Chief Delphi - 2010 Regional Stats

Page 2 of 3

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Regional Competitions (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10)

- - 2010 Regional Stats (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84433)

Tom Line

21-03-2010 19:45

Re: 2010 Regional Stats

The West Michigan regional was incredibly well-run. I suspect the average would have been even better than it was, but the field shut down for over 40 minutes because someone was running their N router in the pits and it was preventing the teams from connecting to the field, so they stopped running matches.

Lil' Lavery

21-03-2010 20:01

Re: 2010 Regional Stats

Quote:

Originally Posted by PayneTrain (Post 940247)

The Virginia Regional ran 95 matches, with 9 matches per team. The field cycle was really odd compared to the NJ Regional, going about 3 minutes slower due to problems that went unexplained. I think it had something to do with WPA keys and and router models. The FMS live-scoring died in the middle of the marathon semifinals, which left me a little edgy the entire time. All I know is that we never broke for lunch, which was a little depressing. 422 is not a very large team, and having to video tape every match, I couldn't leave the center all Saturday.

The regional was lots of fun, I just hoped the match cycle would have gone down a minute, not up three minutes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Rotolo (Post 940483)

There were a few 30-40 minute stops during the day Friday for unexplained reasons, and we were so far behind by the end of Friday they decided to try and make it up early Saturday, pausing around 9:30 for a quick opening ceremony.

The field problems continued on Saturday. I cannot blame the field staff; they were the ones trying to fix it. Although not as bad as some other regionals, I did notice people who came in off the street to watch were put-off by the delays and walked out. When FMS finally failed and they went to hand-scoring, and then went with only 2 representatives for most awards, I knew they had pulled out all the stops in an effort to minimize the effects of running so very late. (several ties in the semifinals didn't help either)

I'd love to say "Why can't FIRST make a more robust FMS", but that would be doing a disservice to everyone: The FMS is actually quite good, but I think that we're still stressing it further than it can handle sometimes. I don't know the architecture (Windows?) but perhaps they will redouble their efforts on robustness next year.

I'll let the FTA and other field crew get into as many specifics as they feel are necessary, but rest assured, the field crew was doing absolutely everything they could to get the event running as quickly as possible. There were issues with communications and FMS that slowed the event down dramatically (especially interesting considering the same field had almost no issues with it the previous two weeks in DC and Baltimore).
While I wasn't volunteering in an official capacity this weekend, and only attended the regional on Saturday, I have worked with most of the volunteers at the event before. They are some of the hardest working and best volunteers I've come across, and are typically great at solving field issues (VCU was a week 1 regional until last year).
We're lucky that VCU is so supportive of FRC, and the delays were taken in stride by the VCU employees (unlike the crews at some other venues).

kjohnson

21-03-2010 22:54

Re: 2010 Regional Stats

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 940635)

Our FMS/communication problems were problems with robots linking with FMS because of differences in wireless radios. The problem arose when any robot using the original (square and black) Linksys gaming adapter linked with FMS before a robot using the newer, silver adapter. This caused a problem in FMS and the remaining radios would not link, causing FMS to have to be restarted.

We eventually worked out a process to solve this link problem: We first ensured all driver stations were linked, then allowed robots with new radios to power up and link, then booted all remaining robots with old radios. After we figured it out, this longer and time consuming process worked most of the time, but we still had to restart the FMS router periodically.

We began keeping track of teams using the newer radios, and used this process in each match they competed in. We ended with 7/63 teams using new radios (about 11%). Those 7 teams cycled through about every 10 matches. Time between matches without new radios ran about 6.5 minutes, matches with new radios of course ran longer.

Creator Mat

21-03-2010 23:44

Re: 2010 Regional Stats

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod (Post 939715)

Anyone think of other interesting statistics to track on an event basis?

Could you put average total score in the stats? that would be something interesting to track as the game evolves and more strategies are created.

Mark McLeod

30-03-2010 10:42

Re: 2010 Regional Stats

Now for Week 4 field results.
Overall averages include previous weeks results.

