Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Team update 16 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84091)

yodameister 09-03-2010 17:05

Team update 16
 
I found it on the website
http://usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Rob...pdate%2016.pdf

BradMello 09-03-2010 17:11

Re: Team update 16
 
Five points to winning alliance!

Brandon Holley 09-03-2010 17:11

Re: Team update 16
 
Wow...big update

+5 points for winning a match now is 6 vs 0 still worth it???

Also, non incidental 3" violations will not be penalized assuming they are corrected.


Way to step up GDC.

ttldomination 09-03-2010 17:14

Re: Team update 16
 
Interesting that they changed G46 to only penalize robots if the incidents are incidental and not 100% on purpose. Will definitely reduce penalties, but will call into question as to who's doing it on purpose and who just happened to run over it that round.

Lil' Lavery 09-03-2010 17:15

Re: Team update 16
 
Thank you, GDC. Thank you very much.

It's a pity this wasn't around for week 1 (especially in Bayou, given the change to no longer allow non-inspected teams to get seeding points), but at least it will hopefully be much better moving forward.

Dantvman27 09-03-2010 17:15

Re: Team update 16
 
Wow that is a huge change, should help eliminate a losing alliance doing better than a winning alliance

Josh Goodman 09-03-2010 17:15

Re: Team update 16
 
Woohoo an incentive to win matches!!!

Chris is me 09-03-2010 17:18

Re: Team update 16
 
Phew, now my robot isn't worthless until the elims. :)

A really simple fix, I must say. Now teams will have to be honest with themselves if they think they're going to lose halfway through (score for winner, lower risk, low reward) or if they should push for a comeback (higher risk, MASSIVE reward). I love it.

It's like the GDC typed up a few hundred words and fixed everything anyone ever had any trouble with :)

camtunkpa 09-03-2010 17:21

Re: Team update 16
 
Thank you so much GDC!:D

Vikesrock 09-03-2010 17:22

Re: Team update 16
 
Major props to the GDC for this update.

I was in the camp that saw no problem with 6v0 (I wouldn't go quite as far as to call myself an advocate of the tactic). With this update the GDC has clearly expressed that the intent of the seeding system which I will be recommending that my team respect, even in circumstances where 6v0 may still be advantageous for maximum seeding points.

Adding provisions for not penalizing incidental ball intrusion, and making the G30 yellow card optional are also great fixes to issues that seemed to crop up as the game was played for the first time.

Madison 09-03-2010 17:22

Re: Team update 16
 
Remind me again why anyone, my team included, is stupid enough to keep going to week 1 events?

ETA: It's a good change, but the timing is obviously frustrating.

Kevin Sevcik 09-03-2010 17:22

Re: Team update 16
 
*spit take*

The GDC has changed the seeding formula in the middle of the competition season? I think this is unprecedented. Perhaps the fact that a team at Bayou failed to field a robot for all of Quals and ended up a pick alliance persuaded them. That likely also inspired the not inspected modification, which really only makes sense. At any rate, kudos to them for acting boldly to remedy what was a rather poor ranking system in desperate need of a fix.

I propose that all we hold all further criticisms of the ranking system to the end of the season in recognition of this olive branch from the GDC. Furthermore, I think we should all support this change of rules by the GDC instead of complaining of the unfairness to Week 1 teams. Better that they've acted quickly and decisively now than that they force us all to deal with the original system on a matter of principle.

Koko Ed 09-03-2010 17:23

Re: Team update 16
 
Well, Friday might not be so painful after all.

GGCO 09-03-2010 17:23

Re: Team update 16
 
Thank goodness! However I'm still concerned with FIRST's dislike of high scoring matches. After all, what's wrong with a good robot beating a bad robot?

buildmaster5000 09-03-2010 17:24

Re: Team update 16
 
Well I would have liked this a week ago...and a bonus for winning with less than a full alliance would have been nice too

Jon Jack 09-03-2010 17:27

Re: Team update 16
 
Wow, this is a huge update. This really changes the game.

Marc P. 09-03-2010 17:29

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GGCO (Post 934678)
Thank goodness! However I'm still concerned with FIRST's dislike of high scoring matches. After all, what's wrong with a good robot beating a bad robot?

The hope would be the team with the "good robot" would lend a helping hand to the team with the "bad robot" to make it not so bad.

"Good robots" vs "good robots" makes for a good show, no matter which side you're on.

Fireworks 234 09-03-2010 17:32

Re: Team update 16
 
I think this has been one of the best updates I have ever seem :)

Thank you GDC!!! This will help out all of the teams tremendously!!!

Eugene Fang 09-03-2010 17:34

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik (Post 934676)
*spit take*

The GDC has changed the seeding formula in the middle of the competition season? I think this is unprecedented. Perhaps the fact that a team at Bayou failed to field a robot for all of Quals and ended up a pick alliance persuaded them. That likely also inspired the not inspected modification, which really only makes sense. At any rate, kudos to them for acting boldly to remedy what was a rather poor ranking system in desperate need of a fix.

I propose that all we hold all further criticisms of the ranking system to the end of the season in recognition of this olive branch from the GDC. Furthermore, I think we should all support this change of rules by the GDC instead of complaining of the unfairness to Week 1 teams. Better that they've acted quickly and decisively now than that they force us all to deal with the original system on a matter of principle.

I completely agree. I would have never expected the GDC to do this, as they would fully understand the repercussions of people calling Week 1 "unfair." But I'm very glad they have. This is probably one of my favorite team updates ever.

JaneYoung 09-03-2010 17:36

Re: Team update 16
 
Thank you, members of the GDC.

Jane

Andrew Schreiber 09-03-2010 17:37

Re: Team update 16
 
Dear GDC,

Thank You

Tetraman 09-03-2010 17:38

Re: Team update 16
 
Huzzah!

I'd like to propose that we make Preseason events official FIRST events, for the sole purpose for FIRST, teams, the GDC to evaluate the game and it's rules so that Week 1 Regional Competitions will no longer carry the stigma.

