Changing the Elim. Format...

[JVN]

Joe, Wouldn't it be people vs floppies 1999?

I agree that the current system has some flaws, but I do not believe FIRST would change this late.

I think we're all just going to have to tough it out, and make the best of what we've been given. Everyone should be taking notes for the Team Forums this summer on what they feel should be changed.

Personally, I think the coolest format would be where you play 2 matches, and only your own points are cumulative. (As mentioned by Raul.) It would make things that much more exciting, while still maintaining the 2 match format.

Although, it would erase the interesting dynamic the current system has. We may not all like it, but you must admit, it makes for some pretty interesting strategy.

Besides... this competition isn't really about winning or losing anyway, is it?

Good luck to everybody in Houston.

Go Curie.

[ryanspensley]

Maybe I'm really stupid, but I played to win every match. It never even crossed my mind through all the elimination rounds and the finals. We didn't loose any matches in the elimination rounds or finals either. It would make it more exciting if they changed it and it would give an alliance another chance if they had a glitch the first match.

[Mike Schroeder]

I beg to differ, in the finals at J&J the last match was extremly close, & at Cheasapeake the same happened, i think that if teams acctaully try to win the second match it makes for alot of excitment and wishing you knew what has happened

[shawny963]

this was an issue at every regional and i just think it doesnt embody the spirit of FIRST. I admit that my alliance, 930, 16, and 65 at midwest used this strategy to a degree. We won the first match in our quarter and semis. We did win the second matches also, but did zero the score on both sides with respect to bins. We lost our first finals match when 16's robot lost a radio modem connection. 65 put up a good fight but lost match 1. In the second match all that the other alliance had to do was remove bins and sit at the bottom to win. They won with one flipped robot and one without a functioning drive system on their left side. Now that just doesnt seem right. But they played the way the system was made, and they won doing it. I would have done the same in their position. But i think it is quite obvious that this system is wrong and unjust for all teams, and it needs to be changed. I think changing it for nationals is necessary in order to find a true winner. I feel 2 out of 3 is the best choice or if a 2 match finals is mandatory at least remove the 2x the losers score.

[Powers]

I agree with the masses here.... out with the current scoring system.... of course we were down by so much after our first match in the semi's that we were unable to come back, and therefore did not qualify for nat's so we wont be there... guess it doesnt matter much to me anymore one way or the other, but it should be 2 out of 3, it would make the games more exciting, and alliances more important (2nd game would just require some1 who could move the boxes and not much else)

[Lil Lisa]

I very much agree that the 2 out of 3 method would be the best way to go for this year, even if it is too late to change the rules. But I have a question... Might it be better for future competitions if the two alliance partners of each of the top 8 teams were to have more than one opportunity in the distinct elimination rounds (ex.: Team A being one of the top 8 teams, and Teams B and C being its alliance partners, so that the alliance of A and B would go at least twice, and the alliance of A and C would do likewise)?

Therefore, there would be at least 4 matches within an elimination round... maybe allowing for a variation of the match-ups and more of an opportunity for B and C (if for any reason either malfunctions) to be repaired and perform to their full capabilities.

Just a thought.

-Lisa
Team 573-Western Michigan Engineering Inspiration Award Winners

[Ken Leung]

I voted yes, but looking at the complicated scoring software this year, I highly doubt FIRST will be able to see this thread, look at the voting result, and change the code in 3 days and modify the finals to become best 2 out of 3.

If we had a week between regionals and Championship event, maybe... But I know a few of us who never like making changes to the software with this little time in advance.

I am sure FIRST will change next year back to best 2 out of 3 next year because the team forums will be flooded with that request.

[shaddoe]

I'm thinking that either choice #1 or #2 would be much better than the way it was at the regionals. Multiple times at the Lone Star Regional, I thought about how at the end of the first match the losing alliance would try to force their way on to the top of the ramp, but in doing so (trying to complete an objective of the game) gave the opposing alliance more points than themselves. Basically you were punishing yourself by trying to score points for your alliance. That doesn't make very much sense. I also did not like that an alliance could only lose one match and lose the whole thing.

