Go to Post I guess my only option is to either stop picking on Dave or come up with an even better picture! Now, which one do you think I'll choose? - MissInformation [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
  #61   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:56
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
Why not?

Posted by MaryEllen, Other on team #180, S.P.A.M., from South Fork and Martin County High Schools and UTC/Pratt & Whitney, FL.

Posted on 5/8/99 3:47 PM MST


In Reply to: go shannon! posted by Daniel on 5/8/99 12:45 PM MST:



: I couldn't agree more.

: Very well put...although it would have been nice to separate into a few paragraphs ;-)

: Thanks for being wonderful alliance partners!
: -Daniel

:
: = = = = = = = = = =
: PS -
: Want to feel better? Do what I'm doing, start a team. I'll never walk down that tunnel as a GRT member, but I sure plan on walking the tunnel again.
: = = = = = = = = = =

Daniel -
After college, you could always put in a resume at NASA. I'm sure they'll
still be hiring. GRT forever?





__________________
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.
  #62   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:56
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
Never fear

Posted by Shannon, Coach on team #191, XCATS, from Wilson Magnet High School and Xerox.

Posted on 5/10/99 5:32 AM MST


In Reply to: Why not? posted by MaryEllen on 5/8/99 3:47 PM MST:



I'll be seeing you next year. Don't worry I'm going to Northeastern University, which has a team (remember - they're offering a scholarship next year). I'll definently be back. SHANN


__________________
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.
  #63   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:56
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: Please READ

Posted by Andy Grady, Coach on team #42, P.A.R.T.S, from Alvirne High School and Daniel Webster College.

Posted on 5/8/99 8:52 PM MST


In Reply to: Please READ posted by Shannon on 5/8/99 12:27 PM MST:



Shannon,
How right you are. I remember when we lost our final match my senior year in high school. I could only think that it was all over, and I was upset because I wanted more than anything else to win a championship. I found, however, that it is worth alot more than just winning. My life was shaped around this program, I was able to get a job because of the experience I gained with CADD while working on the animation. Before FIRST I wanted to be a doctor, I know now that I really wanted to be an engineer all these years. And thanx to the people at NYPRO who cared so much about my future and learning, I was able to get into college when I thought I might not be. I am very very happy to have been part of this competition all my life. But it doesn't have to end when you leave high school, I am living proof. As a member of the Daniel Webster College and Alvirne High School team I was able to pass on everything I had learned about engineering and FIRST over the years. Even better, I learned more this year than I ever did before. This is because FIRST was part of our engineering project, and we the college students had to work with the high school students in designing and building the robot. So you can see that your experiences with FIRST do not end with high school. They will carry with you as long as you will let them.
Good Luck in the Future
Andy Grady, DWC/Alvirne HS


__________________
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.
  #64   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:56
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
Bottom Line?

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 5/7/99 8:54 AM MST


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



The discussion in this thread seems to be about the inadequacy or 'unfairness' of the National QM's in correctly selecting the top 16 teams. Strong teams who came close but didn't make it, or, worse, were in and then fell out seem in general to be attributing that to the (bad) luck of the draw in QM's. So we're looking for ways to minimize the occurance of bad luck (like no-shows and dead bots) or its impact on QP's. My question is, what exactly are we trying to accomplish?

If the selection process for the top 16 is flawed by 'bad luck' that should not happen in the ideal case, I have 3 questions:

1) Were any teams NOT worthy of National Elimination level play included in the Top 16, as selected by the QM process?

2) How many teams SHOULD have been in the Elimination bracket to give all the strong teams their deserved shot at the title? If all of the teams who believe they would have made the Eliminations but for bad luck (with their ally draw or his performance) were to hold up their hands, what would the count be? (I will assume that no team who did make the 16 would withdraw on the basis that they were a weak team who rode in on good luck of the draw and superior performance by their allies.)

3) How many teams who SHOULD have made the Eliminations and didn't make the Top 16 were NOT subsequently drafted?

I'm genuinely curious about the answers to these questions, because it seems to me like the 'unfairness' impact of the QM random ally draw can be discounted by simply expanding the Elimination group. Why not trade off 1 of the 6 Q rounds for an additional level of Eliminations? That's nearly a wash on total number of Tournament matches with 200 teams.

A couple of things to think about, tho. The 'strong' teams would be depriving the 'weak' teams of some of the opportunity to play in Orlando that they busted their butts to get. They may have been washing cars for air fare while other teams were gaining strength at Regionals. Also, a 'Top 32' would draft another 64 teams as Elimination allies, totaling 96 of 200 teams. Hm, I can hear it now, late in the second round of the draft, 'no good allies left.' So I guess the strong teams who made the expanded Top group would feel that the process was still unfair if they didn't make it high enough to get to draft worthy allies.

I guess I can't totally avoid a little sarcasm. I'm sorry. It seems like there is an inherent and unavoidable tradeoff or balance between the benefits of the alliance concept and the element of randomness it brings to the competition. What is best for advancing the goals of FIRST?

Dodd


__________________
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.
  #65   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:56
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: Bottom Line?

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

Posted on 5/7/99 2:21 PM MST


In Reply to: Bottom Line? posted by Dodd Stacy on 5/7/99 8:54 AM MST:



Dodd,

You have made several posts over the last couple of weeks that were right on the money. Very clear, and very intelligent. This one is no different. I've put together some info to help answer at least your 1st question, and made my 'Bottom Line' suggestion for the format of the National Tournament.

P.J.


Since I collected a lot of the info before nationals, I did a little more work and came up with these (unofficial) stats for the top 16 seeds at EPCOT:

15 of the 16 appeared in the elimination round of at least 1 regional

10 of the 16 were among the top 8 seeds in at least 1 regional

7 of the 16 appeared in the elimination round of at least two regionals

4 of the 16 were among the top 8 seeds in 2 regionals

2 of the 16 appeared in the elimination round of three regionals

With one possible exception of 1 team (I won’t name them, but invite them to comment), these were not 'lucky' teams - unless they were very lucky teams. Although I have made several statements concerning how to improve (read: reduce bad luck in) the seeding process at the national tournament, I must stick to my original statement about the seeding tournament this year: IT WORKED PRETTY WELL.

Now, as far as the good teams that were not drafted are concerned, what can we do for them? I think that one less seeding round in exchange for more elimination rounds, I could live with that, as long as a team’s average score from regional play was some how used in determining seeding at Nationals (this is well covered in many posts in this thread). What I could not live with, is having to come up with a list of nearly 100 possible alliance partners if I seeded 32nd in the seeding rounds. This could be fixed by breaking the National seeding tournament up into four groups with the top 8 from each group picking two partners from their group (or, to make things fun, make group 1 pick from group 4, 2 from 3, etc.). This would make the draft much more manageable for the teams doing the picking, while allowing more teams into the elimination tournament.

This is as far as I’m going to go in terms of trying to redesign the National tournament. I think that this format could work very well. IT IS NOT FAIR! The only 'fair' tournament would be some sort of hyper accurate computer simulation, and even then there would be complaints. I think the tournament format that I propose here (which is about 2% mine and 98% stolen from other posts), would put just about all of the top 50 teams (the 'real' top 50, not the top 50 seeds) in the elimination tournament. I think that we would be hard pressed to do anything better than that


__________________
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.
  #66   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:56
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
P.J. and Dodd: right where it counts.

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

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


In Reply to: Re: Bottom Line? posted by P.J. Baker on 5/7/99 2:21 PM MST:



P.J and Dodd have it just about right.

I have to join my voice to those who say that for all my worries and nightmare scenarios prior to the competition, it did in actual fact work pretty well.

Joe J.

P.S. I have to say that I might not agree if I were not on a team that was selected. Also, working pretty well is no excuse for not saying that things could still be improved if we did X, Y and Z.


__________________
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.
  #67   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:56
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
a better game

Posted by michael bastoni, Coach on team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School and Boston Edison Co.

Posted on 5/10/99 7:32 PM MST


In Reply to: Bottom Line? posted by Dodd Stacy on 5/7/99 8:54 AM MST:




Ahh playing the game of what if......

What if we could have enough regionals across America that we could:

1. Limit entrance to only 36 teams or less
2. Play 8 - 10 qualifying matches per event
3. Allow the top 12 teams to pick two alliance partners from the remaining 24

This would allow EVERY TEAM into the elimination matches...Everyone
gets in...everyone gets a shot....it's about the best team...it has to be, because everyone is in...
no one to cry foul or bad luck....

And what if in addition to the 36 team maximum we had:

1. 10 games per season...10 Weekend 'events' each season
(That represents alot less time and money than you currently spend each year on FIRST)

And how could we do that you say....Well I say come to Rumble or better
yet go to our web site at pnta.org and download the Rumble Recipe...

What if instead of building the Robot new every year...we built it every
48 months and teams spent their precious time and money putting on MANY LOCAL
competitions instead of say 20,000.00 to 50,000.00 going to Disney...

Instead we put up 5K to 8K for a local competition and paid for it
by charging teams who come 100-300 dollars....Think about this folks.

LETS PUT THE EFFORT INTO MAKING MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO PLAY THE GAME.
Does it not seem silly to spend 60+ days building a great machine just
to use it twice?

C'mon lets put these valuable resources to work doing what these kids, teachers, engineers
and parents really want to do.....let's put our time resources and
capital into PLAYING THE GAME......

10 games per season with high point winners advancing through
local state,regional and finally national competitions....All for less money than
most teams spend now.....because we extend the building cycle to
36-48months and PLAY WITH THE MACHINES through a defined season....

Am I insane to think this way ?....Ask the folks who are going to
'post season' events all across this country if I'm insane...ask the
folks who come to Rumble if they'd rather build em' or play with em'.

Do sports team practice because they like practice...or do they practice
cause they like to play the game better and better?

Who wrote it in stone that things had to be the way they are?

Would'nt you like to playing with your robot right now...Our kids sure
would....

Mr.B



__________________
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.
  #68   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:56
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
Keep It Up, Mr. B!

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 5/11/99 8:05 AM MST


In Reply to: a better game posted by michael bastoni on 5/10/99 7:32 PM MST:



Keep on hammerin', Mr. B. There's a grass roots critical mass to ge gathered out here - just got to find the box of matches. I haven't peeped it yet, but Bravo to PNTA for posting the Rumble Recipe. We have the most fun of the year at Rumble and Riverfest. I love everything about the team and community sponsored Summer Invitationals. Your team's leadership in showing the way and helping others get past the 'gulp' stage of throwing their own Invitational is exactly what FIRST needs. I could not agree more with your emphasis on play, rather than the great anticipation and letdown cycle that FIRST is currently structured to be. It's like this is going to be great, wasn't it? FIRST needs to absorb your perspective on maximizing the sustainability of the program growth by optimizing the bang we all get from the human resource expenditure.

We look forward to knocking heads with all the winners at the Rumble, and thanks to PNTA for showing the right stuff.

Dodd


__________________
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.
  #69   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:56
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: a better game

Posted by Frank Toussaint, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Wheeling and Rolling Meadows and Motorola .

Posted on 5/12/99 1:04 PM MST


In Reply to: a better game posted by michael bastoni on 5/10/99 7:32 PM MST:



...ask the
: folks who come to Rumble if they'd rather build em' or play with em'.

Mr.B

I want to build 'em AND play with 'em. And I want to do both every year.

After the kickoff we grumble;
For six weeks we mumble and bumble.
But this time of year
We holler and cheer.
WildStang's ready to rumble!

Mr. T


__________________
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.
  #70   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:56
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 Jacob Etter, Student on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells and ONSI Corp.

Posted on 5/7/99 11:31 PM MST


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



How bout this: forget the alliance thing, i personally don't like it. Let only teams who finished in the top x of every regional go to the nationals thus keeping the nationals to a reasonable number of teams, say 128, make the games one on one, in both qualification and elimination. let the bots square off in one on one, no double teaming, single elimination matches just like the NCAA tornement. yes there might be some luck in any given match but it would be drastically reduced because each robot would rely only on themselves, also, get rid of the human player, it's a robotics compitition. if you look at the ncaa tornement most years one of the very top teams win, and there are of course the cindirella teams which give color to the tornement. First could be the same way. also to keep the contest offensive oriented keep the seeding the way it was this year, the seeding i thought was the biggest strength of this years game, by seeding by highest score everyone will want to build a robot that is more offensive, rather than sit back and play defense





__________________
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.
  #71   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:56
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
defense---not exactly kicking back...

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

Posted on 5/8/99 2:25 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Crazy Idea, looking for comments posted by Jacob Etter on 5/7/99 11:31 PM MST:



'...sit back and play defense'?

There are a few things wrong with that sentence.

Defense is hardly sitting back. In fact, if you watch sports, tell me one example of a sport in which there's no defense. It's critical not only for the merit of the game, but also for the entertainment factor. Defense is exciting to watch!

Furthermore, I feel fairness should a secondary goal in this whole FIRST thing. See, FIRST has a mission: it strives to inspire. In my opinion there is nothing more inspiring than watching robots play an intelligent battle that involves not only agility, but wits as well. The game structure this year allowed drivers to incorporate a high level of strategy ranging from offence, to the defense that I so often praise on these forums. TKO was my hero this year. They took the risk of adopting an entirely defensive strategy by taking off their basket permanently. That may not have been ideal, as they were not very flexible in how they could play during the round, but it sure made for some exciting -- inspiring, rather -- matches. That takes guts.

Personally, although occasionally hit by a bad stroke of luck, I felt more attached to this years game than I have been ever before. What the competition encouraged, was to have a robot that could play however it needed to. A robot that could lift ten floppies or hold down a few elevators. A robot that could do it all. Why is that a bad thing?

I know it seems unfair, especially to those who were 'cheated' the most by the system, but boy did it make for some great machines and strategies.

I gotta say, FIRST blew me away this year. That doesn’t mean there’s no room to improve the system, there’s always ways to improve (read some of these other forum messages and you’ll see). Sometimes you can fix a “broken” guitar by tuning it, because it wasn’t really broken after all. Are you sure the process doesn’t just need some tuning?

I don’t know about you, but I was sure inspired this year.


