[FRC Blog] Kickoff Broadcast and Game Hint Redux

[Anthony4004]

There isn't anything wrong with the games section....

[bearbot]

It was taken down

[magnets]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

That's not true at all...

If you went to the bridge with 1:15 left and then ended up losing the match, you didn't have a good enough lead at that point in the match to allow you to attempt the bridge. Winning should've been priority, then the coop bridge.

While the bridge was flawed, I don't think you can go far enough to say "if blank team couldn't do it then there's something wrong." Many teams were able to complete the bridge and win the match.

Plus you have a match schedule with who you're playing against. Why not talk to the opposing teams in advance for true coopertition?

Many teams were able to win and balance, including 254, many times. I am quite positive that 254 talked and discussed the strategy for balancing before the match. You say that winning should have been the priority. Why? It was worth the same as the co-op balance.

What I think is wrong is that 254's bridge balancing and coopertitioning (or coopertating?) skills didn't change from match to match, but their scores did. In some matches, they may have been able to spend only 20 seconds balancing, but in others, they could not have the ability to balance at all. In this sense, their qualifying points do not correlate to the teams ability. I can be the greatest bridge balancer in the world and have opponents who don't have the ability (or choose not to) go on the bridges, win 10 matches, balance zero, and end up with 20 qualification points. Then, I could be a very average robot, with an average bridge skill, and end up with great balancing partners and at the end of the day balancing 7 out of 10 times, and winning 5 matches out of ten, with a total of 24 qualification points. The average team wins, the great team looses. There's no correlation between points and robot ability.

In the match, 254 knew that in order to be in picking position, they needed to balance and win, and they knew that if they gave up balancing, they gave up picking. So, they tried to balance. In the end, they were picked anyway.

[Anthony4004]

Never mind. I see someone already fixed it.

[Whippet]

Originally Posted by tondogone

Never mind. I see someone already fixed it.

Just for future reference, the edited version(by a user called fakegdc) is located here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...id=5 88458069

[Christian751]

Originally Posted by magnets

Many teams were able to win and balance, including 254, many times. I am quite positive that 254 talked and discussed the strategy for balancing before the match. You say that winning should have been the priority. Why? It was worth the same as the co-op balance.

What I think is wrong is that 254's bridge balancing and coopertitioning (or coopertating?) skills didn't change from match to match, but their scores did. In some matches, they may have been able to spend only 20 seconds balancing, but in others, they could not have the ability to balance at all. In this sense, their qualifying points do not correlate to the teams ability. I can be the greatest bridge balancer in the world and have opponents who don't have the ability (or choose not to) go on the bridges, win 10 matches, balance zero, and end up with 20 qualification points. Then, I could be a very average robot, with an average bridge skill, and end up with great balancing partners and at the end of the day balancing 7 out of 10 times, and winning 5 matches out of ten, with a total of 24 qualification points. The average team wins, the great team looses. There's no correlation between points and robot ability.

In the match, 254 knew that in order to be in picking position, they needed to balance and win, and they knew that if they gave up balancing, they gave up picking. So, they tried to balance. In the end, they were picked anyway.

Very true, My team talked with 254 before our match and successfully preformed a balance.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by magnets

You say that winning should have been the priority. Why? It was worth the same as the co-op balance.

Because winning gives 3 teams 2QP, whereas cooping gives 6 teams 2QP. If your option is winning OR cooping, you chose winning because it boosts less people in the ranks, while still giving you the same QP.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by brrian27

I don't think any game would rely purely on having a teammate assist you. As others have said, you might not have another functioning robot on your alliance!

However, assisting might help you in the game. So it's something that one team could do alone in a pinch, but is much easier for multiple teams to do together.

I agree with this general concept. I can picture something like, say, an area that takes some time to get in and out of, but if you can just stay in the middle and throw game pieces out of there, it's faster to score as a two robot job.

I can't picture a good way to make passing game elements between robots figure into the scoring. I wouldn't want to make the referees responsible for keeping track of each time a game piece is passed between robots.

[magnets]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Because winning gives 3 teams 2QP, whereas cooping gives 6 teams 2QP. If your option is winning OR cooping, you chose winning because it boosts less people in the ranks, while still giving you the same QP.

Yeah, but it's not GP to stop halfway through your coop balance and go score more points and win.

Return of "un-GP"

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by magnets

Yeah, but it's not GP to stop halfway through your coop balance and go score more points and win.

Return of "un-GP"

Alas, there lies the problem with 2012.

[atucker4072]

The all time assist leader in hockey is Wayne Gretzky. Maybe the game element is a stick?

[dellagd]

To talk about the (seldom discussed) football theory, in one of the behind the design FRC videos, one member of the GDC said another always comes in with a football and is like "I have the next game piece everyone!" every year. So it is a possibility.

That being said, I still think its gonna be hockey. How they're pulling that one off I have no idea.

Also:

Originally Posted by atucker4072

The all time assist leader in hockey is Wayne Gretzky. Maybe the game element is a stick?

A little late to the party, are ya?

[Pendulum^-1]

EDIT: before I get slapped down again, here is the most coherent explanation I could find on the number sequence:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&postcount=143

Explains the first and second sequence, and why they differ.

************************************************** *************************

Getting back to the Game Hint:

Anyone post any thoughts with regards to the anagram of the first and second set of numbers?

Initial Set 12/20/2013:
8234/57, 61126/1963, 62326/15806

Second Set, 12/30/2013:
61474:135, 12661:1963, 32662:15806

Two numerical anagrams are presented:
1) 61126 and 12661 (paired by : and / with the 1963 number)
2) 62326 and 32662 (paired with 15806)

Not that I know what the exact significance of that would be, just thought I'd mention it, as I've not seen any comments on it. (And I've not read all 200+ posts to this point.)

Is the anagram itself a clue? Or just the reformatted update......

[Jay O'Donnell]

Originally Posted by Pendulum^-1

Getting back to the Game Hint:

Anyone post any thoughts with regards to the anagram of the first and second set of numbers?

Initial Set 12/20/2013:
8234/57, 61126/1963, 62326/15806

Second Set, 12/30/2013:
61474:135, 12661:1963, 32662:15806

Two numerical anagrams are presented:
1) 61126 and 12661 (paired by : and / with the 1963 number)
2) 62326 and 32662 (paired with 15806)

Not that I know what the exact significance of that would be, just thought I'd mention it, as I've not seen any comments on it. (And I've not read all 200+ posts to this point.)

Is the anagram itself a clue? Or just the reformatted update......

You should probably read the thread. This has already been solved. Summary: the numbers have something to do with assisting in various sports. This is just like kickoff, read everything BEFORE you post!

[atucker4072]

Originally Posted by dellagd

To talk about the (seldom discussed) football theory, in one of the behind the design FRC videos, one member of the GDC said another always comes in with a football and is like "I have the next game piece everyone!" every year. So it is a possibility.

That being said, I still think its gonna be hockey. How they're pulling that one off I have no idea.

Also:

A little late to the party, are ya?

Actually no... I was pointing it out for two reasons 1.) To get people back on track and 2.) To relate my idea to the hint.

It is a possibility thay he could have a bunch of sticks around his house.