[MARS_James]

So I am going to use the last 10 years of games to see how accurate you are. (Since 2007)

Originally Posted by Ringo5tarr

-Autonomous that scores some sort of points for simply moving

Games where this was true: 08, 14, 15*, 16 (40% and 15 did not have a moving option that scored points on it's own but I gave it to you)

Originally Posted by Ringo5tarr

-(Somewhat optional) Autonomous that scores more for more advanced options

If you mean more advanced options than just moving then that isn't somewhat optional, every game in the last 10 years have had it.

Originally Posted by Ringo5tarr

-Main scoring (the highest points for the hardest task that can be done multiple times, or perhaps a middle score for middle points)

Once again the terminology here confuses me, because if you mean the main scoring of the game piece then yes, but if you mean the hardest task or the highest point value then no. 07, 08, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 16 the hardest tasks, and highest individual point values in those games were usually done as the end game and were a 1 time deal (Except 07 where the hardest task was becoming a ramp, which gave you 0 points but your alliance a lot)

Originally Posted by Ringo5tarr

-Secondary scoring (less points for less effort, for teams who think that doing less effort may get them more points in the long run, forming strategies)

This one is tricky, 07 gave the same points regardless of rung, 09, and 10 had only 1 true scoring location, and 14 one could successfully argue that it mattered more what happened the scoring object before it was scored rather then where it was scored. and 15 had scoring so wonky (3 litter = 6 totes) that it still irritates me

Originally Posted by Ringo5tarr

-(Optional) Tertiary scoring (Something unrelated to the previous two scoring options, but still scores points)

I need an example of this, besides litter and crossing defenses this year I can't think of what this means

Originally Posted by Ringo5tarr

-Endgame with (Optional) Climbing (Usually the marking point between good teams and the kind of teams that win events, however thats correlation, not causation.)

So games without an "end game" were 08, 09, 12, 14 and 15. (50%) Of the remaining games only 10, 13, and 16 involved climbing.

Originally Posted by Ringo5tarr

SO using this sort of cookie cutter, a rookie team last year could have decided before the game was even announced that they would build a bot that could achieve the moving autonomous, secondary scoring and tertiary scoring if they had it. So then immediately after the game was announced they could spend minimal time on strategy and begin design, but I don't know how useful of a design strategy that is, so take this with a grain of salt please

I know this may come across as hurtful and that is not my intention but calling out rookie teams as teams that can't play the game to a high level is one of my pet peeves,5803 5817, and 5892, are all examples of Rookies who played this game at the highest level this year, and while they maybe couldn't do all the tasks they broke down the game just like any other team did and picked which tasks to focus on and it brought them success. If you would have said low resource teams I wouldn't have had a problem but it is just something that bugs me when a team is considered inferior because it happens to have a big number.

But looking away from that it is an interesting way to look at game breakdown and one that may work for some but I feel that it is almost like Min-Maxing in a way, which while may field a more "competitive" robot, does not fulfill the goal of the competition and organization we are a part of, which is to inspire young people to pursue a career in STEM. One of the best ways to do that is not to immediately say "Oh getting a high goal is the hardest challenge lets not even try it" it is to say "Oh getting a high goal is the hardest challenge, lets make something to do it."