Update #3 & Negative Scores...

[dlavery]

Originally posted by George1083
first of all, i haven't seen ya post in a while, Joe! it finally feels like a FIRST season again =-]

just a quick reason why this wouldn't be a good strat at all...

the QP for Joe's scenario would be as follows:

blue (the loser) of course would get -60 QP

red (the winner) would get 16 + 2*(-60) = -104 QP

the winning team is getting the lower QP!!!

the really needs to be addressed...

maybe the height of a robot-held stack should be measured from the lowest point in the stack... or maybe the multiplier stack height can never be higher than the number of bins in the stack...

something needs to be changed, that's for sure

Originally posted by Shawn60
Am I wrong? If red gets 16 and blue gets -60 the final score will be
red 16 +(2*60)=-104
Blue -60

Blue wins

You guys are 90% there. Now finish the thought.

Joe's original point was spot-on. One alliance can directly affect the score of the opposing alliance by playing with the opponent stack height (to be complete, you should also assume that the opposing alliance is doing the same to your stacks). A robot could lift a container up to be equivalent to a 10-high stack (hmm, 4.8lb container at 14.75*10=12feet above the base of a 130 lb robot, plus a little "robust physical contact", yields a CG rapidly moving outside the conservative support polygon...), and it is possible to create a negative score.

At this point it is worth pointing out that this potential is exactly why no teams should start any game with a strategy that has them plunking down on top of the ramp and just sitting tight with the expectation that they have a lock on a win with 50 points in the bank...

A little more analysis is then done, with a broader view. Yes, negative scores are possible. But then there are those pesky QP and EP calculations. If your opponent gets a negative score, which means you will probably win, then your alliance gets twice as many negative QPs! You better be REALLY FRIENDLY with your alliance partner if you cause this! Sure, you won the game, but - through your own actions - you actually DROP in the QP standings. By giving your opponent a negative score, you may actually cause them to move ahead of you in the overall tournament standings as you drop down the QP ladder. And because the scoring systems are the same in the qualifiers and finals, this is also true in the finals!

So it quickly becomes obvious that while negative scores are possible, they are generally a bad idea. So their potential use becomes self-limiting. There are a very few particular circumstances where you might be willing to take the QP/EP hit, just to ensure that your opponent moves to a certain position in the QP/EP standings (think about this and you can identify those few circumstances). "Sacrifices" could become an element of the competition! It works in baseball and chess, so why not?

What does this mean? It means that there is a potential whole new level of strategy in the tournament (notice I said "tournament" and not "game"). It means that teams need to start thinking beyond the effects of the current match, and start thinking about multi-match strategies.

Don't automatically assume that this is a "loophole!" This is not an accident that wasn't thought through. It is actually an opening onto a new level of the competition that requires a little more thought and offers more complexity to the players.

-dave

----------------------------------

Y = AX^2 + BX + It's great to see Joe again!