Problem's with 2015…

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

I think your alliance partners have a much larger impact this year than ever before.

^

Which you can see as a good thing because working together is better but most of the time the other 38 teams a the event can't all play with the top tier teams.

I loved 2015 from a design challenge but as many people said back in Week 1 once competition season started the views of the game would completely change because these small facets of the new game are brought forward. The reality of the year is that the gap between the top and lower tier teams just got much, MUCH bigger which is not a good direction.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

At GTR East, 14 points was the difference between the #8 Seed and the #34 seed. In years past, 2 QP's don't come close to swinging things that much.

Further, at GTR Central, teams playing with 1114 seeded on average 18.6 while teams that did not get to play with 1114 seeded on average 25.2

I think your alliance partners have a much larger impact this year than ever before.

There is enough discussion about how 1114 is a statisically outlier, so I'm not sure they are the best example to prove this point.

Even if your partners have a larger impact this year, you opponents virtually have no impact on your seeding.

I think this year is actually better than most at ranking the teams.

[avanboekel]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

There is enough discussion about how 1114 is a statisically outlier, so I'm not sure they are the best example to prove this point.

Even if your partners have a larger impact this year, you opponents virtually have no impact on your seeding.

I think this year is actually better than most at ranking the teams.

Agreed. Being ranked by points scored will give you a much better indicator of a teams ability to play the game vs. going strictly off of win loss. This is the perfect year for good teams to guarantee a high seed.

[Justin Montois]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

There is enough discussion about how 1114 is a statisically outlier, so I'm not sure they are the best example to prove this point.

Even if your partners have a larger impact this year, you opponents virtually have no impact on your seeding.

I think this year is actually better than most at ranking the teams.

I agree that this is the best ranking system we've had. The discussion was though that your random qualification schedule has a greater impact on your ranking than in years past.

Regardless of 1114 being an outlier, clearly teams at the event benefited from playing with them as opposed to teams that didn't. Since the match schedule is random, some teams got lucky, and some didn't. This holds true for all the highest scoring teams at each event, not just 1114. And this year, playing with these high scoring teams is worth more than just the 2 QP's it would have been worth in years past.

Also, I disagree that your opponents having little impact on your rankings. Having a robot on the opposing alliance that can CoOp effectively is a huge advantage.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

I agree that this is the best ranking system we've had. The discussion was though that your random qualification schedule has a greater impact on your ranking than in years past.

Regardless of 1114 being an outlier, clearly teams at the event benefited from playing with them as opposed to teams that didn't. Since the match schedule is random, some teams got lucky, and some didn't. This holds true for all the highest scoring teams at each event, not just 1114. And this year, playing with these high scoring teams is worth more than just the 2 QP's it would have been worth in years past.

Also, I disagree that your opponents having little impact on your rankings. Having a robot on the opposing alliance that can CoOp effectively is a huge advantage.

I'd say having 2 quality co-op teams playing against each other is just as helpful as a single high scorer on your alliance. The luck of the draw is the most significant this year than any other.

[JohnFogarty]

Originally Posted by dodar

I'd say having 2 quality co-op teams playing against each other is just as helpful as a single high scorer on your alliance. The luck of the draw is the most significant this year than any other.

I agree. The majority of our schedule from Orlando was pretty terrible to say the least. We had 2 matches where we only had one partner besides ourselves. Luck wasn't on our side. Besides playing with your team, Bacon, and one match with Walton. We never played on the same side of the glass with any of the top teams at the regional.

[EricH]

OTOH, 1197 had a match at L.A. with a couple of what would normally be considered top teams on their side of the glass. I say "normally" because both of those teams happened to have issues that match for whatever reason, leaving 1197 as the primary scorer.


I'd like to see this ranking system return in the future, if the game makes it worthwhile.


BTW, 1197's third pick, 2443, was a key factor in making it to the finals. We could count on them to have at least one stack with a container from the landfill/step if something didn't go haywire.

[Briansmithtown]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

I think your alliance partners have a much larger impact this year than ever before.