Koko Ed 09-03-2010 17:38

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik (Post 934676)
*spit take*

The GDC has changed the seeding formula in the middle of the competition season? I think this is unprecedented. Perhaps the fact that a team at Bayou failed to field a robot for all of Quals and ended up a pick alliance persuaded them. That likely also inspired the not inspected modification, which really only makes sense. At any rate, kudos to them for acting boldly to remedy what was a rather poor ranking system in desperate need of a fix.

I propose that all we hold all further criticisms of the ranking system to the end of the season in recognition of this olive branch from the GDC. Furthermore, I think we should all support this change of rules by the GDC instead of complaining of the unfairness to Week 1 teams. Better that they've acted quickly and decisively now than that they force us all to deal with the original system on a matter of principle.

I had taken a vow to not look at the rankings at any of the events I was attending out of pure disgust at theold seeding system but now I cannot wait to se how the changes affect the Florida regional come Friday,

Kevin Sevcik 09-03-2010 17:39

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Madison (Post 934675)
Remind me again why anyone, my team included, is stupid enough to keep going to week 1 events?

Madison,

Definitely a good question, given the massive problems with Week 1 events this year and previous years. It seems like there's little incentive to attend them unless you have no other option and it's very unfair to the teams forced to attend these events. Definitely something for discussion in the off-season. Off the top of my head, some possible solutions are:

1. Reduced entry fee for week 1 events. Takes the sting out of potential problems.
2. Drastically reduced number of week 1 events (one?) so FIRST can throw all available talent at them to help them run smoothly.
3. Full-on official scrimmages on official fields in an official tournament fashion. Assuming you can find the teams to make it happen.

Or some combination of these three. But at this point it's looking more and more like something needs to be done to address the quality of week 1 events, or you're going to see an exodus of savvy teams from these events.

Rich Kressly 09-03-2010 17:39

Re: Team update 16
 
namaste ... and thanks for listening ...
really looking forward to playing the game this way in a few weeks :)

IndySam 09-03-2010 17:44

Re: Team update 16
 
Two thumbs up for the GDC.

,4lex S. 09-03-2010 17:47

Re: Team update 16
 
Now I feel like I can have spectators show up and actually understand what is going on.

Thanks GDC, thats a really logical, upfront decision.

Nawaid Ladak 09-03-2010 17:57

Re: Team update 16
 
I personally am not a fan of the changes.... but i guess we have to live with it.

This is going to be a VERY intresting weekend in FIRST.

btw: has the GDC ever changed the scoring for a game once the competition has started? or is this a first?

IndySam 09-03-2010 17:59

Re: Team update 16
 
The <G46> change is as exciting as the section 9 change.

Should lead to much fewer penalties therefor higher scores and even higher coopertition bonus.

Even more reason to play to win!

robodude03 09-03-2010 17:59

Re: Team update 16
 
I have to mirror everyone else's statements and thank the GDC for this update. Playing the system will not be attractive anymore and can now focus on playing to win for those extra 5 points. This definitely changes the way the game will be played.

Radical Pi 09-03-2010 18:16

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tetraman (Post 934689)
I'd like to propose that we make Preseason events official FIRST events, for the sole purpose for FIRST, teams, the GDC to evaluate the game and it's rules so that Week 1 Regional Competitions will no longer carry the stigma.

Agreed. Being the victim of Week 1 field problems this year, I say a full official field should be offered to FIRST approved preseason events to work out the bugs in the system before full events

Tom Bottiglieri 09-03-2010 18:19

Re: Team update 16
 
Here's a task for a student with some free time:

Take last weekends match results (from TBA/twitter/wherever), and recalculate the rankings incorporating this new bonus.

This is NOT to see what teams would have been ranked higher/lower, but rather to see how (15 * num matches) points injected into the total seeding points pool can affect the overall rankings.

Martinez 09-03-2010 18:20

Re: Team update 16
 
I'm not as convinced as others that this will elimnate the 6v0 or 3v0 stradigies... However it is a serious step in the right direction. Personally, this is alot better than what I was expecting which was ether a penalty for a own goal or those goals not being counted (or something to that effect).

I am surprised with a +5 bonus for winning (along with the 2x multiplier), and having the losing alliance keeping the winners score. Clearly the GDC must be either mostly happy with the results or don't want to shake things up to much.

Thank you GDC for listening and making your fans happy.

:)

Wildcat 09-03-2010 18:21

Re: Team update 16
 
with the new +5 to the winning alliance this should make things much better and much more understandable :)

pfreivald 09-03-2010 18:23

Re: Team update 16
 
Thank you, thank you, thank you, GDC, for these changes. It's a wonderful day in the world of FIRST.

Billfred 09-03-2010 18:25

Re: Team update 16
 
Best. Team. Update. Ever.

qwertyuiop[]\ 09-03-2010 18:28

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Madison (Post 934675)
Remind me again why anyone, my team included, is stupid enough to keep going to week 1 events?

Stupid? I wouldnt be so rash in your wording. My team, which only goes to one regional, period (no atlanta either), sees week one events as more fair because it puts us at less of a disadvantage. no other teams have had actual experience in playing the game in week one as opposed to in week six where teams are coming back for the 2nd or 3rd regional. I would call it a SMART move for smaller low budget teams that only go to one regional to go to a Week 1. we are already at enough of a disadvantage to teams that are fortunate enough to have a full scale practice field, and a second robot to practice with after ship date.

EDIT: BTW, gdc nice revision on the rules

XaulZan11 09-03-2010 18:32

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Billfred (Post 934727)
Best. Team. Update. Ever.

Couldn't agree more. With my team's first competition this week I was losing sleep hoping balls would never get jammed at the mouth of the ball counter. Thankfully, now we can use the end of the trident!

I guess the 5 points is an ok rule, I guess...

GaryVoshol 09-03-2010 18:36

Re: Team update 16
 
Thank you GDC. This (the +5 for a win) is a major change; I can't remember anything similar in the last 6 years. There is no comparison to earlier rules changes like no pre-match stacking and no-you-cant-yes-you-can have bandsaws.

