Level 3 Point Upgrade for Champs?

[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.

[JB987]

Originally Posted by 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.

+1

[stuart2054]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree 100%. The GDC should not change the scoring for the champs. We all started out with the same rules and picked a strategy based on the rules and scoring that was presented. In our case we ruled out more than a 10 point hang as our feeling is that the 30 or 50 potential points of climbing is not worth the difficulty / risk of damage. It is a risk/reward thing but everybody looks at it different. That is what makes things interesting is to see the diversity of robots and the change in strategy as the competitons progress.

If the scoring had been higher for climbing out of the gate we would have factored that in and maybe went a different direction.

[MikeE]

Originally Posted by stuart2054

We all started out with the same rules and picked a strategy based on the rules and scoring that was presented.

And that set of rules explicitly included the clause that climbing points could be varied by up to ±10 points. If a team didn't include that consideration as part of your strategy decisions then don't blame the GDC.

The core imbalance is that a relatively trivial capability on all three alliance robots - 10pt hang following the 3-day robot example - gives the same score as the much harder and riskier challenge of climbing the pyramid.

As several posters have already said, dropping the level 1 score to 5-7pts is probably the most likely action if there is any scoring change for Championships.

[JB987]

Originally Posted by MikeE

And that set of rules explicitly included the clause that climbing points could be varied by up to ±10 points. If a team didn't include that consideration as part of your strategy decisions then don't blame the GDC.

The core imbalance is that a relatively trivial capability on all three alliance robots - 10pt hang following the 3-day robot example - gives the same score as the much harder and riskier challenge of climbing the pyramid.

As several posters have already said, dropping the level 1 score to 5-7pts is probably the most likely action if there is any scoring change for Championships.

3 trivial hangs gives the same score as just 1 climber. So... what if the alliance has 2 or three 30 point climbers instead of one?

[AmoryG]

A lot of teams worked very hard building robots that would be competitive given the current scoring system. I'm sure many of those teams knew St Louis would be a different kind of beast and changed their designs accordingly. I just don't see how someone could justify changing the scoring system given the amount of planning and work that would be wasted if the scoring system was changed.

[M.O'Reilly]

Originally Posted by MikeE

And that set of rules explicitly included the clause that climbing points could be varied by up to ±10 points. If a team didn't include that consideration as part of your strategy decisions then don't blame the GDC.

The core imbalance is that a relatively trivial capability on all three alliance robots - 10pt hang following the 3-day robot example - gives the same score as the much harder and riskier challenge of climbing the pyramid.

As several posters have already said, dropping the level 1 score to 5-7pts is probably the most likely action if there is any scoring change for Championships.

Considering a single robot in autonomous frequently goes for 40+ points in 15 seconds, and only one robot to date has climbed for 30 points in a 15 second window, the game is pretty lopsided.

Perhaps those teams predicted correctly how the game would be scored as is, but also consider MikeE's point quoted above.

I would be pretty disappointed at the end of the season if I felt like the hardest task FIRST has even assigned was undervalued. In a 150 point match, it only counts for 20% right now. I think FIRST reserved the right to change the point total to see how the game played out.

[pntbll1313]

Originally Posted by M.O'Reilly

Considering a single robot in autonomous frequently goes for 40+ points in 15 seconds, and only one robot to date has climbed for 30 points in a 15 second window, the game is pretty lopsided.

I'm pretty sure the number of robots that can score 40+ can be counted on one hand so far. And you need to be comparing teleop time to climb time. Since that is when both would be taking place. Probably about the same number of really good shooters can score 30pts in the last 45 seconds that can climb for 30pts in the last 45 seconds. It seems pretty even to me. I agree that this may be one of the hardest tasks FRC has given but at the same time they also released the point values. Knowing both should have determined your teams build strategy.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by M.O'Reilly

Considering a single robot in autonomous frequently goes for 40+ points in 15 seconds, and only one robot to date has climbed for 30 points in a 15 second window, the game is pretty lopsided.

There are 12 teams that have an autonomous OPR of greater then 18. There are 13 teams with a climb OPR greater then 18.