I disagree. If you didn't have good alliance partners last year, it was very difficult to win. I know that from experience. My last match everything went wrong, with one robot being out of bounds to start and the other one fell over in autonomous. It was me vs three. It was not pretty.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

After just completing my team's second and most likely final competition, I feel like I'm going to have as good a perspective as any right now. I'll try to keep my comments as brief as possible. Sorry for the long-windedness


My single greatest gripe about this year is that this year's game is not won on the playing field but on the drawing board. The practiced team with the best design is going to win. Now every year requires a good design to be successful, but the extent of that impact this year is what bothers me.

I'm going to pick on 1023 for a little bit because they're an awesome team and other teams should strive to be like them. At Woodhaven this past weekend, every single person knew that 1023 was going to win the event on Thursday night when they came in and demonstrated their 84 point independent routine. They were untouchable; no one could score anywhere near them, and come the playoffs, they swept as expected. People started referring to the quick increase in their rank score after being paired with them as Bedford Inflation.

I actually had teammates in the stands tell me that they quit watching 1023 because they were so well practiced and ran their routine so well, that you knew exactly what was going to happen so there was no reason to watch. They were desensitized by the robot's repetitive success.

In fact, some of the most exciting and breathtaking moments were when teams completely shot themselves in the foot and messed everything up with one false move (or noodle). Auto racing suffers from this to some extent when people claim the crashes are the best part (when they aren't, from any standpoint). People are looking for some action and methodical completion is anything but.

So far in FiM, the #1 Alliance is 9 for 9 (this isn't the case everywhere, but I don't live elsewhere). The best robot picks the 2nd best robot and that's the game, folks. Last year, you didn't know what to expect, and that's what keeps any sport interesting; the unpredictability of the outcome. Why do you think people don't like being told the outcome of a sporting event they've recorded at home.

But the biggest problem is that there is no way for a pure underdog to possibly win. After a bad match, my alliance sat on the sideline and knew (even though we had one more match left in the SF) that we were done unless everyone else screwed up. And I have to admit, when 469 (another awesome team filled with awesome people) knocked their stack over, I felt pretty internally conflicted. It was horrible that everything went so wrong so quick, but my alliance was done UNLESS this happened. That shouldn't happen. I should be allowed to stop them from winning myself, not have to hope that they goof. I am so glad that they still made it to the finals because it would have been awful if that accident had kept them out.

FIRST is about gracious professionalism, and rooting against the other alliance is anything but. I want to help my competitors off the field as long as I can stop them on the field. And I can't do that this year. If we can't score more than them, then we've already lost.

Why do you think TNA was killed so quickly? Because it was bad news.
I personally will be glad when interactive gameplay is reintroduced.

The very last point I have is that this game leaves no room for error. You have one bad match last year, don't sweat it. You've still got two to get it right. This year, you're probably done. No second chances here. I don't like that. FIRST should be fun. Perfection is rarely fun. People are flawed beings.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Even if your partners have a larger impact this year, you opponents virtually have no impact on your seeding.

I can tell you that 1712 wouldn't have been the #5 seed at Chestnut Hill if 9/12 "opposing" alliances weren't able to get their yellow totes on the step. If we had earned the average amount of coopertition points at our event (~233) instead of the 360 we did, we would have ranked 11th.

[Alyssa]

The main issue with this game is that they have completely excluded the outside world from understanding or enjoying it. Yea, we all can get excited b/c the robots are so complex and so technically awesome, however, to the average spectator, coming to a venue to watch robots stack boxes and put trash cans on top? It's not very exciting.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by alyssa2485

The main issue with this game is that they have completely excluded the outside world from understanding or enjoying it. Yea, we all can get excited b/c the robots are so complex and so technically awesome, however, to the average spectator, coming to a venue to watch robots stack boxes and put trash cans on top? It's not very exciting.

Exactly this. This game is essentially a glorified skills challenge, save for the minibot race at high levels of play.

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

At GTR East, 14 points was the difference between the #8 Seed and the #34 seed. In years past, 2 QP's don't come close to swinging things that much.