I can't wait to find out about next year's game...
-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.
  #72   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:56
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
Defense---not exactly the best strategy either....

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

Posted on 5/8/99 4:04 AM MST


In Reply to: defense---not exactly kicking back... posted by Daniel on 5/8/99 2:25 AM MST:



'The game structure this year allowed drivers to incorporate a high level
of strategy ranging from offence, to the defense that I so often praise
on these forums.'

I disagree. When the seeding is based soley on points you have to play
an offensive game to stay high in the rankings. Playing defensively
sometimes kept the point total low for all four teams playing. All four,
therefore, usually took a 'lose' in rank even with the 3X multiplier. The
matches were exciting to watch. But not always the BEST strategy to stay
well ranked. You didn't go into a match against just one team. You were
up against all the teams - for points.
I think it was done intentionally to keep teams 'on task' - scoring
points and making the robots do what they were assigned to do rather than
spending a whole match blocking.
Granted, defensive play was required; keeping the puck on your own side of
the field, blocking sides of the puck to keep other robots off of it, etc.
But, defensive play was not always rewarded.
And I've thought long and hard and cannot think of a professional
sport where rankings are determined by points per game rather than wins per
season. Baseball, football, hockey, lacrosse, basketball, tennis, auto racing,
horse racing; all are ranked/seeded by wins.
Keep the scoring as diverse as possible. It only adds to the action and
challenge of the game. But base rankings on wins and let defense be rewarded.

Mts. 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.
  #73   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:56
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
CBA and playoff points

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

Posted on 5/8/99 7:38 AM MST


In Reply to: Defense---not exactly the best strategy either.... posted by Andrew Trax on 5/8/99 4:04 AM MST:



The 'Minor League' of basketball is the CBA.

I think that in that league, standings for playoff spots are awarded not based solely on the score at the end of the game, but on the score at the end of each quarter.

It is something like 1 point for begin ahead a the end of each quarter and 3 points for winning (someone who knows for sure help me out on this).

Anyway, this is an example of a sport where the team that wins the game may not always walk away with the most points toward the playoffs.

What to teams think about something like that for FIRST?

Using this year's game for example, perhaps rather than using the score at the end, points could also be awarded for the position of the puck and/or robots on the puck at 0:30, 1:00, and 1:30. I haven't thought this whole thing through, but perhaps there is something to the idea.

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.
  #74   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:56
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
Too true...

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

Posted on 5/8/99 12:24 PM MST


In Reply to: Defense---not exactly the best strategy either.... posted by Andrew Trax on 5/8/99 4:04 AM MST:



You don't really disagree. =)

I believe defense was rewarded to some extent through the alliance picking process. A good defensive team tends to get noticed (through those exciting matches I wrote about), and during the choosing, gets picked. I know it didn't happen in every case, but I saw it as pretty common. For example, TKO got picked from a low seed at the Great Lakes Regional. At nationals, there were quite a few defensive bots in the elimination rounds (i.e. 45, 177, 192, etc).

I believe this, but well understand and agree that defense wasn't rewarded enough.

We are in perfect agreement about how this problem could be fixed. The game encouraged the various strategies, so it should follow through and reward that which it encourages. Wins are what really counts in this. Points make a good tie breaker. Or, somehow, winning should be weighed more than the points. Perhaps a certain number of points could be rewarded for a win. I saw that idea in these forums before and I liked it. For example, a team winning with 64 points could be rewarded with the '300-point win bonus', bringing them to 364 points. That way, a high scoring round gets a lot of points, but doesn't make a team unbeatable. People who win all their matches would tend to do very well, and rankings would probably end up very similar to using wins as a tie breaker. However, the one advantage would be that a team that goes 5-1 by some fluke could still stay above a few 6-0 teams that maybe didn't score quite as high each match.

The tripler was invented to give winning a value, but unfortunately all it did was give scoring even more worth.

Giving high scoring such a huge weighting is oppressive. It makes everyone think that the game can only be played one way. That shouldn't be. Encourage WHATEVER WORKS. Defense included.


-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.
  #75   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:56
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: defense---not exactly kicking back...

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

Posted on 5/10/99 10:39 AM MST


In Reply to: defense---not exactly kicking back... posted by Daniel on 5/8/99 2:25 AM MST:



: Furthermore, I feel fairness should a secondary goal in this whole FIRST thing.

I have to take exception to this statement. FIRST is a messenger carrying a message of inspiration of science and technology. If the competition is viewed to be unfair by any teams, those teams may lose faith in the competition and FIRST's ability to run a competition. If one loses faith in the messenger, how can one have faith in the message the messenger preaches? They can't.

If everyone is to have faith in FIRST, everyone must view FIRST as being equitable and fair to all. This is why FIRST should strive for fairness. Otherwise, some teams may decide to pack up and head to a different form of inspiration that is viewed as being more fair.


__________________
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 07:57.

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