[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 5/5/99 7:57 PM MST


In Reply to: I'm not so sure... posted by Daniel on 5/5/99 6:02 PM MST:



Of course you make sense.

:
: Is that really better than just increasing the amount of Q's? I see that your method would help, but I still think more matches would be more effective. Besides, I personally would rather have more matches anyway! I think the three day national competition is bursting at the seams. Give 'em a fourth!

No. Nothing is better than increasing the number of matches played. It is better from every angle except logistics and cost. I was just trying to suggest a reasonable alternative that would let us keep the 3 day format.

:
: I see your point, but how many teams lose matches with 100 points? I would bet at least three out of five of those 100 point rounds would be a win, boosting that average QP to 453. That's just about where you guys were at. 100 points is not a bad enough score to make the assumption that it would be a loss, it's really not a bad score at all.
Just to make it a little clearer, say a team gets lucky for two matches. One 540 and one around 380. Both are very good scores. With just those two scores ALONE, if we average in zeros for the other 4 matches, they have the same 460 that you had. And should a team that gets zeros really be in the finals?

We could go around forever on this one. But...I think you'll have a hard time finding a 'bad' 'bot that can scores of 540 and 380 in a 6 match schedule - even if they were paired with G-Force in 3 matches and the Bobcat in the other 3 =)

:
: Very true. However, I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying. I am not griping about how unfair it was that my 'bot didn't get in the top 16. I never expected to. I counted on getting picked. I just think maybe it was a mistake for FIRST to value high scores so much. In my opinion, defense is a very valuable aspect of sports and if FIRST wants to be sport-like, they should value defense just as they do offence. Why not reward both? Seed on wins and use QMs as tie breakers! High scores win matches just as well as defense does. It allows for more flexible playing strategy. Besides, I don't agree that defense isn't as exciting as high scores. I was sitting on the edge of my seat when I saw Wildstang's basket being held down...

Two people have missed my point on this one, I apologize for being unclear. I think that FIRST tried to emphasize scoring in a game that was most exciting to watch when it was played defensively. The design of the game led some teams to build great robots, that just weren't going to be big scorers, which is what they needed to be to make waves in the seeding tournament. I believe that FIRST should try to tailor the seeding formula to encourage the game to be played in it's most exciting form, no matter what the game is. This year, the best seeding system probably would have downplayed scoring and emphasized winning (eventhough it was pretty easy for a great team to be 5-1 or 4-2)


Thanks for your comments,

P.J.