Given that average match scores on Friday were less than 5 points, the difference is a significant game-changer.

pacoliketaco 09-03-2010 18:38

Re: Team update 16
 
well first off, thank you GDC for fixing these two problems with the game that i saw last weekend. i think that a lot of matches were shutouts, or even 0-0, because of the three inch rule, enforced even if a team was pushed onto a ball (or flipped onto one, as happened a few times). so that fix is great, as is the other, as our team would probably have finished much higher, as a great deal of our matches were shutouts, so a 7-2 record placed us 19th. kinda annoying to change the rule after week 1, as has been said, but at least now everyone else gets to play the game as it should have been. so good luck to everyone else for the rest of the season :)

Coach Norm 09-03-2010 18:40

Re: Team update 16
 
The coach is me likes this update very much. It brings back the strategy to both alliances. If you are willing to gamble either way, you can.


Quote:

Originally Posted by qwertyuiop[]\ (Post 934731)
Stupid? I wouldnt be so rash in your wording. My team, which only goes to one regional, period (no atlanta either), sees week one events as more fair because it puts us at less of a disadvantage. no other teams have had actual experience in playing the game in week one as opposed to in week six where teams are coming back for the 2nd or 3rd regional. I would call it a SMART move for smaller low budget teams that only go to one regional to go to a Week 1. we are already at enough of a disadvantage to teams that are fortunate enough to have a full scale practice field, and a second robot to practice with after ship date.

EDIT: BTW, gdc nice revision on the rules

We are a third year team here at 2468 and we went to a first week regional last year in OKC. I have to agree that the field seemed more level since it was the first week for all teams to attend. In addition, to a young team it was very important for us to get to more than one regional so we could get more experience.

Chuck Glick 09-03-2010 18:57

Re: Team update 16
 
Thank you GDC.

You have managed to fix so much with one simple update. Teams now can see the advantages of playing 3v3 to WIN (while close to maximize points) and not 6v0 for just ranking. Also thank you for addressing the accidental 3" incursion penalties. This will help EVERYONE after watching how many teams were receiving these penalties (accidentally or due to negligence in design).



Side note: This will effectively end most 6v0 matches, but I bet we see one or two depending on what teams we see playing.

Richard Wallace 09-03-2010 18:58

Re: Team update 16
 
Thank you, Game Design Committee. :)

When something is not quite working as designed, the right move is to tweak it. I think these changes will, by this time next week, be seen as well-judged tweaks to a system that was nearly right to begin with.

For the record, my team was at a Week 1 event. And I was volunteering at a different Week 1 event. For several years I advocated within my regional planning committee to hold our event during Week 1. In spite of, and even because of, the challenges that FIRST encounters year after year I still say, "Week 1 this year, Week 1 next year, Week 1 forever!"

Daniel_LaFleur 09-03-2010 19:00

Re: Team update 16
 
Thanks GDC, I love being a guinea pig.

//walks away frustrated//

sgreco 09-03-2010 19:11

Re: Team update 16
 
Thank you GDC.

This is a great update. Now I feel as though playing the match to win is obviously in the best interest of the teams and not much iffy ground is left inbetween. That said, the coopertition has not been eliminated so you still want high scores coopertively. So the intent of the cooperation is intact, but now winning is definitely a benefit as opposed to the 6v0.

People may complain about this being late, but I appreciate the fact that they found a problem and fixed it. Better now than never.

George1902 09-03-2010 19:14

Re: Team update 16
 
There are three situations where the "6v0" situation arises:

1. The winning alliance in a blowout decides to increase the loser's score near the end of a match to increase their own coopertition bonus.

2. The losing alliance realizes they have no chance of winning (perhaps before the match even starts) and increases the loser's score in order to increase their seeding points and not waste goals increasing their opponent's coopertition bonus.

3. In a potentially close match one or both alliances decide playing against each other is too risky and decide all balls should be scored into one alliance's goal.

This update decreases the incentive for scenario 3, but does nothing to scenarios 1 and 2.

SteveGPage 09-03-2010 19:29

Re: Team update 16
 
Awesome! With Chesapeake coming up in 36 hours - all I can say is "Lock and Load!" :D

I can't wait!

Thank you GDC! You are my heroes!

Martinez 09-03-2010 19:32

Re: Team update 16
 
Well... lets see how good my math and logic is.

A +5 bonus is basically a kin to a 2 goals for Coopertition points, so things will start getting weird for blow outs (ie 3 goal lead or more). Basically at that turning point, the losing team will want to score for the winning team and the winning team will want to start scoring for the losing team.

I did some calcs in Excel and at the FLR, 37% of teams won with a lead of 3 or more on Friday Afternoon. Also the average goals was 2.8 to 2.3 for the Red vs Blue Alliance on Friday Afternoon. However, the average qual points with the new system is 7.5 to 7.1 on Friday Afternoon.

The average qual point from ties was 5 on Friday afternoon over the course of 9 matchs which is 18% of matches.

I did some fuzzy logic and determined that there were 5 "6v0 matches" during Friday (ie scored 5 goals or more against a team with a score of zero) in which the average qual points is also 7.6 (without a newly defined win bonus). For the record, yes this means my team (2053) was the benificiary of a 6v0 in match 50 and I never realized it.

I *think* this will produced the desired results that the GDC and the rest of us is looking for, but it will be hard to say until we see in action. Even just the Psycological effects of winning and getting bonus points for it will have a huge effect on game play. All in all, it looks promising.

:)

Wildcat 09-03-2010 19:32

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EugeneF (Post 934686)
people calling Week 1 "unfair."

if people think week 1 was unfair week 1 should be replayed :P

jblay 09-03-2010 19:36

Re: Team update 16
 
This I think my favorite team update in as long as I have been involved in FIRST. And I would like to applaud the powers that be for making such an important change even though week 1 has already happened.

ttldomination 09-03-2010 19:36

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildcat (Post 934766)
if people think week 1 was unfair week 1 should be replayed :P

Life isn't fair.