Code:

                        # teams        # matches    Matches/team    Match cycle

Overall Averages --------- 48 ---------- 79 ---------- 10 ---------- 08:05.4

 

Week 4 (Mar 25-27)

Waterloo Regional -------- 30 ---------- 55 ---------- 11 ---------- 07:34.6 

Los Angeles Regional ----- 58 ---------- 97 ---------- 10 ---------- 06:47.2 

Colorado Regional -------- 41 ---------- 45 ----------- 7 ---------- 08:18.3  (incomplete-not Sat.)

Hawaii Regional ---------- 28 ---------- 56 ---------- 12 ---------- 07:22.4 

Boston Regional ---------- 53 ---------- 80 ----------- 9 ---------- 07:13.2 

SBPLI Long Island Regional 48 ---------- 88 ---------- 11 ---------- 06:55.8 

Buckeye Regional --------- 60 ---------- 90 ----------- 9 ---------- 07:25.9 

Oklahoma Regional -------- 55 ---------- 92 ---------- 10 ---------- 06:59.3 

Philadelphia Regional ---- 44 ---------- 66 ----------- 9 ---------- 06:28.6 

Palmetto Regional -------- 34 ---------- 63 ---------- 11 ---------- 08:42.0 

Microsoft Seattle Regional 64 ---------- 96 ----------- 9 ---------- 06:09.7 

Troy District ------------ 40 ---------- 80 ---------- 12 ---------- 07:08.6

Mark McLeod

30-03-2010 10:46

Re: 2010 Regional Stats

Quote:

Originally Posted by Creator Mat (Post 940819)

Could you put average total score in the stats? that would be something interesting to track as the game evolves and more strategies are created.

That's a good idea.
Why don't you add that? :)

Mark McLeod

30-03-2010 11:13

Re: 2010 Regional Stats

Here's another way to look at it all.
This focuses on the number of matches overall which is a risky gamble for an event. Guessing how many matches you'll be able to do before you've started and found what problems teams and the field will have is a real challenge.

Code:

