Go to Post Weren't you ever told Canada is backwards from the US? - Alex Cormier [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Old Forum Archives > 1999
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:54
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Crazy Idea, looking for comments

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 5/4/99 7:58 PM MST



I posted this message while back, but got no takers. Thought perhaps folks might have missed it.

Here is another chance.

What do you think about the idea of having 3 team alliances always (specifically, during the Qualifying Matches)?

Each QM would have 6 team 'on deck.' Shortly before the match, the 6 teams would be divided into 2 groups of 3 and two 'alliance captain' teams would be randomly selected.

In this way, teams would have practice for the finals in negotiating not only the strategy but the robot choices as well.

In addition to this, it would help to even up 2 on 1 problem created by non-functional or barely functional robots (the chance of 2 dead robots on one alliance is much less -- therefore there would be fewer 2 on 1 QM's).

It could cause a problem or two also, not the least of which is that a team may NEVER have their robot play a match, but perhaps this could be worked out.

Thoughts?

Joe J.



__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:54
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Crazy Idea, looking for comments

Posted by Mike Kulibaba, Student on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater-Raynham Regional and Johnson and Johnson.

Posted on 5/4/99 8:13 PM MST


In Reply to: Crazy Idea, looking for comments posted by Joe Johnson on 5/4/99 7:58 PM MST:



Joe,

I'd go for the idea as long as we make sure one team doesn't sit for all there matches, And another thing, if my team had to sit down for a match i might be a little upset if I know that we can do a better job, I think there might be alot of arguments to who plays if there are 3 good robots. But hey I'd be willing to give it a try.

Kuli TJ² Team 88


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:54
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Crazy Idea, looking for comments

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

Posted on 5/4/99 8:31 PM MST


In Reply to: Crazy Idea, looking for comments posted by Joe Johnson on 5/4/99 7:58 PM MST:



I like the idea of avoiding 2 on 1's, but I agree with Mike that there might be arguments about who plays. How about this crazy idea instead. Keep the seeding based on average q points, and allow teams to volunteer to play extra matches. SOme system would have to be worked out to organize this but I think it could work. If you can not at least make your bot move when it's time for your match, you get 0 QP's and go back to the pits. Which ever volunteer bot is on deck then gets thrown in and has an extra match going towards their QP average.

I haven't put much thought at all into this idea (in fact I think it might be stolen from another post a while back), so I'll stop here and see if anybody wants to run with it.

P.J.





__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:54
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Or we could try the easy way...

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/4/99 9:15 PM MST


In Reply to: Crazy Idea, looking for comments posted by Joe Johnson on 5/4/99 7:58 PM MST:



I know I've said this before, but sit tight cuz I'm gonna say it again.



It is a well known statistical fact that luck is eliminated with increased trials. We need increased trials!

If one 540 match can put a lucky robot into the select sixteen, and similarly one 8 point round can pull a select sixteen team from that coveted position, there is obviously a problem. You have all acknowledged this in your posts. The solution is to increase the trials!

How do we fix it? More arenas. More time.

I saw someone suggest an extra day. This costs more, but it may not be such a bad tradeoff. We all want more matches. Don't you think those 80+ hour all-nighters would be better requited with more than six matches? Seriously, we put our lives into this thing.

More arenas would mean a big headache for FIRST and less time between matches. Unless another day is added. Once again, it may be worth the costs.

Personally, I think adding a third alliance partner is merely a way to avoid the issue. It works to a point, but it reduces the amount of matches some team gets to play. In essence, it makes the situation worse. No mater how well a teams bot performs, they deserve some play time. We all deserve to play. Remember what FIRST stands for...

And as for practicing for the finals, that also seems a little contrived. It's human nature to try to find reasons to support our opinions so I don't blame you, but it didn't really seem like an issue to me. It's not something you need too much practice for. I know my team didn't have a problem with it.


Just some thoughts from the guy who's got too many...
-Daniel
__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:54
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Or we could try the easy way...

Posted by Dan, Other on team #247, da Bears, from Berkley High and PICO/Wisne Design.

Posted on 5/5/99 3:56 AM MST


In Reply to: Or we could try the easy way... posted by Daniel on 5/4/99 9:15 PM MST:



I agree that increased trails would be one way to solve the problem.
However, I think the way q-points are calculated is the problem. I say
improve the ranking system and six rounds would be sufficient.

Flaws that I see with the system:
It favors offensive, high scoring rounds only.
It discriminates against good defensive rounds which turn out to
be important in the elimination tourney.
As a result, sometimes losing outweighs winning.