But Seriously, hundreds of teams and thousands of students played, including my team and me, and I can say that the system sucks, but I'm happy that going forward, the system is better. I would hate to have to attend our second regional, and even championships, with the bad system.

jspatz1 09-03-2010 20:08

Re: Team update 16
 
It would be interesting if some of you number crunchers out there would "replay" the week 1 regionals and see how the final ranking results would have been different with this change.

David Brinza 09-03-2010 20:12

Re: Team update 16
 
Thanks, GDC for putting competition back into it's place in Breakaway!

The 5-point incentive for winning will likely kill the 6v0 travesty of the game.

Travis Hoffman 09-03-2010 20:33

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck Glick (Post 934742)

Side note: This will effectively end most 6v0 matches, but I bet we see one or two depending on what teams we see playing.

At the very least it will enlarge the points deficit threshold needed for making the decision to lock down your goals and lose big(ger).

This seems like a goodly amount of GDC-brand grease to apply to the squeaky wheel.

Alex Cormier 09-03-2010 20:46

Re: Team update 16
 
In my opinion, the update was both good and bad.

In one hand, it was great to see the GDC noticed that their system had a major flaw. In the other hand, the best time to have put out this update was before the "official" regionals start.

My team played in a week 1 regional and was a subject to every change in the update.

We were the first team to get a yellow card from G46 (match #1 of FLR), we played 6v0 matches (match 58 and 63), and we got a yellow card which turned to a red card for G30 (early Friday). Interesting how every change in this update was a little reflect of what 3181 did on the playing field. (Maybe the update should be changed to Update #3181 :p)

It is a horrible thing that teams pay in full for the local regional and even away regionals on week 1 and the system changes drastically after the fact. I have no problem with decreasing the amount of week 1 regionals or decrease the amount of registration or have more official week 0 events to work everything out.

I will not walk away from FIRST from this point, I truly believe in this program and I will further mentor teams in my area that need help. I have gone through this system and I love it. There just needs to be some changes.

coldfusion1279 09-03-2010 20:50

Re: Team update 16
 
Thanks GDC.

It's a shame the week 1 regionals went the way they did... but better late than never I suppose. On to week 2! (and on to different concerns with the ranking system?... I hope not)

texarkana 09-03-2010 20:56

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Cormier (Post 934803)
In one hand, it was great to see the GDC noticed that their system had a major flaw. In the other hand, the best time to have put out this update was before the "official" regionals start.

They made the change as soon as the week 1 results and buzz made them realize there was a problem. If they had aniticipated the problem they would not have allowed it in the first place. I would not want the task of devising a system that 50,000 very smart people try to outwit.

I was a disgruntled week 1 complainer, but I commend them for listening to the community and fixing it so quickly. My enthusiasm is restored.

Akash Rastogi 09-03-2010 20:57

Re: Team update 16
 
I question why we keep attending a week 1 regional.

This is barely a thank you to the GDC.

thelittlesister 09-03-2010 20:59

Re: Team update 16
 
Wish FLR wasn't week 1 but im glad GDC has found a solution! Week 1 participants were more or less the ginuea pigs for the trial, but i'm glad all the other weeks will be better...hopefully! =P Thanks!

JesseK 09-03-2010 21:06

Re: Team update 16
 
Thanks GDC. I understand the intent of the new seeding system, and sometimes even the best of intentions lead to unexpected consequences.

Madison, iirc, you have an FTC team going to Atlanta too right? We'll see ya down there (FTC1885). I'm just glad I won't miss the conferences this year.

George A. 09-03-2010 21:12

Re: Team update 16
 
I want to commend the GDC, because frankly they were going to upset people regardless of how they acted.


If they let things continue the way they had been going, we would have gone through 5 weeks of regionals, and the Championship with people outraged at the seeding system, and way the rankings were ending up. (The Bayou regional is a good testament to why they had to change it)

On the other hand, if they do change it (as they have) yes, the people playing in the week 1 regionals kind of got screwed, but they did the greatest good for the greatest number. This way at least the final 4 weeks of regionals can be played with how the game should be played.

Would it have been ideal to have this update before regionals? Yes, but in some of the scrimmages I saw, robots were struggling to move let alone score. So there was no way to really know how things would play out.

So let's give them credit, they saw an issue, made a tough decision as to whether to fix it or ride out the storm, and did what they felt was in the program's best interest. In my opinion, it should make the final weeks a bit more entertaining.

cmh0114 09-03-2010 21:29

Re: Team update 16
 
I'm also one of the people who saw no object with the 6v0 method. I wouldn't say that I liked it, but I was okay with it as a valid strategy.
Now, I don't have to worry about that! No more scoring on your opponent in order to get double seeding points, either. This will bring it so much closer to the wins/losses systems we've had in the past.
I can't wait to see how this turns out!

Molten 09-03-2010 21:33

Re: Team update 16
 
Week one is a great time to compete. First of all, it allows more creativity in playing the game because nobody has seen it played before or played it themselves. This means that there are no prior strategies that have been known to work, nobody has had extra time to perfect their robot, and that everything is equal. Think about last year, how many teams in week 5 converted to dumpers rather quickly at the competition? They didn't do this in week 1 because nobody knew at first dumpers would do better. In 2007, did people know how to defend around the rack very well at first? No, they learned it from studying matches and experience.

Also, to teams asking for an incentive to choose week 1...the above is that incentive. It's a pretty big one in my opinion. Sure week 1 has drawbacks, but it comes out about fair with the rest in most years.

Swampdude 09-03-2010 21:37

Re: Team update 16
 
MUCHO RESPECT GDC!!! BRAVO!!! That's how to demonstrate good practices. I think in addition to this perhaps next season 2010 week 1 teams could elect to get a break on registration fees perhaps. This changed my whole attitude about Florida. I was almost dreading it....

Bill_B 09-03-2010 21:40

Re: Team update 16
 
Any thoughts on the amount of the added seed points? Why +5 and not +6 or +10? Seems like some speed limit traffic signs I've seen, namely, can't shake the possibility of arbitrariness.

