Level 3 Point Upgrade for Champs?

[karomata]

Hello Everyone,

It has become very apparent to me over the last few weeks that a level 3 climb, with or without scoring the colored discs, can easily be outscored. Many teams that can climb to level 3 dedicated their entire build season just to being able to climb due to its difficulty. There are a handful of teams that can easily climb and shoot, like 1114, 148, etc. but many non-powerhouse teams that climb can only climb.

the GDC has also had many rule updates that have almost completely changed the game, like the rule update about the discs being thrown by feeders, and the loading zone fouls. So I was wondering what we think the GDC will do in preparation for Championships. I believe they said that they might increase the point value for a level 3 climb, and if they do I think it will be 50 or 60 points, just to make climbing worth the time and effort it takes.

But I posted this here becuase I wanna know what you guys think.

[orangemoore]

They can only adjust each levels worth by 10 points so the max would be 40 and the minimum would to 20 for level three

[waialua359]

It should stay the same.

Like we do year in and year out, we live and die by our decisions on what we brainstorm and build.
Should've could've would've.

The majority of teams have yet to demonstrate scoring 50 points in a match by themselves.......which is something a dedicated climber/dumper could achieve.

[DjScribbles]

I think it's too early to tell. Many teams are still ironing out climbing, so it's not as common to see.

A team with 2 climber (with one that can dump) can score 80pts now. If they increase the value from 30 to 40, they are at 100 points.

Last years end game, was easier, but less valuable since points were colaborative, each robot could contribute 10 (or 13.33 points for a triple). This year each team can contribute 10 easily, or 30 with good design (and another 20 within arms reach). I think the increase this year pretty effectively offsets the higher scoring capacity of the game piece, but not enough people can climb (yet?).

An alliance of 2 decent shooters (even just for auton) that can climb, and some dumping ability, and a defender with auton and hang can rack up a whopping 144pts (two climbs, one hang, four pyramid discs, and nine auton shots, no teleop shots).

Such an alliance would not be easy to beat, without scoring a single teleop disc.

[Lil' Lavery]

I'd rather see them reduce the points for the first rung.

[Anupam Goli]

I've never been of the opinion that end-game should be worth the same as the main autonomous and teleop game. I like the point value where its at right now. End game is big, but not big enough to win matches with no autonomous and teleop scoring in most elimination matches. 30 points is equivalent to 10 discs in the high goal during teleop. I feel like this is a fair representation of how difficult it is to shoot a disc vs climb to the top.

[Basel A]

While I agree that Level 3 climbing seems underpointed vs. its difficulty, I don't think the difference in value between climbing and disc scoring is great enough to warrant any scoring changes. Even though there is a rule allowing it in the manual, I would imagine the FRC community (or at least many of its members on this forum) would be furious. Also, remember that most Level 3 climbers have room to improve by scoring 20 points of dumpable pyramid discs.

[Jon Stratis]

I could definitely see them increasing the points for climbing, if only to increase the diversity of what's on the field. From everything I've seen, climbing is probably the hardest challenge I've seen in FRC, and one of the coolest to see it work correctly! I want to see climbing on Einstein... but the way matches are going right now, it seems like shooting typically earns you more points - we see alliances whose first two picks are shooters beating alliances who pair up a shooter with a climber more often than we see the alliance with a dedicated climber winning.

[Andrew Schreiber]

I'll be honest, I don't even like that they allow themselves the option of changing the points at CMP. The beauty of this competition is we all start from the same set of rules and decide our strategies from there. We then have to either adapt to changing circumstances (rebuild per 67 in 2009) or deal with it.

Climbers without shooters knew they were capped at earning 30 points. Shooters knew they would be more variable in their points and more susceptible to defense. These are called tradeoffs and we all had to make them. We made our bed, now we have to lay in it.


I hope the GDC doesn't touch the scoring.

[BJC]

Edit: incorrect information... See Nuttyman54 post #16.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by BJC

The GDC has added this rule to every game starting in 2011 after the whole deal with suspending robots in 2010. It's the fallback if the game doesn't play out like they wanted.

The 2011 manual did not contain this language, it first appeared in 2012, as a response to the power of minibots in 2011. The combination of diminishing returns on tube scoring and the point swing of minibots, by the upper eschelons of play most matches were almost pre-determined. Whoever had the faster minibots won.

I don't believe FIRST will exercise this clause, as I believe that it is in place only for a scenario like 2011 where one method of scoring is so powerful and so easy for all top teams to do that the match outcome is virtually assured, save for breakdowns or penalties. Changing the minibots points for championships that year would not have affected most teams, because by that point most teams had almost the same system, and it could be very easily adapted. Even then, the GDC would have given serious consideration before issuing the order to change the points. There's always SOMEONE who is greatly affected.

It is NOT a fallback because the game doesn't play exactly like they anticipated. I choose to believe the GDC understands the impact and the backlash that would result if they chose to change the points. Regardless of how the game actually plays, teams made strategy decisions at the beginning of the season based on the point distribution. This clause is for extreme scenarios, and is there "just in case".

If you thought the backlash was bad from the Team Update that changed the way the 54" cylinder was applied to climbing robots (before it was clarified), imagine the outcry if they change the points.

Originally Posted by BJC

That's the thing, it would not diversify the field. Teams can't just bolt on a 30 point climber like they could a stinger last year. If you don't have one, you pretty much aren't getting one. You will see climbing robots on Einstein -- they'll just be climbing robots that also shoot.

Not only can robots not just bolt on 30pt climbers, but this change cannot take effect until championships. With the new qualification-only rules this year, a larger number of teams who attend championships will be the teams who succeeded at the regional level. Changing the point scoring for championships could not only drastically change which robots are successful there, but I suspect would also upset the teams who's strategy just got a points buff, but were unable to qualify with the old points.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

I don't believe FIRST will exercise this clause, as I believe that it is in place only for a scenario like 2011 where one method of scoring is so powerful and so easy for all top teams to do that the match outcome is virtually assured, save for breakdowns or penalties. Changing the minibots points for championships that year would not have affected most teams, because by that point most teams had almost the same system, and it could be very easily adapted. Even then, the GDC would have given serious consideration before issuing the order to change the points. There's always SOMEONE who is greatly affected.

It is NOT a fallback because the game doesn't play exactly like they anticipated. I choose to believe the GDC understands the impact and the backlash that would result if they chose to change the points. Regardless of how the game actually plays, teams made strategy decisions at the beginning of the season based on the point distribution. This clause is for extreme scenarios, and is there "just in case".

This is the key, I believe. The rule was added because of the 2011 game, which was massively unbalanced at the highest level of play to an almost unwatchable degree (IMO it wasn't a particularly well-designed game to begin with, but I digress). While they still do change the rules during the season a bit too much for my liking, I don't believe the GDC would actually exercise their option to change the game before the most important competition of all unless the situation was just as dire. You can argue about whether or not pyramid climbing is currently undervalued, but you certainly can't say with a straight face that it's even close to as bad as 2011 was.

I don't believe that i've seen one match with 6 hanging robots ???

[engunneer]

Originally Posted by DMike

I don't believe that i've seen one match with 6 hanging robots ???

There have been plenty of matches, especially in eliminations, for 6x 10 point hangers. Also quite a few with 50-30 for final hanging points.

I watched the Finger Lakes and WPI regionals and was surprised at the lack of 10 point hangers. Many matches there were only 1 or two robots on a side hanging. With the implied simplicity of 10 point hanging I would think every robot would be sucessful. I see an exception for great shooters, you can score more points shooting 3's than hanging for 10. Unless you can shoot 3's and hang 10 at the same time.