I have been trying to come up with some ideas for a better ranking system.
If I get something concrete to post, I will.

Dan
#247 da Bears



__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:54
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Or we could try the easy way...

Posted by Andrew Trax, Coach on team #180, S.P.A.M., from Southfork,Martin Co. High and UTC.

Posted on 5/5/99 4:25 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Or we could try the easy way... posted by Dan on 5/5/99 3:56 AM MST:



Simplest way to simplify is to only rank by wins. One win - one point.
Point totals in a round could remain as is. But for ranking, count
the victories. Then a low-scoring, but well-fought win would be
weighted the same as a high-scoring, stroll-in-the-park against a weaker
opponent.
The teams with the most wins go to finals. Say, 5 out of 6 to qualify.
Simple, easy, fair.

Mrs. Trax


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:54
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Do it like seeding last year...

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/5/99 7:58 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Or we could try the easy way... posted by Andrew Trax on 5/5/99 4:25 AM MST:



Exactly. If ranking was done as seeding was last year, wins would mean a lot more.

Average QPs can be the tie breaker.

To point out the difference, my team was 4 of 4 last year and we ended up seeding at 6th place. This year we were 6 of 6. Although you'd naturally think that would be even better, we ended up ranking in the mid-30s.

Funny that.

A win-based ranking system would reward both defensive and offensive strategies, and would hold both at similar values as in the finals. It makes too much sence!

Still, this would bring robots that lose a match due to bad luck way down in seeding. In either case, more matches are needed.

My position still stands =)


-Daniel
__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:54
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Do it like seeding last year...

Posted by Andrew Trax, Coach on team #180, S.P.A.M., from Southfork,Martin Co. High and UTC.

Posted on 5/5/99 5:21 PM MST


In Reply to: Do it like seeding last year... posted by Daniel on 5/5/99 7:58 AM MST:



: Exactly. If ranking was done as seeding was last year, wins would mean a lot more.

: Average QPs can be the tie breaker.

: To point out the difference, my team was 4 of 4 last year and we ended up seeding at 6th place. This year we were 6 of 6. Although you'd naturally think that would be even better, we ended up ranking in the mid-30s.

: Funny that.

: A win-based ranking system would reward both defensive and offensive strategies, and would hold both at similar values as in the finals. It makes too much sence!

: Still, this would bring robots that lose a match due to bad luck way down in seeding. In either case, more matches are needed.

: My position still stands =)

:
: -Daniel

But the bad luck you'd run into in this ranking system would be
mechanical malfunctions, human player falls off Space Mountain,
your bus driver gets lost and you end up in Pahokee. Stuff you
can't blame on any other team. Sweet, huh?

Mrs. Trax





__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:54
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Or we could try the easy way...

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 10:42 AM MST


In Reply to: Or we could try the easy way... posted by Daniel on 5/4/99 9:15 PM MST:




: It is a well known statistical fact that luck is eliminated with increased trials. We need increased trials!

I agree, increased trials would reduce the luck factor. But there is another way (I think). At one point I thought FIRST was actually doing this, but I changed my mind. Randomly break up the teams into 8 groups (this year there would have been 26 teams per group. Play a round robinish tournament with the smaller group. The top two teams from each group comprise the 'sweet 16' and then you conduct the draft from there. As long as there is some minimum # of Q mathces per team (let's say at least 4), luck is actually a function of the ratio of the number of matches played to the number of teams in your group. With 6 matches and 208 teams, luck is a much bigger factor than 6 matches ad 26 teams.

: If one 540 match can put a lucky robot into the select sixteen, and similarly one 8 point round can pull a select sixteen team from that coveted position, there is obviously a problem. You have all acknowledged this in your posts. The solution is to increase the trials!

I'm still not sure that this is true. Give a 'lucky' team one 540 point win and 5, 100 point losses (a very good losing score). Their average QP is 353, decent but below this year's top 16 (We were 14th with about a 460 average).

There has been a lot of discussion about defense not being rewarded in the seeding rounds. This is obviously true, but ... FIRST gave us all the same set of rules on day one. It was obvious then that they wanted to reward scoring in matches. This makes sense. People want to see high scores, it's more fun. Defense is exciting in the elimination rounds, because winning is so much more important. Think about pro hockey. It's hard to get people to watch because of the low scoring. In the post season though, there is nothing more exciting (in all of pro sports, IMHO) than sudden death in the Stanley Cup playoffs. I don't think FIRST screwed up this year by placing so much emphasis on scoring in the Q rounds. What I feel they did screw up was in placing so much importance on scoring for a game where it was very difficult to tell the score until after it is all over. They paired a game that is more exciting to watch when played defensively with a system that rewarded offense. Rather than lobbying FIRST to do one thing or the other with the scoring, I think that we should be asking them to make sure that there is a good fit between whatever the game is and whatever the seeding formula is.