Joe Johnson 09-03-2010 21:41

Re: Team update 16
 
All good comments.

I like 2 things best.

#1, it shows a willingness to change things, even major things, mid stream if it is sufficiently important. Good for the GDC.

#2, it gives teams the moral leg to stand on to say, "the game is supposed to be played to win, even in the qualifying matches." Now we can say that the purpose is clear. The game is intended to be played to win.

I am very happy.

Joe J.

JaneYoung 09-03-2010 21:45

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Swampdude (Post 934851)
This changed my whole attitude about Florida. I was almost dreading it....

This changed my whole attitude about the 2nd week, period. It's very difficult watching and wondering what's going to happen by 3rd week, 4th week, 5th week. We all do that anyway but, this year it was awful. I honestly broke out in hives on Saturday and I can't remember the last time I've broken out in hives. The concern for the teams/game was difficult to manage. From here on out, when discussions start about the 2010 FRC game, my first thought is going to be, hives.

Jane

jamie_1930 09-03-2010 21:53

Re: Team update 16
 
This is a blessing for which we thank the GDC and can finally say forget 6v0!

Lil' Lavery 09-03-2010 22:05

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson (Post 934856)
#2, it gives teams the moral leg to stand on to say, "the game is supposed to be played to win, even in the qualifying matches." Now we can say that the purpose is clear. The game is intended to be played to win.

I definitely agree. I also think this was already there, though.

Quote:

7.1 OVERVIEW
Breakaway is a game played on the FIELD (illustrated in the figure below). Two ALLIANCES, one red and one blue, composed of three FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC) teams each, compete in each MATCH. The object of the game is to attain a higher score than your opponent by shooting BALLS into a GOAL, climbing on the ALLIANCE TOWER or PLATFORM, or by lifting an ALLIANCE ROBOT off the PLAYING SURFACE.

Chris Fultz 09-03-2010 22:07

Re: Team update 16
 
Well bummer.

Now we have nothing to change for IRI and Copioli won't be able to whine about the rules...

:D

Jeff Waegelin 09-03-2010 22:10

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson (Post 934856)
All good comments.

I like 2 things best.

#1, it shows a willingness to change things, even major things, mid stream if it is sufficiently important. Good for the GDC.

#2, it gives teams the moral leg to stand on to say, "the game is supposed to be played to win, even in the qualifying matches." Now we can say that the purpose is clear. The game is intended to be played to win.

I am very happy.

Joe J.

Joe, I completely agree with you. I firmly believe that you should always play to win the game in every match. You help people if they need it, and work together in the pits, but on the field, you play hard, you play fair and try to win. This clearly does give an endorsement to that belief, and I commend the GDC for that. I also commend them for having the fortitude to make the hard decision and do what's right to make the game better for all teams and spectators. Bravo.

Al Skierkiewicz 09-03-2010 22:14

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz (Post 934882)
Well bummer.

Now we have nothing to change for IRI and Copioli won't be able to whine about the rules...

:D

Give him time, he has a lot on his plate right now.

Foster 09-03-2010 22:17

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Madison (Post 934675)
Remind me again why anyone, my team included, is stupid enough to keep going to week 1 events?

Simple we went to FLR to:
  • Hang with my sister and Rolling Thunder!!
  • Meet Koko Ed in person
  • Meet Karthic
  • Wings and BBQ at Quaker Steak and Lube
  • Meet Kim
  • Watch the glee in Steve as Canada teams come beat up on the Americans
  • Meet with 20 Chairmain's Award Winners (some of them multiple times)
  • Sticklips BBQ
  • Watch a rookie team take on some bigger/badder/meaner (in a GP way of course)teams and take their prizes
  • Meet Paul, the President of First
  • Team dinner of BBQ at Dinosaur BBQ
  • Come to a place with less snow than Philly
  • See team 1551 put on a robot show that will be talked about for years
  • Have 5 different teams either dance with or limbo under our giant screwdriver
  • Oh yea, get the bugs out of the robot for Philadelphia
Thats why we came! And we had a good time doing it.

Manoel 09-03-2010 22:24

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz (Post 934882)
Well bummer.

Now we have nothing to change for IRI and Copioli won't be able to whine about the rules...

:D

Watch out for FRAME PERIMETER shims flying out from 217... ;)

I'd throw ours, if we could go to IRI!

Enigma's puzzle 09-03-2010 22:25

Re: Team update 16
 
Although i have to agree with the change in the ranking system, i cannot say that i agree with the GDC changing the rules on the 3" penalty. It seems like they took a critical engineering problem out of the equation, i cannot speak for everyone, but as soon as we saw the problem occur on the robot, we designed a solution. I was surprised how many people hadn't designed a robot to prevent themselves from doing that. Dean and Woodie even brought that point up at kickoff.

George1902 09-03-2010 22:29

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cmh0114 (Post 934845)
No more scoring on your opponent in order to get double seeding points, either.

Why not? This update didn't remove the coopertition bonus.

If I'm winning 8-2 with 30 seconds left and 2 balls to score, do I make the score 10-2 or 8-4? The former nets me a seeding score of 19 under the new rules, while the latter nets me a seeding score of 21. The incentive is still to score for the other alliance.

Vice versa, if I'm losing 2-8 with 30 seconds left and 2 balls to score, do I make the score 4-8 or 2-10? The former nets me a seeding score of 8 while the latter nets me a seeding score of 10. Once again, the incentive is still to score for the other alliance.

Can someone explain to me what is different with this update? Yes, there is a bigger reward for winning, but once the match is out of reach for one alliance, 6v0 comes back into play.

Chris is me 09-03-2010 22:33

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by George1902 (Post 934907)

Can someone explain to me what is different with this update? Yes, there is a bigger reward for winning, but once the match is out of reach for one alliance, 6v0 comes back into play.

6v0 is not a catch all term for all cross goal scoring and I wish people would stop using it as such.

This update prevents pre arranging a match to have one winner and one loser, since the winner gets 5 more points.

Swampdude 09-03-2010 23:05

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by George1902 (Post 934907)
Why not? This update didn't remove the coopertition bonus.

If I'm winning 8-2 with 30 seconds left and 2 balls to score, do I make the score 10-2 or 8-4? The former nets me a seeding score of 19 under the new rules, while the latter nets me a seeding score of 21. The incentive is still to score for the other alliance.

Vice versa, if I'm losing 2-8 with 30 seconds left and 2 balls to score, do I make the score 4-8 or 2-10? The former nets me a seeding score of 8 while the latter nets me a seeding score of 10. Once again, the incentive is still to score for the other alliance.

Can someone explain to me what is different with this update? Yes, there is a bigger reward for winning, but once the match is out of reach for one alliance, 6v0 comes back into play.

I think 5 points and the threat of ball incursion penalties gone gives enough clear incentive to want to be the winner, where it didn't matter before. That's an important dynamic that should eliminate most of the predetermined 6v0 collusion. You're right, it's still there but I think this will put the winners where they belong.. on top.. and it's better than what we had! Looking forward to seeing you George!

Martinez 09-03-2010 23:24

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill_B (Post 934855)
Any thoughts on the amount of the added seed points? Why +5 and not +6 or +10? Seems like some speed limit traffic signs I've seen, namely, can't shake the possibility of arbitrariness.

5 Points = 5 Goals or 2.5 Hangs or 2.5 Goals from "Coopertition Bonus." Considering the overall average seems to be a 3-2 maybe even a 4-1 match for quals, I say it was a large enough spread to cause enough of a insentive to actually win your own matches without resorting the system to a simple W vs L ratio.

Vikesrock 09-03-2010 23:29

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma's puzzle (Post 934905)
Although i have to agree with the change in the ranking system, i cannot say that i agree with the GDC changing the rules on the 3" penalty. It seems like they took a critical engineering problem out of the equation, i cannot speak for everyone, but as soon as we saw the problem occur on the robot, we designed a solution. I was surprised how many people hadn't designed a robot to prevent themselves from doing that. Dean and Woodie even brought that point up at kickoff.

They may have eliminated the penalty if the incursion is accidental, but they did not eliminate the incentive to not have incursions. Many teams I witnessed that got balls stuck underneath them spent substantial time, in some cases up to a minute to get the ball out from underneath them.

Martinez 09-03-2010 23:30

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma's puzzle (Post 934905)
Although i have to agree with the change in the ranking system, i cannot say that i agree with the GDC changing the rules on the 3" penalty. It seems like they took a critical engineering problem out of the equation, i cannot speak for everyone, but as soon as we saw the problem occur on the robot, we designed a solution. I was surprised how many people hadn't designed a robot to prevent themselves from doing that. Dean and Woodie even brought that point up at kickoff.

You have to realize that alot of teams do not go through a very robust Test n Debug period prior to ship. Heck, having a finished working enough robot to play for Friday is considered a success by several teams. As a result, many teams recieved infractions again and again, espcially around the goal area.

Heck, we designed and redesigned our system to allow plenty of space to go over the bump, but keep out balls and got ourselves going over a ball we couldn't seefrom the playerstation once or twice as we tried going over the Bumps. Less Penalties (especailly in this game) I see as a very good thing.

Justin Montois 09-03-2010 23:45

Re: Team update 16
 
This is a huge update. Changes a lot and all for the better. It's just a shame our regional is over. I'm looking more forward to Championship now. Happy with these changes! Go GDC!

Nawaid Ladak 09-03-2010 23:50

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by George1902 (Post 934907)
Why not? This update didn't remove the coopertition bonus.

If I'm winning 8-2 with 30 seconds left and 2 balls to score, do I make the score 10-2 or 8-4? The former nets me a seeding score of 19 under the new rules, while the latter nets me a seeding score of 21. The incentive is still to score for the other alliance.

Vice versa, if I'm losing 2-8 with 30 seconds left and 2 balls to score, do I make the score 4-8 or 2-10? The former nets me a seeding score of 8 while the latter nets me a seeding score of 10. Once again, the incentive is still to score for the other alliance.

Can someone explain to me what is different with this update? Yes, there is a bigger reward for winning, but once the match is out of reach for one alliance, 6v0 comes back into play.

Your absolutely right in this. the reward for winning was the coopertition bonus. The GDC didn't need to add a incentive to win.

What i think is happening here is people are getting too hyped up for what the GDC did, All this does is stop matches from being fixed between two even alliances. If i knew i was going to lose. I would still play 6v0. it would STILL net me the most seeding points that my alliance could possibly gain from that match.

Sure this gives you more incentive to win (in qualification matches) . but wasn't that already a goal? (coopertition bonus, moves you to the top of the pack easier than a 6v0)

Molten 09-03-2010 23:55

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Foster (Post 934893)
Simple we went to FLR to:
  • Wings and BBQ at Quaker Steak and Lube
  • Sticklips BBQ
  • Team dinner of BBQ at Dinosaur BBQ
Thats why we came! And we had a good time doing it.

I'm seeing a trend here...Florida has good BBQ?

dtengineering 09-03-2010 23:59

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak (Post 934956)
Sure this gives you more incentive to win. but wasn't that already a goal?

Winning the tournament is one goal. Winning a qualification match is another.

Now the two goals have a lot more in common with each other than they did a week ago.

Jason

waialua359 10-03-2010 00:25

Re: Team update 16
 
This changes nothing for our team.
We played to win every match last week and for the most part, that's how the SD regional was played.
In the end it worked out for the best.

Good luck in week 2 everyone!!!!

Andrew Schreiber 10-03-2010 00:46

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak (Post 934956)
What i think is happening here is people are getting too hyped up for what the GDC did, All this does is stop matches from being fixed between two even alliances. If i knew i was going to lose. I would still play 6v0. it would STILL net me the most seeding points that my alliance could possibly gain from that match.

Nawaid, the new rules are not perfect but it is an olive branch, it is showing us that the GDC is aware that people are finding problems and is trying to address them. I for one appreciate this.