At SVR last year 2 qual points was the difference between 1st and 8th seed. It was also the difference between 9th and 42nd seed, that's a larger variation from a single match win/loss.

Further, at GTR Central, teams playing with 1114 seeded on average 18.6 while teams that did not get to play with 1114 seeded on average 25.2

I think your alliance partners have a much larger impact this year than ever before.

I still think this year is far more forgiving than previous years in scheduling. Scheduling this year helps teams improve in ranking if they get a good schedule but it doesn't punish teams nearly as hard for getting a bad schedule. Last year matches were completely unwinnable if you didn't have at least 2 capable alliance partners that could handle the ball. This year you can still have a very good average trusting your own robots performance each match, you don't need to bet on your alliance partners as much.

[Peter Johnson]

I'd like to turn this discussion on its head a bit--rather than focusing on the things we dislike in the game, let's suggest ways in which the game design could have been improved (either via major changes in overall construction, point value changes, or even just a minor rule change) and how such changes might have affected robot designs and/or gameplay in a positive fashion. Note: I'm obviously not suggesting changes to the game this late in the season, just talking about how the game might have been designed differently from the start. To kick it off, here are two ideas I've kicked around with a couple of people.

1) Make cooperative building of stacks worth more points (e.g. mix in a bit of the 2014 game concept of "handoffs"). If one robot stacks the totes and a different robot puts the RC on top, add a point bonus. If a third robot is responsible for getting the noodle in the RC, add another point bonus. The main downside of this is scoring is a lot more complex to keep track of, but there's some interesting possible upsides in terms of gameplay strategy. Right now the gameplay at the higher levels seems to consist of near-independent 2-robot operation (two robots each building their own stacks by holding a RC and stacking underneath), with the 3rd robot being often completely neglected (or not even put on the field!); only with lower level alliances do you see actual cooperative play with different robots doing different things to complete their stacks in parallel. I find the latter to be much more interesting to watch, but they simply can't compete with the #1/#2 paired dominant alliances (at least right now; maybe such strategies will evolve sufficiently to catch up in future weeks).

2) Have only a single human loader station. I know the reason for having two was due to the rate limit of tote loading and the number of totes behind the wall, which is the main problem with this idea, but it would have the benefit of making alliance partner selection and elimination play a lot more interesting; in the current game there's not really any reason why #1 and #2 can't pair up regardless of their individual capabilities, but if there was only one human load station that would make the decision much more challenging.

Comments? Other ideas?

[MooreteP]

Originally Posted by paunatime

By no means is this game perfect, it is far beyond that, game play is weak at lower levels, and there is a huge variation between "good" and "bad" teams. But overall, I think problems arise is every FRC game but I am loving this one.

I don't think you can beat perfection. But I like this game too.
I was going to post about how many lower seeded alliances were winning competitions after I watched NYC and KC, where both 6th seeds won.

Then I decided to do some maths.
Week 1: Regionals 2.43 average seed won, Districts 1.5
Week 2: Regionals 2.2, Districts 3.5!
Week 3: Regionals 2.3, Districts 1.

Overall so far: Regionals 2.33 Districts: 1.96 All competitions: 2.13

I had a thought in an earlier post about the deeper the field, the greater chance that alliances from the bottom half of the seeding order stood a better chance of winning.
Shallow vs. Deep
So far I have diddly statistically. Hoping more evidence will show up in the next 4 weeks as the game gets better understood and teams gain experience and we add in the District Championships.
I don't feel as optimistic about Einstein. I don't think the Maroon Crew from 2007 is likely this year.

Originally Posted by alyssa2485

The main issue with this game is that they have completely excluded the outside world from understanding or enjoying it. Yea, we all can get excited b/c the robots are so complex and so technically awesome, however, to the average spectator, coming to a venue to watch robots stack boxes and put trash cans on top? It's not very exciting.

Unfortunately, this is more true than in recent games. People I have invited to competitions didn't last long. If you're going to invite "outsiders"
Make sure that they show up for the playoffs.