Any Thoughts?

P.J.





__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:54
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Or we could try the easy way...

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 5/5/99 12:50 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Or we could try the easy way... posted by P.J. Baker on 5/5/99 10:42 AM MST:




: I agree, increased trials would reduce the luck factor. But there is another way (I think). At one point I thought FIRST was actually doing this, but I changed my mind. Randomly break up the teams into 8 groups (this year there would have been 26 teams per group. Play a round robinish tournament with the smaller group. The top two teams from each group comprise the 'sweet 16' and then you conduct the draft from there. As long as there is some minimum # of Q mathces per team (let's say at least 4), luck is actually a function of the ratio of the number of matches played to the number of teams in your group. With 6 matches and 208 teams, luck is a much bigger factor than 6 matches ad 26 teams.

:
: Any Thoughts?

: P.J.

I think the luck factor would just shift to a different area. The luck factor would be in the strength of the group of 26 that you're in. A decent team could get lucky and be put in with a group of lesser robots and make it to the dance while the same team might get put in a group with a bunch of good teams and finish poorly. It's a lot like (oh no, another sports reference) Major League Baseball a few years ago when 4 teams in the American League East had better records than the champion of the American League West. The A.L West champion made it to the playoffs and only one of the 4 better teams in the A.L. East made it. That system isn't necessarily fair either.

-Chris


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:54
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Or we could try the easy way...

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 2:11 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Or we could try the easy way... posted by Chris on 5/5/99 12:50 PM MST:



: I think the luck factor would just shift to a different area. The luck factor would be in the strength of the group of 26 that you're in. A decent team could get lucky and be put in with a group of lesser robots and make it to the dance while the same team might get put in a group with a bunch of good teams and finish poorly. It's a lot like (oh no, another sports reference) Major League Baseball a few years ago when 4 teams in the American League East had better records than the champion of the American League West. The A.L West champion made it to the playoffs and only one of the 4 better teams in the A.L. East made it. That system isn't necessarily fair either.

: -Chris

This is a good point. I have a feeling that my way does reduce the luck involved, but since I haven’t done the math, let’s assume I’m wrong. All we need now is a way to reduce the “luck” involved in the assignment of teams to the small groups. Guess what, we have one! The regional tournaments. Take the seeding results form all of the regionals and divide them into quartiles (the top 25% from each regional are lumped together, the second 25% from each, etc.). Then fill each of the small groups for the national tournament like this:

Randomly assign the top quartile teams, then the second quartile, then the third quartile, and then the fourth quartile.

For teams that go to more than 1 regional, their average quartile rank would be used, rounding up for .5’s and higher, down for below .5 (1.33 goes to 1st quartile, 1.5 goes to 2nd quartile)

Certainly there is some luck involved in where you seed in regionals, but it is less so. There is also an argument that there will be some regionals with much stronger fields than others, but I think this goes further towards reducing the luck factor. We can not eliminate it, nor would I really want to. But there are ways to minimize it to the point where most people feel there is a direct correlation between effort, ability, and results.

P.J.


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:54
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Yes, use the regional results...

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 5/5/99 8:02 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Or we could try the easy way... posted by P.J. Baker on 5/5/99 2:11 PM MST:



I disagree that the round robin of smaller groups lessens the luck of the draw, but I think that the idea of using the regional results is a great idea.

I propose that the averages carry over from the regionals. This would help to give us more rounds without adding to the time at the national. The scores from each regional may have to be normalized so that all regionals have the same average QM points in order to account for regional differences in offensive/defensive strategies.

I could go for it. It is not as desireable as having more QM's but it is perhaps a good compromise between an invitation only Nationals and what we currently have now.

What do others think?

Joe J.


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:54
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Yes, use the regional results...

Posted by Tom Vanderslice, Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.

Posted on 5/5/99 10:10 PM MST


In Reply to: Yes, use the regional results... posted by Joe Johnson on 5/5/99 8:02 PM MST:



: I disagree that the round robin of smaller groups lessens the luck of the draw, but I think that the idea of using the regional results is a great idea.

: I propose that the averages carry over from the regionals. This would help to give us more rounds without adding to the time at the national. The scores from each regional may have to be normalized so that all regionals have the same average QM points in order to account for regional differences in offensive/defensive strategies.