Kevin Sevcik 10-03-2010 01:13

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak (Post 934956)
Your absolutely right in this. the reward for winning was the coopertition bonus. The GDC didn't need to add a incentive to win.

What i think is happening here is people are getting too hyped up for what the GDC did, All this does is stop matches from being fixed between two even alliances. If i knew i was going to lose. I would still play 6v0. it would STILL net me the most seeding points that my alliance could possibly gain from that match.

Sure this gives you more incentive to win (in qualification matches) . but wasn't that already a goal? (coopertition bonus, moves you to the top of the pack easier than a 6v0)

The difference post #16 is that now the weaker alliance can't "steal" the win from the stronger team. Pre #16, if the weaker alliance managed to blank its score and run up the score of the stronger alliance, they essentially ended up tying the stronger alliance. This denies any ranking advantage to the stronger alliance even though it would appear that it should have garnered some advantage from the match. It did completely dominate the other team, after all.

Succinctly, if there's no difference between a 16-0 blowout and a 16-16 tie, something's probably wrong with your system. The post #16 system removes this oddity and creates a system where winning is actually rewarded in all circumstances. This is the fundamental difference between the two seeding systems.

PaW 10-03-2010 01:44

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dtengineering (Post 934959)
Winning the tournament is one goal. Winning a qualification match is another.

Now the two goals have a lot more in common with each other than they did a week ago.

Well said, Jason.

Thanks GDC.

Nawaid Ladak 10-03-2010 01:53

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik (Post 935002)
The difference post #16 is that now the weaker alliance can't "steal" the win from the stronger team. Pre #16, if the weaker alliance managed to blank its score and run up the score of the stronger alliance, they essentially ended up tying the stronger alliance. This denies any ranking advantage to the stronger alliance even though it would appear that it should have garnered some advantage from the match. It did completely dominate the other team, after all.

Succinctly, if there's no difference between a 16-0 blowout and a 16-16 tie, something's probably wrong with your system. The post #16 system removes this oddity and creates a system where winning is actually rewarded in all circumstances. This is the fundamental difference between the two seeding systems.

My point is that update 16 will not stop the weaker alliance from creating a 6v0 situation, it won't stop the stronger alliance to score for their opponents to raise their own seeding score/cooperation bonus even more. after all. I thought that was the issue that everyone was struggling with. "scoring points for your opponent". We already knew that part of the system was flawed.

It's great what the GDC has done with G46 and the principle of the 5 point bonus, but the process in which they have enforced the rule change. This change is totally unfair to teams who participated in Week 1 events. In a ideal world the GDC would have announced this change, but would not implement it until the Championship Event. That would give people a even playing field during their respective Regional competitions.

Of course life isn't fair, and neither is anything in it. So i guess we just have to live with it.

Joe Matt 10-03-2010 01:59

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak (Post 935012)
Of course life isn't fair, and neither is anything in it. So i guess we just have to live with it.

When it comes down to a decision like this you have to look at it from how will this benefit the kids. Will they get disgruntled and mad at a flawed system that COULD be fixed but only at an event they aren't going to (especially due to the rule). Or they could make problems with Week 1, fix it, and run the rest of the regionals in a maner that'd let those who play the game better (strategy, design) win.

Sorry Week 1.

Danny Diaz 10-03-2010 02:14

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak (Post 935012)
My point is that update 16 will not stop the weaker alliance from creating a 6v0 situation, it won't stop the stronger alliance to score for their opponents to raise their own seeding score/cooperation bonus even more. after all. I thought that was the issue that everyone was struggling with. "scoring points for your opponent". We already knew that part of the system was flawed.

I have to agree with this. There is still no incentive for an alliance that knows they're not going to win to even attempt to "fight." All they really want to do (even with #16) is to keep the bleeding to a minimum - to prevent their alliance from scoring any points (whether scored by them or by the opposing alliance); there is nothing gained by fighting a battle you know you cannot win.

For instance, let's say a particular matchup brings 217-148-111 against 418-5000-5001 (where 5000 and 5001 represent mythical rookie teams that can only push balls around the field). Even after #16 I would still be correct to instruct my alliance members to not score (for our alliance), to not defend (against our opposing alliance from scoring in their own goals), and only to attempt to prevent anyone from scoring in our goals. It is in our alliance's interest to play like this during the qualifiers, if you know the cards are stacked against you, to prevent a "runaway" from the stronger alliance. This is where this year's game falls apart - where the scoring model inhales audibly. In this year's game I have the strong likelihood to do more damage to myself trying to play, than to sit on my keyster - WTH?

I do appreciate the GDC's stance on backing off the ball incursion penalty, and I also appreciate them cracking down on robots that don't pass inspection. However, their bread-and-butter (the game itself) is still sadly and horribly broken.

-Danny

the man 10-03-2010 07:58

Re: Team update 16
 
did any one notice this?

In the event that BALLS become dammed in the GOAL at the mouth of the BALL COUNTER,

I think dammed is ment to be jamed.

Travis Hoffman 10-03-2010 08:04

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak (Post 935012)
My point is that update 16 will not stop the weaker alliance from creating a 6v0 situation, it won't stop the stronger alliance to score for their opponents to raise their own seeding score/cooperation bonus even more. after all. I thought that was the issue that everyone was struggling with. "scoring points for your opponent". We already knew that part of the system was flawed.

The most upsetting issue was the pre-match collusion possibility.

Although I made it clear in my "don't count points scored for the opposition" poll/thread that I do not like the concept of scoring on your opponents for any reason, because it doesn't really serve any inspirational point, and although I feel teams could still "cooperte" in other, better ways on the field if opposing goal scoring were eliminated, I believe Dean/FIRST feels that this practice is part of their "coopertition" model, and no amount of reasoning will get them to alter that viewpoint. Therefore, all the possibilities you mentioned are definitely still in play.

Here's my question - WWPCD? (you figure it out :p) in response to this rule change? I think I know, but I'll wait for the answer from the horse's mouth.

