Mini bot worth to many points

[Ian Curtis]

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.

I agree... they walk a very fine line with both autonomous & the end game. I think the minibot is hugely important. I also think that we will see a repeat of many previous years where teams will not work hard enough on it, and we will see many attempted races with only one (or zero) finishers.

Food for thought is that teams often misjudge how much of their effort to spend on a particular task. I went through TBA's data, and it turned out that the average qualifying round winning alliance in week of 1 of 2010 scored about 3.8 points. An alliance of three kitbots with a rudimentary but working hanger could've easily won the average match last year. The GDC made it important but teams missed the bait! I think their task is made even more difficult because they need for teams to realize it is important, without making it so important that it ends up destroying the "main game."

[Grim Tuesday]

Everyone is assuming that Logos are easy to get. IMO Logos will almost never be seen on the field.

[dtengineering]

Saying the minibot is "worth too many points" is like saying "the drive train is worth too many points".

Sure the minibot is worth a lot, but the drivetrain is worth a lot more. You can play the game without a minibot, but just try it without a drivetrain.

If you keep in mind that your alliance has three teams, but only two towers, then you can see that not every robot is going to be able to deploy a minibot. So it is quite possible for a robot to make it all the way to Einstein and never deploy a minibot.

So if you don't want to build a minibot... don't. But I do recommend that you build a drivetrain.

After all this IS a drivetrain game.

Jason

[Frenchie461]

Agreeing with duke here; the Minibot will be like hanging, worth a lot in the beginning weeks when teams aren't as good at scoring, but by championships, teams will be much better at scoring. This might (if Duke's right) change it from a complete game breaker to an essential part of the game that is only a modest change to final outcome.

[BJC]

[Rant]
In some games 3 average robots can beat 2 good robots. This is not one of those games.

I predict that nearly every compition will be won by the first seed alliance.

Why:

From a tube scoring point of view: Three robots would be a good stratigy if corrdinated properly. However, sending the weakest robot to play defense (sideways between towers) will cause enough problems that the 2 good robots can out preform the 3 average.

From a mini-bot point of view: There is only two towers. The 2 good robots will presumably have faster mini-bots then any of the 3 average robots every time. It is because of this that the 3 average robots will not be able to make a comeback with the mini-bots.
[/Rant]

Soooo, yes I do think the mini-bots would be better off as:
1st- 25 points
2nd- 20
3rd- 15
4th- 10

Possible match results:
A: 1st; 2nd +45 alliance B: 3rd; 4th +25
A: 1st; 3rd +40 B: 2nd; 4th +30
A: 1st; 4th +35 B: 2nd; 3rd +35
If alliance A gets 1st and 4th then they are now tied (plus 35 to both).

this would make the mini-bots still very relevant. However, the game would be won or lost with the tubes.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by BJC

[Rant]
In some games 3 average robots can beat 2 good robots. This is not one of those games.

I actually think the complete opposite.

Robot to robot interaction, in my opinion, is the great equalizer. 2007 had a lot of robot to robot interaction and was one by the 8th seeded alliance. 2008 was very little and 1114 had very little trouble sweeping its way to the like 5 regionals and the World Championship.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I actually think the complete opposite.

Robot to robot interaction, in my opinion, is the great equalizer. 2007 had a lot of robot to robot interaction and was one by the 8th seeded alliance. 2008 was very little and 1114 had very little trouble sweeping its way to the like 5 regionals and the World Championship.

There was robot interaction in 2008 you just had to be really careful where and how you did it or else you paid a severe price (remember Galileo). Same went for 2005. In fact I think people are underestimating how much penalties will sway the balance. There are too many opportunities to do too many dumb thing out there this year and if you don't do your studying (which in the past teams have gleefully shown they are adept at doing) you run a good chance of being in the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong thing.

[dmitch]

The minbot point amount is just right because it provides up to 50 points for the alliance that best demonstrates the cooperation between the different levels that was talked about at kickoff. Also, keep in mind that the points are for building an entirely different robot than your main one. While we are rather good at building robots here at FIRST, it is still a major accomplsihment to have a successful minbot. Therefore, it is definitely worth the points FIRST gave it.

[CMD3518]

i think any kind of points you can get in the game is good... i dont think anything can be too much points. it just depends on what place you get in. first is 30, second is 20, third is 15, and fourth is 10. so i dont think it is too much points

[Enigma's puzzle]

I feel like this is a very good goal for teams with less resources to themselves a ticket to alliance selection. If you can build a consistantly successful minibot, you are going to be a great pickup for that team that has a tube hanger without a minibot.

If my team did not feel up to the task of making both a tube hanger and a minibot, I feel like a minibot would give the team greater value on Saturdays.