: I could go for it. It is not as desireable as having more QM's but it is perhaps a good compromise between an invitation only Nationals and what we currently have now.

: What do others think?

: Joe J.

Don't really see this working for a couple reasons...
1) Some teams don't/can't (although i don't know why you wouldn't unless
you couldn't) go to regionals...you can say oh well...they just get
6 QM's...well that leads right into #2... (convienently

2) You'd have a lot of teams w/ a lot of different numbers fo QM's
and the proverbial 'lucky/unlucky round' gets magnified or shrunk (sorry
i couldn't think of a smart sounding -ed word to mean shrunk...sue me...)
depending on your QM's...at least in this year's system everyones
lucky/unlucky rounds counted equally...but you could have one team use
their skill and score 3 perfect rounds at various regionals...but the
effect is shrunken down so much by the fact that they had 33 QM's...but
the team that gets 'lucky' with one perfect score at nationals and those
are their only 6 QM's is virtually guaranteed a spot in the finals...
and you think people complain about it (oh sorry...discuss it) now...

Tom
Team 275

p.s. ifyou can't tell i'm slightly cynical about the whole 'lucky/unlucky'
round thing...before nationals (my team didn't get to go to a regional..
we're poor and in houston) i was thinking...wow just gotta get lucky once
and we're in...after the competition i now know that it takes a lot more
than just getting 'lucky' to get a really good score....unlucky rounds are
a little more likely...but still...'lucky' perfect scores aren't gonna come
up too often...and any team who has the ability to get a perfect score
whether they are paired with a box w/ wheels or the #1 seed deserves a spot
in the finals...b/c your robot has to be able to do something special to
get a perfect score...

sorry..i didn't mean to write all that...i just needed to say it...

__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:54
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
...but in moderation

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

Posted on 5/6/99 5:29 AM MST


In Reply to: Yes, use the regional results... posted by Joe Johnson on 5/5/99 8:02 PM MST:



I can't argue too convincingly about the smaller groups thing. It feels that way in my gut, but I wouldn't trust my statistical instincts much farther than I could throw a robot.

I want there to be a way to use the regional results, but I think that directly carrying over QM averages to the National tournament would be too much of a penalty for teams that didn't quite have it together at the 1 regional they attended. Of course, there should be some reward for performing well at regionals, and yes, a penalty for shipping a robot that doesn't work. How about this: Normalize the results of the regionals and then count a team's regional average as a pecentage of their seeding rank at Nationals, say 25%-33%. That way, you couldn't rack up a 500 pt average in 30 regional Q matches and coast into the National finals with a very mediocre performance there, and a sub-par performance at a regional wouldn't sink you chances at Nationals.

Now, what about the teams that don't go to any regionals. Personally, I think that this should be discouraged, but I haven't been around long enough to develop a really strong opinion about it. I see three options: Let them use just their average at Nationals, Give them the Regional average going into the National Tournament, or give them a fraction (3/4) of the regional average going into the national tournament. I've no idea which is best ...

I think this is being productive, more ideas please!

P.J.


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:54
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Not ready...yet.

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/6/99 8:04 AM MST


In Reply to: Yes, use the regional results... posted by Joe Johnson on 5/5/99 8:02 PM MST:



I know it seems like a good thing to use regional results, but as of now, it's not a consistent measure. Some teams go to many regionals, others go to few or none at all. It's a great idea and I'm sure FIRST will work something similar into the games of the future, but we're not ready yet. We won't be ready until all robots go to the same number of regionals. If you think about it, a team that goes to many regionals doesn't get affected by a bad round in Florida, whereas a robot in Florida that gets unlucky for a match or two, experiences large effects on their average QP. I've always been an advocate of teams going to however many regionals they want, but under those changes, I'd have to move to the other side. You have to always remember there are teams that can't even afford to go to one regional.

We always need to strive to become MORE fair, not less (and I know it will never be 'fair', but it's always a positive change to move towards that ideal).

I like the idea, but we're not ready.

The calculations would be messy, I think that's a sign.


Agree/Disagree?
-Daniel
__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tethers...return of an idea from last year. Josh Hambright Rules/Strategy 6 01-05-2003 23:57
crazy idea for autonomous Mike Ciance Programming 16 24-04-2003 21:50
King of the Hill Rusted_Grail Rules/Strategy 7 07-01-2003 14:40
Another idea looking for comments archiver 1999 16 23-06-2002 22:01
great storyboard idea SharkBite 3D Animation and Competition 0 15-01-2002 20:39


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi