View Single Post
  #26   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2009, 13:48
Bongle's Avatar
Bongle Bongle is offline
Registered User
FRC #2702 (REBotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Waterloo
Posts: 1,069
Bongle has a reputation beyond reputeBongle has a reputation beyond reputeBongle has a reputation beyond reputeBongle has a reputation beyond reputeBongle has a reputation beyond reputeBongle has a reputation beyond reputeBongle has a reputation beyond reputeBongle has a reputation beyond reputeBongle has a reputation beyond reputeBongle has a reputation beyond reputeBongle has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via MSN to Bongle
Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me View Post
A rookie team won the Wisconsin Regional.

I think that's pretty level.
There are many rookie teams that could be called RINO's: Rookies In Number Only. Tons of rookie teams receive lots of mentoring from professionals and from other succesful teams. Ontario is awash in teams started or aided by 1114 (1503, 1680, 2056) that had very strong rookie years and remain strong as long as they last. Other rookie teams just 'get it' without mentoring, or come up with a strong design by sheer chance.

Mathematically, I think a truly level game would be one where a team's performance this year could not be predicted at all based on their past levels of funding and performance. I don't think that is the case, as we've seen historically strong teams continue to do well. There have been upsets, like 25/103 not winning NJ, or 1114 losing their first regional in a long time, but those teams still performed much better than the average team.

I guess that last paragraph brings up another question: how could you mathematically evaluate a "level" game versus a "stacked" game?. I would contend that Lunacy is somewhat more level than Rack N Roll, but how could I show that?