If FIRST doesn't want to change the rules of the game too much then they could just change it to option #2. That shouldn't change the outcome of the competition but it would make it a whole lot more exciting and sensible from a spectator standpoint.

[ngreen]

At Lone Star we never tried to lose, we tried to intentionally win. The semi and quarterfinal matches we won by pushing bins to our side, protecting our stacks, and then getting both robots on the ramp (actually every match we won, except in finals, our robot was on the ramp) The second match is easy to win if you win the first, if you watch the second semifinal match at Lonestar we let our opponent score 1 point, we cleared their area and kept them off the ramp. In the first finals match we lost by 62 points, both robots failed to make the ramp because of 118 KOH which we pushed off in the last seconds only to continue to roll down the ramp and end up touching several of our boxes. In the second round the other alliance worked to clear our area. With less than a minute we managed to get intangled on top of 704's robot where we were stuck until five seconds left, when we found they had severly damaged our drill motors and we couldn't move. Luckily for us, our alliance and one of the other robots were on top, and a Human Player foul negated their two stack. The score was 35 us to 33 them and we won by 6 points overall. If the human player hadn't of messed up or if their robot hadn't of been on top we would have lost. But everyone has to play the game like this so I think it is fair enough. But I see having 3 matches as a good idea not to mention more fun. Even though coming back after one match when you thought you had lost was a thrill.

[Andy Baker]

Guys,

Get a clue... it is Monday before the Championships at a new location. FIRST is kinda busy.

They are trying to add teams to the mix as I type this.

They are shipping 4 fields from around the nation and get them set up in Reliant Stadium by Wednesday night.

They are trying to make sure that everyone's crate is being delivered to the Astrodome.

They are seeing to it that all 290 teams have pits.

They are starting to deal with all of the VIPs, judges and volunteers that will be converging on Houston by the end of this week.

THEY ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE SCORING SYSTEM.

Deal with it. The only option we have is to play with the rules that we already know.

Sure, we have realized that the elimination scoring system is not the best... it needs to be changed. BUT NOT NOW. sheesh. For all of us who put on post-season competitions, let's change the scoring system for those competitions (IRI, Battlecry, etc.).

Sometimes you guys worry me.

Andy B.

[Aidan F. Browne]

Well said Andy!!!

I think alot of people forget how much work FIRST really does.

Its time to stop whining and start having some fun!!!

Good luck to everyone this week!

Aidan

[MattB703]

First I want to say that I agree with every person who has posted above. The rule should be changed and I am certain it will not be because it is just too late. That said I want to offer 2 new points to this discussion.

1.) The rule we have is because a large persentage of FIRST teams suggested that they try to make the Elims. more like the qualifying matches. FIRST tried to do that by making the Elims. based on QPs also. It didn't work, but that is why it is the way it is.

2.) I have been involved in the type of matches that Joe is talking about (quarterfinals and semifinals this weekend) and I can assure you that we played every match to win. Did the strategy change from match 1 to match 2? Of course it did. But we never played to lose, we just spent the extra time between autonomous and ramp fighting trying to un-score rather than score. The goal was to win with a small number of points in an effort to reduce risk.

I don't know if other teams had the same strategy or even if this is a big distiction. What do you all think?

MattB
Coach
Team 902 - The Delphi Robohawks

[JVN]

Originally posted by Andy Baker
Sometimes you guys worry me.

Rock on Baker.

[Scott358]

... this issue was brought up many times, for over a month now.

I know this because I wrote a thread about the "masochistic strategy", which gives the winner of the first match a significant advantage.

I also suggested that simply changing the elim round points to 1x the losers points, which would significantly reduce the likelihood of intentionally trying to lose the second match.

It is what it is now, and everyone should know be aware of how it works, so you can at least try to do something about it.

See you in Houston!!!

Regards,
Scott358

[gsensel]

I agree future yes, now no. This is because I a way changing scoring now would be sort of like totally changing the game; which none of you would like.