------------------------------- # teams ---- # matches ---- Matches/team

Overall Averages --------------- 39 ----------- 79 ----------- 10

Greater Kansas City Regional-- 60 ---------- 99 ---------- 10

Los Angeles Regional ---------- 58 ---------- 97 ---------- 10

Microsoft Seattle Regional ----- 64 ---------- 96 ----------- 9

Arizona Regional -------------- 56 ---------- 94 ---------- 10

Autodesk Oregon Regional ---- 61 ---------- 92 ----------- 9

New Jersey Regional ---------- 61 ---------- 92 ----------- 9

Chesapeake Regional ---------- 50 ---------- 92 ---------- 11

Oklahoma Regional ------------ 55 ---------- 92 ---------- 10

Buckeye Regional ------------- 60 ---------- 90 ----------- 9

Washington DC Regional ------ 59 ---------- 89 ----------- 9

Florida Regional --------------- 53 ---------- 89 ---------- 10

SBPLI Long Island Regional --- 48 ---------- 88 ---------- 11

Wisconsin Regional ------------ 50 ---------- 84 ---------- 10

New York City Regional ------ 64 ---------- 84 ----------- 8

Silicon Valley Regional -------- 50 ---------- 84 ---------- 10

San Diego Regional ----------- 49 ---------- 82 ---------- 10

Peachtree Regional ------------ 50 ---------- 82 ---------- 10

Virginia Regional -------------- 63 ---------- 82 ----------- 8

West Michigan District -------- 41 ---------- 82 ---------- 12

BAE Granite State Regional --- 48 ---------- 80 ---------- 10

Ann Arbor District ------------ 40 ---------- 80 ---------- 12

Boston Regional -------------- 53 ---------- 80 ----------- 9

Troy District ------------------ 40 ---------- 80 ---------- 12

Dallas Regional -------------- 53 ----------- 78 ----------- 9

Traverse City District --------- 38 ---------- 76 ---------- 12

Detroit District --------------- 38 ---------- 76 ---------- 12

Finger Lakes Regional ------- 44 ---------- 74 ---------- 10

Kettering District ------------ 40 ---------- 74 ---------- 11

Cass Tech District ----------- 40 ---------- 72 ---------- 11

Boilermaker Regional -------- 39 ---------- 72 ---------- 11

Midwest Regional ----------- 42 ---------- 70 ---------- 10

St. Louis Regional ----------- 35 ---------- 70 ---------- 12

Philadelphia Regional -------- 44 ---------- 66 ----------- 9

Palmetto Regional ----------- 34 ---------- 63 ---------- 11

Pittsburgh Regional ---------- 31 ---------- 62 ---------- 12

Bayou Regional ------------- 38 ---------- 60 ----------- 9

WPI Regional --------------- 29 ---------- 58 ---------- 12

Hawaii Regional ------------ 28 ----------- 56 ---------- 12

Utah Regional -------------- 33 ----------- 55 ---------- 10

Waterloo Regional --------- 30 ----------- 55 ---------- 11

Colorado Regional --------- 41 ------------- 45 ------------ 7 (incomplete)

Israel Regional -------------- 55 ------------- 27 ------------ 3 (unusual circumstances)

cziggy343

30-03-2010 11:18

Re: 2010 Regional Stats

despite the fact the numbers dont indicate it, palmetto was a very well run regional. since there were not a large number of teams, teh intentionally made the time between matches longer, in order to make sure that everything ran smoothly.

and ps: only ONE real field delay at palmetto:eek:

PaW	30-03-2010 11:21

Re: 2010 Regional Stats

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod (Post 945633)

Now for Week 4 field results.
Overall averages include previous weeks results.

Code:

                        # teams        # matches    Matches/team    Match cycle

Overall Averages --------- 48 ---------- 79 ---------- 10 ---------- 08:05.4

 

Week 4 (Mar 25-27)

Waterloo Regional -------- 30 ---------- 55 ---------- 11 ---------- 07:34.6 

Los Angeles Regional ----- 58 ---------- 97 ---------- 10 ---------- 06:47.2 

Colorado Regional -------- 41 ---------- 45 ----------- 7 ---------- 08:18.3  (incomplete-not Sat.)

Hawaii Regional ---------- 28 ---------- 56 ---------- 12 ---------- 07:22.4 

Boston Regional ---------- 53 ---------- 80 ----------- 9 ---------- 07:13.2 

SBPLI Long Island Regional 48 ---------- 88 ---------- 11 ---------- 06:55.8 

Buckeye Regional --------- 60 ---------- 90 ----------- 9 ---------- 07:25.9 

Oklahoma Regional -------- 55 ---------- 92 ---------- 10 ---------- 06:59.3 

Philadelphia Regional ---- 44 ---------- 66 ----------- 9 ---------- 06:28.6 

Palmetto Regional -------- 34 ---------- 63 ---------- 11 ---------- 08:42.0 

Microsoft Seattle Regional 64 ---------- 96 ----------- 9 ---------- 06:09.7 

Troy District ------------ 40 ---------- 80 ---------- 12 ---------- 07:08.6

Seattle was incredibly efficient, considering the number of rookie and 2nd year teams. The field crew, the queuing areas, the cart paths, the scoring results... it was all very very well run. Big kudos to all the volunteers working there. Everyone was helping everyone.

Not too much excitement on the pit PA system though. Was hoping someone would've asked to borrow 469's robot. ;)

Brian C

31-03-2010 20:28

Re: 2010 Regional Stats

Interesting stats Mark. Now I see why Barat felt comfortable moving into the FTA position at SBPLI. 48 teams with 11 matches looks pretty darn good.

From the statistics West Michigan looks like it was well done too.

Mark McLeod

01-04-2010 09:59

Re: 2010 Regional Stats

Colorado numbers have been posted finally.

Code:

#teams    #matches  matches/team  Match-cycle

41           62         9         08:43.7

Sacramento has also finished Qualifying matches

Code:

#teams    #matches  matches/team  Match-cycle

38           76         12         08:05.7

Mark McLeod

01-04-2010 16:35

Re: 2010 Regional Stats

Here are the average combined Qualification & Elimination match scores by event (blue + red alliance score).
Elimination scores were usually much higher of course.
The trend is that later events scored higher than earlier events, especially in the Qualification rounds.
District events where the majority of participants have now played twice really demonstrate this.
Practice makes perfect.

