Mini bot worth to many points

[nuggetsyl]

Is the mini bot worth too many points. I remember in 03 everyone was upset with the king of the hill because first made it worth to many points and everything else in the game became invalid. What do you thin in this case?

[1086VEX]

i think the point value is dead on. its not high enough to drastically alter the outcome of a game, and its not low enough to make it not worth going for. i think its gonna be kinda what hanging was last year. just that last minute point bonus to seal the deal or to make up for those few tubes you didnt place.

[Duncan Macdonald]

As long as your alliance sends two mini bots up the tower successfully the worst outcome is you have lost 25 points relative to the other alliance. That means you have to score approximately a top row logo over one ubertube (24+6 for ubertube) more than the opposition to close that gap. I would personally put the point value of the mini bot as being borderline too high. A key difference between the minibot race and king of the hill is that it is not likely that one robot can achieve the end game and defend at the same time this year. Definitely too many points to ignore as a robot function.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by 1086VEX

its not high enough to drastically alter the outcome of a game

I disagree.

To make up for a 30 point deficit, you need two top row logos.

To make up for a 50 point deficit, you need those two logos with Ubertubes under them.

If an alliance has no minibots and faces one with two minibots, they are sunk. They're immediately 50 points below and need to score at LEAST 8 more tubes than the opponents to even think about winning.

Minibots are mandatory solely for that reason. Even if the deficit is cut to 25 points (1&2 versus 3&4) at least that's "only" an Ubertube and top logo.

Minibots are worth FAR too many points.

That said, I think the biggest problem with them is not the point value but the race nature of it. False starts will be encouraged and there's just no way refs can win on that one. They either penalize them for .01 second infractions, or the team that edges out the clock the most and gets away with it wins.

That said, as with all "problem parts" of the game, they become challenges for us to exploit. So yeah, build a mini bot - don't leave home without one...

[Koko Ed]

More often than not the endgame is worth too many points and then everyone complained last year's endgame wasn't worth enough and didn't bother doing it.
The GDC can't win.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

More often than not the endgame is worth too many points and then everyone complained last year's endgame wasn't worth enough and didn't bother doing it.
The GDC can't win.

Was this a common / serious complaint? The hanging bonus last year was huge and about a third to half of teams at least tried for it - and it decided the Championship. Only when matches got above 15 points did it risk being a non factor.

[Duke461]

The points values themselves are pretty good. The problem is, like Chris is Me said, if one alliance has two minibots, and the other has none, they've almost guaranteed a victory.
Another big problem is that importance of certain point-resulting actions vary greatly from week 1 to Finals. As we saw last year, a good hanger was very valuable through about week 3- week 4. But by the time we reach finals, hanging is only about 8% of the totals.
It seems like the GDC is trying to base point values off of how they think the finals will play out, i.e., come finals time, the minibot value will be just right.

[Jon Stratis]

I'd say the point balance is pretty good... the points are high enough that you need to have one (so you can't just ignore this portion of the game), but low enough that ignoring other portions of the game will result in a loss. This year, being able to significantly affect the score for each part of the game (auto, teleop, and finale) is crucial for a winning robot.

[Brikien93]

To me, even if you don't have time to get a mini-bot put together, you should at least put effort into a variable deployment system. It is worth it to all teams to share their mini-bot with other teams for the coopertition bonus. So even if you have a match with an alliance with 2, and an alliance with 1, so long as the bots have a deployment system, they can go out of their way to borrow somebodies mini-bot. I personally think the bonus this year looks fairly balanced.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Brikien93

It is worth it to all teams to share their mini-bot with other teams for the coopertition bonus.

The coopertition bonus has no effect on your ranking or score.

[Brikien93]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

The coopertition bonus has no effect on your ranking or score.

But isn't the point of FIRST not to have the greatest ranking/score, but rather to show that you won't allow a competition to impair one's teamworking abilities and the like?

(One facet of FIRST, not the whole thing obviously)

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Was this a common / serious complaint? The hanging bonus last year was huge and about a third to half of teams at least tried for it - and it decided the Championship. Only when matches got above 15 points did it risk being a non factor.

How many robots do you recall that hung last year to the amount that bypassed that to go score more goals?
Of the five regionals that I went to last year FLR was the only one that had double digit hanging robots and the most talked about robot from last year didn't bother to hang at all either.

[Pjohn1959]

This game is more and more like the '07 game. The end game that year was worth up to 60 points if you could lift 2 robots.

After hanging tubes for 2 minutes, most teams were scoring 20 - 30 points, only to be blown away by the large bonus by the successful teams that could lift.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

That said, I think the biggest problem with them is not the point value but the race nature of it. False starts will be encouraged and there's just no way refs can win on that one. They either penalize them for .01 second infractions, or the team that edges out the clock the most and gets away with it wins.

No quarter to false starters.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Minibots are worth FAR too many points.

I agree with the reasoning here, but only provisionally with the conclusion. It depends on your concept of the game: is it a tube game, a minibot game, or a hybrid. I think FIRST intended a hybrid (i.e. so that there was more than one task available to teams), and was forced to make the minibots valuable to preserve that characteristic.

In the sense that they balance the aspects of the game, their value is about right. Of course, it's a bit of an odd choice to want to balance the game between a pole-climbing toy and a significantly more interesting machine.

In the sense that minibots are just a little silly, and loaded with political baggage, they're definitely too prominent.

[tomy]

if you think about it you can easily score 30 points, heres how:

put one ubertube on the top row,
make the FIRST logo on the same row,
and you get 30 points,

if you get a good relay team and a good claw you will be in the bag