these stats, it will be interesting to see if the averages go up today - and if averages start to go up in week 2.

Steve

Re: Week 1
 

Oh Yeah! FIRST wants an audience friendly game, and this one is pretty easy to figure out for the lay person, but its like watching paint dry....

We need more action!

Re: Week 1
 

As an inspector at Bayou I will sum up to problem with the ranking system. It is Saturday morning and we have 1 robot left that hasn't passed inpection. They are not even close and they only have 2 more qualification rounds left to play this morning. I seriously doubt they will ever get their robot on the field.

Oddly enough the same team is currently ranked 2nd at the end of Friday. Something is seriously wrong when a team can show up at a ROBOTICS competion and never field a ROBOT but be ranked 2nd. Now think about the implications when that team is in the top 8 and gets to pick...

Re: Week 1
 

OMG...:ahh:

Re: Week 1
 

This is exactly why this ranking system needs to go out the window. Go back to Win-Loss-Tie. At least the common person could understand that.

Re: Week 1
 

Even with Win-Loss-Tie that robot may still be ranked #2. If the alliance partners are that good, or the opposing alliance has problems, the same thing would happen. I've seen boxes on bricks (not even on wheels) that rise in the ranks every year because of lucky random alliance selection. It may be slightly more pronounced this year, but I'd chalk that up to the number of teams that simply don't know how ranking works this year.

And go ahead, score on yourself the entire match. Try to make it 10-0. I'll see what you're doing, and as a coach, instruct my drivers to score on ourselves too, so we end up winning the match 10-4. Enjoy your 10 seeding points, I'll enjoy my 18.

To be frank, the rules should have been read and understood before the robot was designed, let alone built, never mind struggling at competition to make it work. They make perfect sense when you aren't reading them for the first time after playing 5 matches, blowing out your opponents, and wondering why you're still in the bottom half of the rankings.

Teenage drivers should understand before they're out on the field why you'd tell them to let the opposing alliance catch up, or even to score on yourselves. Winning is still a primary goal if you'd like to seed high, but it's in your best interest to not shut out your opponents.

I don't know if it's just me, but it's really bothersome how many people didn't bother reading the whole manual this season. Students on my team were required to read the manual, and score 100% on a 180 question written test to even attend competitions, let alone drive the robot.

In the engineering world, if a customer hands you specs for a widget to design, you'd darn well better read every line. Otherwise, you may miss the part that says "Widget must be capable of X, and must not do Y," and build it without X but with Y. Show that to your customer and see what happens.

Re: Week 1
 

It will be interesting to look at a comparison of win/loss record (2 point win, 1 point tie, 0 point loss) vs. ranking points for all teams playing this weekend. I'm thinking it will be pretty close to a straight line.

Re: Week 1
 

I agree with the fact that its like watching paint dry, but I can say that my team did not build a robot to sit by or give up, no matter if it drops us from the elimination round or selection we are going out to win. Lets have fun and play the game if your strategy is defense so be it, ours is to score and hang.
and do it often.

Re: Week 1
 

They actually start to go up as the regional goes on. Combined match scores (red plus blue) also have a general trend of going up as the regional goes on and teams get better acquainted with their robots and driving on the field.

Note: SDC, OR, and NJ are still in progress. GG hasn't been updated in a while.

Re: Week 1
 

I'm willing to wait until our team tries the new ranking system before I form a final opinion on it, but after seeing it in action I do have a few concerns.

1) It is counter-intuitive. Perhaps FIRST might suggest a better term is counter-cultural, as one of the stated goals of FIRST is to "change the culture", that might be a positive term. The problem is, however, that the idea of losing 10-0 being a "better" result than winning 4-1 requires more than a thirty second explanation before it "makes sense". If we want to engage people in our events, they shouldn't walk away going "what the heck was all THAT about..?"

2) The goals of the qualifying rounds are not related to the goals of the elimination rounds. In one it is a good idea to lose massively, and assist your opponent in running up the score, in the other it is a good idea to win. This not only means that top-8 teams may have done little to establish their credentials as teams worthy of leading alliances into the elimination rounds, but will also make it more difficult for top-8 teams to scout potential alliance partners. How do you establish a reputation as a good defender or two-way player in a ranking system that emphatically discourages defense? Likewise, how do teams that have built offensive machines that can work around defenders distinguish themselves from their more dainty cousins?

3) The ranking system does not encourage quality robots. If you have two "box-bots" and one non-functioning robot facing three top quality machines, all the weaker alliance needs to to is post their own robots in front of their own goals to ensure that their opponents can't score on their behalf, and they achieve the exact same result as the teams that built much better machines. Likewise the ranking system encourages "giving up" and following this strategy any time you are facing a likely superior alliance. Their is no need to strategize or collaborate with "opponents"... just fold right from the start and let your "opponents" carry you to higher ranking points.

There is no doubt that the rules are the rules. I don't expect them to change. I think it is smart for teams to follow the rules and therefore smart to collaborate to arrange blowouts in qualifying or to immediately give up when outmatched. I might not LIKE it... but I think it is the smart thing to do.

Jason

Re: Week 1
 

Ok, I'm a rookie mentor (at the age of 50, so I do have some life experience to share). I checked with those with more experience and they universally say that gaming the system is part of the game itself. Go ahead and help the other team score if appropriate.

I'm not sure if i can ever agree with that, but I'm a team player...

Re: Week 1
 

We were going to do a match where two of our robots would plug up *our* goals, and then our extra robot would proceed to help the other team from scoring. We eventually decided against barring the goals, but we took a grand loss.

Re: Week 1
 

my thoughts on the ranking system are that the only time a point is bad is when you fall behind and that in a close match winning is almost 3 times better than losing:ahh: so i think a good strategy with this ranking system is just to score as many points as you can and only play defense when it's tight