These are just straight scores including penalties. It doesn't include any of that co-opertition score or extra 5pts for the winners, etc.

-----Avg----Avg
Wk-Qual---Elim ---- Event
4 --- 10.3 --- 15.2 ---- Troy District
3 ---- 6.5 --- 14.7 ---- Silicon Valley Regional
4 ---- 6.8 --- 14.5 ---- Los Angeles Regional
4 ---- 6.6 --- 13.1 ---- Boston Regional
1 ---- 6.2 --- 13.1 ---- Kettering District
3 ---- 8.0 --- 12.9 ---- Detroit District
4 ---- 9.0 --- 12.8 ---- Philadelphia Regional
2 ---- 4.4 --- 12.7 ---- Cass Tech District
4 ---- 9.9 --- 12.5 ---- Waterloo Regional
1 ---- 5.6 --- 12.5 ---- New Jersey Regional
3 ---- 6.1 --- 12.3 ---- Midwest Regional
3 ---- 9.1 --- 11.8 ---- West Michigan District
4 ---- 6.0 --- 11.8 ---- SBPLI Long Island Regional
1 ---- 5.1 --- 11.8 ---- BAE Granite State Regional
3 ---- 4.9 --- 11.8 ---- Dallas Regional
5 ---- 6.6 --- 11.7 ---- Sacramento Regional
3 ---- 5.6 --- 10.9 ---- Virginia Regional
2 ---- 6.5 --- 10.7 ---- Florida Regional
4 ---- 6.2 --- 10.7 ---- Hawaii Regional
2 ---- 7.0 --- 10.6 ---- Wisconsin Regional
2 ---- 5.7 --- 10.6 ---- Chesapeake Regional
2 ---- 4.7 --- 10.5 ---- Arizona Regional
2 ---- 5.2 --- 10.4 ---- Ann Arbor District
3 ---- 7.3 --- 10.3 ---- Boilermaker Regional
1 ---- 5.2 --- 10.2 ---- Greater Kansas City Regional
2 ---- 7.3 --- 10.0 ---- Pittsburgh Regional
1 ---- 5.6 ---- 9.9 ---- Finger Lakes Regional
4 ---- 5.8 ---- 9.7 ---- Buckeye Regional
4 ---- 4.8 ---- 9.7 ---- Oklahoma Regional
4 ---- 4.5 ---- 9.6 ---- Microsoft Seattle Regional
3 ---- 7.4 ---- 9.4 ---- St. Louis Regional
4 ---- 4.3 ---- 9.2 ---- Colorado Regional
4 ---- 5.9 ---- 8.7 ---- Palmetto Regional
2 ---- 3.7 ---- 8.7 ---- New York City Regional
1 ---- 4.5 ---- 8.4 ---- San Diego Regional
1 ---- 3.3 ---- 8.1 ---- Peachtree Regional
1 ---- 4.5 ---- 7.9 ---- Autodesk Oregon Regional
1 ---- 4.4 ---- 7.9 ---- Traverse City District
2 ---- 4.5 ---- 7.8 ---- WPI Regional
3 ---- 4.4 ---- 7.2 ---- Utah Regional
2 ---- 2.6 ---- 6.3 ---- Israel Regional
1 ---- 3.8 ---- 5.7 ---- Washington DC Regional
1 ---- 4.2 ---- 5.3 ---- Bayou Regional

P.S.
If anyone wants to play with the numbers they are linked in my original post. I keep updating it.

GaryVoshol

02-04-2010 06:27

Re: 2010 Regional Stats

In the first 30 matches of the Michigan Championship, the total team score (red + blue, after penalties) has averaged 14.47.

Huskie65

02-04-2010 06:43

Re: 2010 Regional Stats

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol (Post 947054)

In the first 30 matches of the Michigan Championship, the total team score (red + blue, after penalties) has averaged 14.47.

I think that number will go up to...
It will be fun to compare this and other Regionals to the divisions at nationals.

quinxorin

02-04-2010 19:41

Re: 2010 Regional Stats

As of 7:31 today,
Average world score per alliance per match for Week 5: 3.88.

And, since I am from a Michigan team,
Average score at the Michigan State championships: 7.97

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:31.

Page 2 of 3

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page