If YOU were the GDC...

[dirtbikerxz]

Originally Posted by logank013

I definitely see your point but that is a one time scenario. The point of the winning margin RPs would be for teams that consistently win by 30 points or more. So say we stuck 2056 in a competition with a bunch of teams that can't even shoot a boulder. Then the teams paired with 2056 who would win by at least 60 points a match would have a 1 time 2 RP bonus where 2056 would have a 10 time 2 RP bonus. Does that make sense? So schedule would still factor into this but the teams that are consistently better than the rest of the field should still end up at the top of the field by earning those extra winning margin RPs. Does that make sense?

It makes sense, but in that case, if you stuck a crappy bot with 2056 (with the current system) ya they will get 4 ranking points that one match, but in most of their other matches they will only get 1 max, where as 2056 will get consistent 4 ranking points.

[EricH]

When strength-of-schedule is used as ranking, or to affect gameplay, life gets extremely interesting.

Witness: 2010's coopertition bonus.
Witness: 2009's G14 (loss of ability to score some number of points).

And FIRST has never used the difference in score to give blowouts a boost. They've preferred close matches.

[logank013]

Originally Posted by dirtbikerxz

It makes sense, but in that case, if you stuck a crappy bot with 2056 (with the current system) ya they will get 4 ranking points that one match, but in most of their other matches they will only get 1 max, where as 2056 will get consistent 4 ranking points.

In the current ranking system, getting 4 Rps is an easy thing to do in IN if you have the win. So getting extra ranking points based on margin would encourage more high goals than low goals. Maybe if we changed this to every 5 more high goals your alliance gets over the other alliance per match will earn you 1 more ranking point. I feel like it effectively does the same thing as the winning margin but is a little different.

I think the point I was trying to get to by adding in winning margin was to have more matches that had 6 to 2 ranking points rather than capping at 4 to 2. It makes scoring much more important. A team like 1024 who is amazing had issues with their W-L-T record hurting their rank at their IN events. In many of the wins, they could have boosted their rank by having winning margin involved. Does this still make any sense or am I just beating a dead horse at this point? Thanks for the feedback

[dirtbikerxz]

Originally Posted by logank013

In the current ranking system, getting 4 Rps is an easy thing to do in IN if you have the win. ... Does this still make any sense or am I just beating a dead horse at this point? Thanks for the feedback

No it makes sense . And ya I get what your saying. Something like this will have to be regulated on a event to event basis though. I understand how this can be useful at IN, but if this was done at a event like Bayou, than the entire system would just crash and burn...epicly.

[logank013]

Originally Posted by dirtbikerxz

No it makes sense . And ya I get what your saying. Something like this will have to be regulated on a event to event basis though. I understand how this can be useful at IN, but if this was done at a event like Bayou, than the entire system would just crash and burn...epicly.

Yeah. Agreed entirely. I don't know how accurate it is but I like to think Indiana is one of the best regions this year. Because of this, RPs really came down to W-L-T in many cases because the other two RPs were fairly evenly distributed across the board. But obviously in an area where teams are still struggling to breach, then the current system probably has no issues.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by Mitchell1714

Stronghold has been a very good game, but there are some tweaks I would make.

1. The scoring bar at the bottom quarter of the match feed should have been done differently. They should have had team numbers, score, defenses that alliance has breached and damage they have done to their opponents tower all on the same side. It was confusing and counter-intuitive to see red teams and red score on one side, and red defense/boulder count on the other.

2. (Spoiler, reading, fairly complicated change to game-play)

During just the playoffs, there should have been 2 new defenses available for selection: the "field" and the "keep".

What are they?

The "field" as it's name suggests is just a green flat surface robots drive across. Robots cannot damage the "field" and receive no points or contribution to a breach for crossing the "field" in both auto and teleop. The "keep" in historical terms, is the fortified central tower of a castle and last defensive resort. The "keep" in FRC Stronghold is a tall tower defense, place in the outer works, that is illegal to cross.

How do these two defenses work?

After each alliance has placed all their defenses, and before robots are placed on the field, each alliance then gets to place either a "field" for them to cross, or a "keep" to slow down the opposing alliance. Each alliance can place a "field" or "keep" on any defense except another "keep", "field" or low bar. There can be BOTH a "keep" and a "field" in the same outer works. If this happens, that alliance will only be able to damage 3 defenses, and will NOT have the possibility of scoring the Breach bonus(20pts). The red alliance gets to place first, then blue.

Why do I think it's a good idea?

One word, STRATEGY! This would make Stronghold playoffs the most strategically deep game in a while. This would affect many parts of the game:

A. Selecting defenses- Game theory now comes into play more as you have to guess if the other alliance is going to help themselves or slow you. The red alliance has the advantage of placing their "field/keep" anywhere and potentially blocking the other alliance from putting the opposite defense in that spot. High seeded red alliances must also determine if faster crossing is worth the possibility of no breach. Blue has the advantage of knowing what and where the red alliance placed their "field/keep" and countering, either as offense or defense.

B. Auto- The "field" increases an alliances auto possibilities. 2-ball autos and 2-ball-not-low-bar autos would be much more common. It also increases the chance of an alliance doing a double 2-ball auto. The "keep" hinders your opponents auto possibilities. A "keep" can be used to replace easily crossed defenses. It can be used to force opposing alliance robots to line up next to each other and risk messing up a 20 point auto. More importantly, the "keep" can force 1 of the 3 opposing bots to cross an active defense.

C. Teleop- The quick crossing of the "field" to increase shot count is huge. Two top tier shooters and alliances of 3 pretty good shooters could gain a big advantage. I could see some 1 and 2 alliances picking it even though the opponent could give them a "keep" and ruling out the possibility of the breach bonus. Top shooting alliances could more than make up for the 20 point breech deficit by shooting more boulders in auto and more cycles in teleop.

D. Endgame- The only way this affects endgame is the "field" can make last second rushes to the batter faster.

I know its kind of a complicated idea, thoughts, comments?

In theory, I like the game theory addition but I think in practice it has significant drawbacks.

First, it adds to the complexity of an already pretty complex to explain game (GeeToo's 50 word explanation above not withstanding).

Second, it adds to the fun for super fans but doesn't confuses the snot out of the causual fan (explain again why does that team get a free pass and also an impregnable defense?).

Third, if you don't actually set up the defenses and then then change them to Fields and Keeps after the fact, the strategy is pretty much going to be lost on anyone but the drive teams of those involved, but if you do that, an already crazy cycle time gets even longer.

Finally, I am worried how things work in practice. Have we opened up a hole that lets folks break the game by enabling strategy that wins every time.

But... ...I wouldn't mind trying this out at an afterglow competition if one of them decided that they wanted give it a go.

Nice post.

Dr. Joe J.

[CJ_Elliott]

Full court shots from human player in last 20 seconds.

[Whatever]

I would have moved the tower strength to 11 (instead of 10) for Worlds.

[bdaroz]

Originally Posted by Whatever

I would have moved the tower strength to 11 (instead of 10) for Worlds.

Because it's one louda?

Sorry, couldn't resist....

[Peyton Yeung]

Originally Posted by Whatever

I would have moved the tower strength to 11 (instead of 10) for Worlds.

Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Peyton Yeung

Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc

Make it loud indeed.

[Road Rash]

I approve the last 4 posts.

[plnyyanks]

Originally Posted by Peyton Yeung

Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?

We can do better!

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

Well, since you asked...

I would have replaced the boulders with totes, the outer defenses with scoring platforms, and the midline with a step.
That's right, more Recycle Rush!!! Most exciting game ever!

jk - I think I would rather watch grass grow.