A Call Out To FIRST...

[Andy Grady]

One of the things that was very confusing about the competition this weekend was the elimination rounds. Half the people in the crowd didn't understand how they worked, and in many occasions had no clue who won the rounds. The FIRST scoring system only displays the score of individual matches in the elimination rounds. I would like to get support here to encourage FIRST to add to the scoring program a display of the total elimination points for both alliances after each round, with some sort of indicator telling who the winner of the elimination round was. This would make it easier for people in the stands to see who is advancing into the next round, as well as drive crews who are too busy to really add up the scores of both rounds. Also it would be nice if FIRST made it clear to all teams before the elims that they are NOT best 2 out of 3.

Just a thought.

Good Luck!
Andy Grady

[WakeZero]

I don't quite like the fact they got rid of the best two out of three, but heh, its a new challenge

[AdamT]

I agree that this needs to be emphasized more, but I like the idea.

It encourages the idea of winning, but winning with as close a score as possible through the whole competition. It makes for a more intense need for strategizing and less of a "we can hold everyone else at a stand still" attitude.

I think this idea may have been the result of observing robots last year that would absolutely command the field by pushing all three goals. I had no problem with that, but it wasn't as exciting.

By FIRST's methods, the intent now is to provide the most exciting and intense game (for everyone even not on teams) while making it easy to learn. I think eliminating the best out of three made it less viewer friendly, but made it more exciting to watch.

[ColleenShaver]

Andy, I totally agree.

After our 2 quarter-finals matches we knew we were moving on, but the other alliance was not leaving the field which made us confused and a little nervous that we hadn't actually won.

The display should definitely show a total and maybe more done in the announcement of those who are moving on.

[SkitzoSmurf]

especially when ur team wins with a 0 match, I agree, that would be confusing. I remember even the other team celebrating the win, without truly thinking before hand. . .

[Gope]

Unfortunatly the current eliminatoin rules have alot to do with luck. With a 2 out of 3 system, in almost every case the best alliance advances. But in the current system, your drivers and coach have to be human calculators to determine exactly what the best strategy is and because noone is perfect it lends itself to luck.

[Scott358]

... as it's good to know the reality of how the new rule can work against the promotion of close matches.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...pagenu mber=2

We learned the hard way, as we were on the alliance that SkitzoSmurf refers too, so we share this with others, so they won't have to.

Don't be fooled into believing that this rule promotes close games, as it actually can do the opposite.

Regards,
Scott358

PS - A simple change which would promote close games would be to simply give the wimming team their points plus the losing allicances (versus 2x). If you go through the numbers, this significantly reduces a teams benefit towards eliminating their own score.

[Katie Reynolds]

The new rule puts a whole new twist on strategy. Before, it was generally, "try to get a score close to your opponent's during the qualification rounds, and pound your opponent into the ground during the elims." Now, teams need to use the same basic strategy during the qualification matches as well as the elimination matches. It also prevents teams from building strictly "elimination round" robots - robots that score low during the qualifying rounds because they completely dominate the field and can kick the snot out of almost anyone who goes against them.

I do think there should have been more emphasis placed on this new rule at the start of the season, however I don't think there should be any changes made now. The rules were there for all teams to read during the build - anyone could have read them and looked at them. Because some teams did not see the new twist on a rule, is not grounds enough for FIRST to change the way things are run. Changing the rules now would be especially unfair to those teams that have already competed.

- Katie

[JamesJones]

All this has been addressed in the previously noted thread. Anybody who thinks elimination point scoring promotes close games and makes the elimination matches the same as seeding is kidding themselves. If you think that, I suggest you read the thread.


James
Engineer/Coach
Team 180 SPAM

[Scott358]

With regard to changing not being "fair", a change could be requested for the Nationals, as this change eliminates the extreme advatage the team who wins the first of the 2 playoff matches has.

If they don't change it, which I would think they wouldn't, then just know it exists, and it does not promote the same strategy as during the qualifying matches (see thread).

Regards,
Scott358

[sevisehda]

The 2 round idea is fine because it speeds up the competition. They really should clarify who is going to adavnce and indicate what each alliances total of the 2 rounds is.

As for the idea the alliance who wins the first round has an advantage. That is the craziest thing I've ever heard. A + B = B + A thats the most basic math rule. Maybe they win them both because there a better alliance with better bots?

[Joe Ross]

Please try to keep this thread on the original topic, which is making it easier to display the winner of the elimination rounds and better communication of the rules to the audience and other teams. If you have any suggestions that FIRST can use, then post them here.

If you would like to discuss 2 matches vs 3 matches or the change of elimination points, then please do it in a different thread.



I would like too see a second screen that shows a summary of both elim matches and clearly marks which team won the round.

[ahecht]

I have to agree with the original post. I had to spend most of the elimination matches explaining who won to the people around me.

[Scott358]

... your comment is a bit misguided, as the topic is not that someone won both rounds. The team that won the first round was up in points by around 100, they then intentionally lost the second round, and reduced the number of points in that round so it was virtually impossible for the 79 - 0 winning team of the second round to win the overall match.

If you don't take the time to understand this, and take appropriate measures, your team may pay the price. I admit we were out strategized, and would just like to help others.

Out of respect for the original intent of this thread (as suggested by Joe), I would ask you to review the link I provided back a few messages ago before making such simplistic statements, to see if you still think this idea is crazy. If you still don't understand, I can try to explain further in that thread.

Regards,
Scott358

[PMGRACER]

I didn't realize FIRST had changed the Elim round scoring until we started playing a few rounds!! Of course I tend to only focus on the rules that pertain to the 'Bot itself. BDuggan had to set me straight. I think it's kind of a bummer we don't have the best 2 out of 3, but FIRST did say that there would be a lot of changes this year. I agree adding a box to show each Alliances accumulated score would not only help the Alliances, but also show the spectators which team is in the lead. This shouldn't be to hard for the guys who brought you the InnovationFIRST controllers.....