Will The GDC Change Climb Points?!?

[Zuelu562]

The "Fixing the Game" Clause was placed in the manual, as pointed out earlier, after 2011 because the initial minibot point level not only broke, but snapped Logomotion in two.

In this light, do I believe that something is wrong? Yes. Level 1 climb is WAY too easy for the points and Level 3 Climb Points may be too low for what it required. But by no means is the game "Broken" by this; In Logomotion, if the opposing alliance got 1st and 2nd in the minibot race, the only way you had a chance is if all they did was minibots. You can very easily come back from 1 or even 2 30 point hangs.

[pandamonium]

Wow I did not mean to create a war between climbers and shooters. Even if you do not have a climbing robot remember that increasing the points of a 30 point climb ubecause you do not know what your aliance parrtners will do.

[Grim Tuesday]

Everyone says the "fixing the game clause" was put because of 2011's minibot imbalance. Can anyone cite a source for that or is that just why Chief Delphi thinks it was put in?

[D.Allred]

Do I think the GDC will change the climb points? Most likely not.

Do I think they should change the climb points? No. The game is well balanced as is.

Is my team a climber? Yes. We have zero regrets with our choice or performance.

It will be interesting to see if climbing points impact Championship alliance selections. According to the Twitter data feed**, a significant majority of winning alliances have averaged less than 30 total climb points per match. I think this will change.

** Thank you Ether for posting.

[class1234567]

Originally Posted by Cory

.
People are looking at the trees instead of the forest. The game is playing out in an exciting and dynamic manner. Why would the GDC want to change that just to appeal to a small minority who think that 30 pt climbing should be worth more?.

This just about sums it up.

[Seth Mallory]

After reading the rules again it does state that the scoring values can be changed. By that argument they could change the third level climb to 20 points. That would also just as fair as changing to 40 points. I like keeping the rules the same since the teams did the math and planned things out.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Gary Dillard

So if a team chose a design that limits their points without a change, they're bad strategists and it's tough but not unfair if no change is made. But if you chose a design that can't take advantage of a potential change in points that has been in the rules since day one and the GDC does make the change, then you're a good strategist and it's tough and unfair?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..............

At the very least, the design that can't take advantage of a potential change in points that has been in the rules since day one at least decided to go with the scoring that is supposed to take place in 80% of the game that can't be changed. A 30 point climb could also be worth 20 by the rules.

I also never said the rule change would be unfair. I implied it is needless because the implied intent of the rule, balancing the scoring of the endgame to maintain the importance of teleop, is seen as largely unnecessary by all but a small minority of people who put all of their eggs into the climbing basket, and making a move like this points adjustment to acquiesce this minority would be unwelcomed.

Everyone says the "fixing the game clause" was put because of 2011's minibot imbalance. Can anyone cite a source for that or is that just why Chief Delphi thinks it was put in?

Minibot scoring was weighted heavily in 2011 by the opinions of a lot of people. This provision was added to the endgame in 2012 and 2013. The reasoning isn't something that will likely ever be admitted by the GDC, but it's a pretty slam-dunk assumption.

[Andy A.]

Climbing to the third row should be worth more.

The GDC should not revise the point values, nor do I expect them to,

Climbing's hard and exciting to watch. If the GDC were to reissue the rules knowing what they know now I suspect it'd be valued higher, if for no other reason to encourage a more exciting end game. Or, just as good as higher point values, less restrictive climbing rules, something they already did mid season.

Still, I don't think the issue rises anywhere near the level that would invoke a point change in champs. The game isn't broken, just not quite optimal, and even that's a matter of some opinion.

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

There was a thread discussing this a couple of weeks ago, and the main issue with doing this is that all the design decisions of every team, regardless of whether they have a climber or not, were made fully taking into account the point values as they were at the start of the season. For this reason, any changes in the point structure would be unfair to the teams that took into account that point value and decided it wasn't worth the cost.

As it turns out, a 30 point climb alone does not make a strong competitor. However, a 30 point climber with a 20 point dump makes a very strong one. 30-point-climbers should focus on improving their robots (20 lb allowance) rather than petition for more points. Teams that made a decision they now regret should own it, learn from it, and work to improve it.

This is the best argument in this thread. Changing the strategy of the game at championships would nullify the entire strategic aspect of FRC since you would no longer be competing in the same competition that you originally designed your robot for; and it could ruin the credibility of the game makers in the future.

As someone else said previously the only reason that the ability to change points is in the rules is in case the game turned out to be extremely unbalanced within the first couple weeks of competition.

[Nick Lawrence]

While I wouldn't put it past the GDC to make slight changes that adversely affect a significant amount of teams, (mind you, the blizzard reduction was a good call,) I don't think they'll do this.

Don't fix what a'int broke.

-Nick

[Moriarty]

Originally Posted by Nick Lawrence

While I wouldn't put it past the GDC to make slight changes that adversely affect a significant amount of teams, (mind you, the blizzard reduction was a good call,)

In addition, the blizzard reduction was for safety and had minimal impact on strategy (when compared to climbing)

[Nick Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

In addition, the blizzard reduction was for safety and had minimal impact on strategy (when compared to climbing)

I completely disagree. Not to rehash this and hijack the thread, but MANY teams designed their robots around floor loading in both auto and teleop (specifically the last ~25 seconds or so) instead of climbing. I can't tell you how many messages I fielded that day from friends about that.

GDC made the right call, though.

-Nick

[Gregor]

Should a level 3 climb be worth more? Yes
Should a level 3 point value be changed now? No

[EricDrost]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

the blizzard reduction had minimal impact on strategy

Have you SEEN a floorloading robot clean up the misses from a FCS? That's what the blizzard would have been like in Quals matches when the feeder stations have lots of frisbees left.

[S.P.A.M.er 17]

From this and the other thread that was created, I generally don't see that many teams "regretting" their decisions to climb. The general arguments for inflating level 3 climbs are: The feat is more than 3x difficult than a ten point hang, a more exciting end game, and an interesting twist to strategy. No where do I see the words "We regret..." Infact, a member of Team 4451 (with an incredible climber/dumper) just said quite the opposite. Now that doesn't mean 30 pt climbers would be utterly destroyed to find out that their OPR has a ten point increase coming its way.

The real question is do these arguments warrant a change? With the way the game has played out, my opinion is that they do not. But that doesn't matter because it is up to the GDC, not me nor any other Delphi poster. It has been this way since day one.

The point of my post is not to argue for/against a change. It is to ask for people to stop putting words into other teams mouth and insulting teams for choosing a certain strategy. Now if your team does regret the decision to climb, please share with others why so that they can learn from your decision. This is a learning experience, not a place to brag that you read your crystal ball better than others.