![]() |
Re: Team update 16
Better late than never.
As a team that competed during week 1, the penalties were making the game way less fun than it should have been. This update should take care of all of that and hopefully we'll start to see a lot more ball passing and ball controlling strategies taking place. |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
We came back from a 5-1 deficit to win 7-6 (on a single penalty on our opponents --- BAE Qual53). This comeback scored seeding more points for us than would be possible had we assisited our opponents. Giving up is just plain foolish, and teaching to do so is worse regardless of the scoring system. |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
Before I get flamed, I am not talking about getting forced over a ball on a hump, or something un-avoidable. But if the ball can get under your bot just driving around, you need to make a change. You should have tested for this possibility. The rules were clear. |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
I wonder what percentage of similar deficits across all of Week 1 matches resulted in comeback wins.... You do raise a good point that penalties play a factor - although now with U16, perhaps not so much - in determining winner/loser. They are definitely another thing which would tend to increase the deficit threshold at which a team might choose to "go for the loss". But due to the rules, that threshold is still there, as teams will still consider the strategy. Teams were presented with this conflict between winning outright and maximizing seeding scores - both supposedly *good* things to pursue - when it was built into certain game situations via the rules. Originally, the rules heavily disfavored winning outright in some circumstances. The GDC has done a good job of addressing some of the most notable situations and restoring balance with Update 16, but they have NOT tipped the scales entirely toward winning outright as the preferred outcome under ALL situations. Some still remain viable. If FIRST persists in keeping such choices in place, that's their decision (and not necessarily a bad one), but if they do, I cannot fault any team for pursuing either option if they feel they are doing what's BEST for them. |
Re: Team update 16
Yet another improvement could be to assign penalties to an alliance to determine the winner, yet assign penalties to the specific violating team for determining all "penalized score" attributes of the seeding/coopertition scores.
This small tweak would further set apart those teams who've field-tested their bots and those who are playing catch up at the event. It also alleviates the stress to most teams from the syndrome that's often seen in qualifications where a single alliance member independently decides on its own to do some off the wall action that causes multiple penalties or a yellow card. |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
I think what teams failed to expect was just how easy it is to get a ball under your frame. There are a lot of things usually going on to factor in - other robots, the field elements, the driver station lack-of-view. I can easily see how a team could not even see a ball that it ran over depending upon where they're at on the field. Balls near the bumps were often an issue as teams would come over them and land on top of a ball. The inclines near the goals were bad spots too; as teams tried pushing balls in they would often drive over them. The rules were clear, but I'm glad that they've changed them a bit. It should make for higher scores and an all around better competition with a reduced focus on avoiding penalties and an increased focus on scoring points. |
Re: Team update 16
It could be argued that for most robots, driving over the ball was not really an incursion violation anyway. If you think of the bottom of the robot in the same terms as the top of the robot, the ball could pass under the bottom without actually penetrating the frame volume by 3", just as it can roll across the top without doing so. The rule is not that the ball cannot come into a verticle projection of the frame perimeter, it is that it cannot incure a concave area of the robot by more than 3". This update is certainly welcome to clarify the intent of the rule. We may have had many penalties called in week 1 that should not have been.
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
wouldn't it be nice if they mixed things up from year to year - or just move Portland to week 2 or 3. :) |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
I am sure that teams have effectively designed there robot to avoid this (I hope we did!!) but I think it is more of a challenge then we thought it would be. |
Re: Team update 16
bah... now i cant have fun with my strategy team :P
great update, only wish was that it should have been pre-week 1 as others said. im looking forward to going ot nyc and seeing how this affects rankings now. gluck out there. |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
Now don’t get me wrong, I am ecstatic with the new changes in Update 16. I think it will elevate the game play for all. I am especially happy to see the new rule that you don’t get any seeding points until you field a robot that has passed inspection. Being one of the inspectors in Bayou having to watch 2920 not pass inspection but be ranked in the top 8 all day Friday and Saturday was painful to watch. This is the first time that I can ever remember that FIRST has, as of Update 16, not just let you put your human player out there and you still get the points. |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:32. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi