Level 3 Point Upgrade for Champs?

[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.

[GCentola]

Originally Posted by karomata

the GDC has also had many rule updates that have almost completely changed the game, like the rule update about the discs being thrown by feeders...

I don't believe this is a huge game changer, honestly. I think the game is great the way it is, and I really think the freakout over this change was unnecessarily large. I will admit that I was concerned if you care to dig up my post on that, but it seemed to work itself out just fine. That was a much smaller change than changing climbing points would be.

Second, a dedicated climber is still useful. You don't need to be an alliance captain to win. It can be outscored, but it really depends what you are up against. If you can connect some shots in autonomous and guarantee that you will add 30 to our score, I don't think that is a robot that would be overlooked. From a match-perspective, if an opposing alliance knows of the dedicated climber, they will try to stop it (FLR eliminations against 340 and 1559).

Lastly, trade-offs. It was mentioned earlier and I couldn't agree more. The point values drove strategy and design decisions. People had a massive argument over IRI removing the coopertition bridge and that isn't even a regular season competition. If climb points changed for the champioship, the uproar would, well....gethca' popcorn ready.

TL;DR? This game is pretty cool and there are lots of great designs. It;s fine the way it is, no need to change it.

[pntbll1313]

I know many teams like ours had long discussions as to what aspects of the game were more valuable than others. Because of the small footprint our team decided it would be tough to fit both a 3rd level climber and a good shooter on our bot. We also, after much deliberation, decided we wanted to score 70 points by ourselves in order to give ourselves the best chance to win in qualifications no matter who we were paired with. (Based on the matches so far I think we did a great job estimating the score we would need). Because of those goals we decided on a strategy of 18pt auto, 10pt hang, and 42pt (13 disk) teleop. By the end of our regional we were able to accomplish very close to that exact goal, making it the correct strategy based on the game constraints. Now if the GDC were to change point values I think that would take away a ton of the strategies that many teams used in deciding how to build their robot.

By the way just because a climb/dumper can't outscore a good shooter doesn't mean they can't play defense for 1:30, then go climb and dump, and still be net positive of that great shooter because of how much they slowed them down. I'm sure that is the strategy of many of the best climb/dump teams that do not have a shooter.

[GBilletdeaux930]

So far, the averages work themselves out so that each part of the game accounts for a nearly equal amount of the points. Last I checked it was like 13 auton, 14 tele, and 12 climbing for an alliance. So in terms of separate parts of the game, the points are about on par. Good alliances (elimination alliances) can score 3x each of those points easily.

Now, the fact that auton and tele correlate much more than climbing with anything makes it seem like climbing got the short end. But while climbing relies on heavy mechanical skills that tele, auton relies on heavier programming skills then tele. I'm not saying they are directly a fair trade, but we have to remember that there is more to a robot than its metal.

Removing the 10pt hang would basically drop the climbing average to next to nothing since there seems to be < 5 30pt climbers at each regional, as opposed to half the robots on the field being able to hang.

I don't think the problem is in the scoring. I think its just in the faults of the robots themselves. If a robot spends the entire match climbing, that turns it into a 3v2 match essentially. A 50 or even 30pt contribution is much better than the average score (~41) divided by 3 teams (13pts). But when you spend 2 minutes to do just that, or worse, do it in 30 seconds but that 30 seconds happens to be immediately after autonomous, you hurt your alliance.

I personally don't think FIRST will change anything. The 3 parts of the game are about balanced. I think teams should just reassess their strategies if they are focused climbers. Focused climbers have the opportunity to be a *huge* contribution to a team. But if it only takes you 30 seconds or even a minute, that doesn't mean you spend the remainder of the match at the top of the pyramid. If you can prevent or slow down points before you go climb, that is essentially you scoring more points for your own alliance.

If you want a perfect example, look at 148 in 2008. Look at how their strategy changed from the first regional, to their strategy on Einstein.

[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.

[tinybob20]

Originally Posted by GBilletdeaux930

I don't think the problem is in the scoring. I think its just in the faults of the robots themselves. If a robot spends the entire match climbing, that turns it into a 3v2 match essentially. A 50 or even 30pt contribution is much better than the average score (~41) divided by 3 teams (13pts). But when you spend 2 minutes to do just that, or worse, do it in 30 seconds but that 30 seconds happens to be immediately after autonomous, you hurt your alliance.

I would disagree. I feel like that 30 points is more than enough to give you a advantage over the other alliance. And, it's *almost* un-defendable. I found that while other robots had to potential to score much higher, such as full court shooters, they were also much easier to defend against. Coming from a team who won a regional with a directly-after-autonomous climb, I felt the easy, safe 30 or 50 points guaranteed a repeatable and higher score. That being said, I also believe that without support from some good shooting/defending bots, a climbing robot will not be as effective.

[Grim Tuesday]

I think the 30 point climb is underpowered compared to its point value.

However, it was exactly the same way at the beginning of the season when everyone chose their strategy. It should remain the same but I would not be surprised to see it go to 35 or 40 pts. Given the fact the FMS doesn't display 200+ scores properly (they overlap the border) I think this game has much higher scores than the GDC anticipated. Maybe it's the consistent gamepiece. Maybe it's Robot in 3 Days. Maybe it's just teams generally getting better. Whatever it is I feel like climbing is unbalanced in its cost:benefit ratio but that does not mean it should be changed. It only means that teams who chose to make exclusive climbers made a strategic misstep.

[Vikingtech2054]

I personally feel that they should leave it as it is, if anything reduce it. When the GDC came out with the rule change on bag night about throwing white disk at the end i feel like this had made climbing more valuable against floor pickup robots. If they increase the point value the floor pickup robots will be at another disadvantage on top of white disk not being thrown at the end. I know that they had said at the beginning of the season they can change the value at championships but i feel the rule change on bag night is the special circumstance that make the GDC should consider to leave the point value the same.

[XaulZan11]

As only a fan/sepectator, I hope climbing to the top is prevelent during the eliminations at the Championship. We have already seen elite teams (like 118) forgo climbing because scoring discs resulted in more points. Since watching a team climb at the end of the match is so exciting and adds an extra layer of strategy, I hope it is valued enough that the top teams still do it. If that means adding more points to climbing or lowering points for hanging (aka, 10 point 'climbs'), then the GDC better do it. I think we all agree shooting and climbing is more exciting than just shooting.

I know MikeE already said this, but: Yes, it is true we were all given the same rules to base strategy and design decisions and changing the point values of climbing will change the game. But, those same rules given to all teams, give the GDC the ability to tweak the game. As always, those teams more prepared to adapt on the fly, will do better.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

As a spectator (we don't compete until week 5!!!), I like the game where it is (10-20-30).

I would also still like the game if hanging was increased to 10-20-40.

However, hanging is undeniably difficult and lessening the point values would be a disservice to the 30pt hangers and the spectators.
Either way is fine by me.

[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.

[AmoryG]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I know MikeE already said this, but: Yes, it is true we were all given the same rules to base strategy and design decisions and changing the point values of climbing will change the game. But, those same rules given to all teams, give the GDC the ability to tweak the game. As always, those teams more prepared to adapt on the fly, will do better.

That's a little unfair for teams that don't have the time and resources to adapt on the fly. The game is hard enough as it is. Don't make it even harder for those teams with unnecessary rule changes.

Besides, even elite teams can't always just adapt on the fly. Some of them are very close to the weight limit, so there's no way they can add a level 3 climber without making big changes to their original design.

[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.