Most people abhor the notion of pre-match collusion - the *only* *true* 6v0 situation. Of all the scoring in opponent goals strategies - the 5 point bonus will serve as greatest incentive not to do that, since you have the entire match in front of you and anything can happen.

I believe this rule change will definitely sway more optimistic folks to pursue victory. However, for pessimist/realist types who know when they're up against a stacked alliance or paired with less than optimal partners, I don't think the 5 points will mean much - if anything, the alliance will wait a bit longer before deciding the hope of winning the match is lost and switching to "lockdown mode".

rick.oliver 10-03-2010 08:09

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard (Post 934744)
Thank you, Game Design Committee. :)

When something is not quite working as designed, the right move is to tweak it. I think these changes will, by this time next week, be seen as well-judged tweaks to a system that was nearly right to begin with.

Well said, completely agree. Well done GDC.

Joe Johnson 10-03-2010 08:28

Re: Team update 16
 
To all those saying this doesn't fix everything, what solution do you know of that fixes EVERYTHING? I don't live in that universe (yet).

BUT I will repeat that these 5 point make ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the intent of FIRST is that qualifying matches be played to WIN.

Yes, there may be some cases where an alliance may collect more seeding points if they do otherwise, but now teams can clearly point to this rule and say, "No, that was not the intention and we are not going to go down that path."

And, if that isn't enough for you, I'd argue that these 5 points covers 80% of the cases where teams will be tempted to go down that path. Dividing the number of cases where throwing a match earns a team more seeding points by 5 is a non-trivial improvement in my book.

Joe J.

Tetraman 10-03-2010 08:33

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by the man (Post 935048)
did any one notice this?

In the event that BALLS become dammed in the GOAL at the mouth of the BALL COUNTER,

I think dammed is ment to be jamed.

technically, dammed is the correct word. Jammed would be just as good, but dammed implies that there is a flow that's being blocked, like a dam.


As to the argument of whether 5 points solves this crisis: I don't think it does, but it makes winning more appealing to those who need the Highest qualifying points possible. I can imagine a situations where 6v0 would still be employed, but only for alliances with robots desperate to get easy qualifying points. Could you imagine if robots block their own goals so opponent's can't score on them?

Rich Kressly 10-03-2010 08:42

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny Diaz (Post 935017)
.....For instance, let's say a particular matchup brings 217-148-111 against 418-5000-5001 (where 5000 and 5001 represent mythical rookie teams that can only push balls around the field)....

I, personally, would not employ the strategy you outlined after the words above. However I admit that what you describe is a viable strategy that some may and still will employ, including my own team if our strategy/drive folks decide to do so with good reason (albeit not as often as they would have without U16).

First off, what an incredible honor it would be to be on the field at the same time as these three teams. Second, if I had an alliance with the three teams above, all with functional drivetrains, I'd be inclined to play it straight - one team defending as best as possible while other two try to manage/push/shoot balls to score - at least for the first part of the match and evaluate from there.

Clearly, if you feel that you're THAT overmatched, then clearly you probably don't feel you're a top 8-10 team anyway, so wouldn't you need to show 217, 148, and/or 111 that you're a worthy opponent, therefore worthy of consideration for being chosen by one of these elite teams as an alliance partner? If those three teams are so darned good, one is likely to be the number one seed right? and will pick another one of those teams for the elims, correct? Won't you have to beat them anyway to win the event?

I also find it a little humorous that you refer to a mythical alliance of your team with two barely functional rookies (which happens a lot at some events), while you present the 148, 217, 111 alliance as one that we may readily see. I've watched over the web and at events PRAYING for alliances like this to form (so I could sit with popcorn and watch) in seeding rounds for a decade and have only seen the planets align this way maybe 3 times.

Thus, the following is WAY overstated IMHO...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny Diaz (Post 935017)
However, their bread-and-butter (the game itself) is still sadly and horribly broken. -Danny

The exact scenario, with three powerhouses together in a single seeding round, is so rare that, in my mind, there's no way to conclude that anything is "horribly broken." Heck, even before update 16 with a ranking/seeding formula I really didn't like, I still wasn't ready to say ANYTHING was horribly broken.

1712 played week one, and if you sat down with each individual student on the team who was in DC with us, you'd probably find out that none of them were too particularly fond of the ranking/scoring system. However, if you'd ask them if they'd do it all over again exactly the same way I think you'd be surprised by the answers. Further, if you'd ask them what they were taking away from the experience, I think you'd hear a LOT of feedback, very little of which had anything to do with the actual matches on the field. I don't believe that my team is special or different from most others in any significant way related to these conversations, either.

Let me reiterate that I'm THRILLED that there's an adjustment in ranking/seeding and was hoping for a change all day yesterday as many were, but cmon, is this REALLY something we want to view with this much importance to make such strong statements - even after major adjustments were made?

johnr 10-03-2010 08:48

Re: Team update 16
 
Team 5000 coach," I don't think so. My kids busted their butt for 6 weeks. Your not picking us anyway so we are here to have fun and play to win. Now you think your so smart come up with a strategy to win"
By the way, a team that could only push balls(at the time) won Kettering.

Travis Hoffman 10-03-2010 08:55

Re: Team update 16
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson (Post 935060)

BUT I will repeat that these 5 point make ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the intent of FIRST is that qualifying matches be played to WIN.

Yet they have retained the loser gets winner's score feature of the rules, and therefore retained the incentive to "lose bigger". Trying to comeback after going down big does not serve the loser, as the loser doesn't get loser's points. There will still be a threshold "gap" and match time left at which some teams will decide to abandon the pursuit of a "true" win and instead pursue a loss result that yields the best seeding score possible. The +5 merely widens that gap. That may be enough to deter most teams from pursuing the loss. Time will tell.

I will not fault teams for continuing to pursue "lockdown" mode - helping the winner win bigger is still a benefit to the losing team - in effect, the losing team IS pursuing their best interests by doing this - this is how they "WIN" the match when a *real* win is out of reach.

It is unrealistic to expect teams to try to WIN under all game conditions when doing so in certain conditions under the existing rules is directly to the detriment of the team.


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