pic: Visual (and imperfect) Comparison of Scoring Methods

[NRuzek]

loading photo ...

[JesseK]

This is a very nifty chart, and is definitely one of the best strategy tools for upcoming matches! A couple of major things this visual needs, then I think it's near perfect:

The tricky thing about fuel is that it has a maximum effective point cap based upon how much the boiler can process. Based upon 5 / second, it can process 225 points-worth of balls in the high goal in teleop. We do not know how much faster the boiler can go when it is nearly full. So for now, you may have to cap the # of teleop points for balls at 225. Maybe it can be adjusted in the future when we know more.

In addition, I believe that a better chart would be show the point values of the bonuses rather than a star which shows RP. These visuals are alliance-wide, and usually such high-powered alliances appear in eliminations rather than qualifications.

Finally, the current chart implies 100% accuracy for each cycle of balls. What about 80% accuracy? What about 60% accuracy?

[Bob Steele]

Could you explain the various fuel versions (IE what the 30 vs 60 vs 90 means..)
It is probably obvious but I am not sure how to interpret your graph. I think it means the number of balls you are retrieving for shooting but I want to make sure that is clear.
thanks

[Bryce2471]

This looks like great visual aid. I think it would also be helpful to make one for eliminations that includes the bonus points.

P.S. I believe that it should only require 12 gears to get the bonus, because of the reserve gear. (as in not 13)

[Donut]

I actually think this chart is making gears appear better than they are, because it does not account for the reserve gear.

All robots should start with a minimum of 40 points for 0 runs, because the reserve gear allows every alliance to score the first rotor with no functioning robots. All columns for the gear robots would shift to the left by 1 (e.g. gears no auto would get 80 points at 2 runs), while the the fuel based robots need to have 40 added to all point values since they always score 1 rotor.

This helps illustrate something I think many teams are missing based on the poll results elsewhere showing the focus on gears; a robot that cycles 2 - 5 gears a match is worth the same as only 2 - 3 high goal fuel cycles or 4 low goal cycles. This is true even with two 5 gear cyclers on an alliance, since 10 gears scores only 80 points beyond the reserve gear (ignoring auto) which is still 40 points per robot. If you can't score at least 6 gears solo you are depending on your partners to score 7+ gears consistently for your gear scoring to be worth more than 40 points. Based on the frequency of getting partners that are broken or unable to score, and the typical scoring effectiveness of the majority of teams, I'm not sure I would take that bet outside of very deep events.

I applaud the GDC for how balanced this game seems to be the more we analyze it. Gear cycling has a high point potential but a massive dropoff in points if you don't get the magic 13th gear. Fuel has a more linear scoring progression but a cap in total processing capability that can hinder alliances that focus too much on fuel. And there is a high point potential autonomous opportunity for both styles of scoring robot available.

[Cimwemwe]

It would be helpful to see a companion chart: points in finals. The change from QP to points is asymmetric for gears (100) vs fuel (20).
I'd also love to see the same chart with a strong gear alliance that can place 3 gears in auto.

All that said, I love the visual!

[andrew4130]

Originally Posted by Donut

I actually think this chart is making gears appear better than they are, because it does not account for the reserve gear.

All robots should start with a minimum of 40 points for 0 runs, because the reserve gear allows every alliance to score the first rotor with no functioning robots. All columns for the gear robots would shift to the left by 1 (e.g. gears no auto would get 80 points at 2 runs), while the the fuel based robots need to have 40 added to all point values since they always score 1 rotor.

False

https://team4130.slack.com/files/afr...110_071642.jpg

[NRuzek]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

Could you explain the various fuel versions (IE what the 30 vs 60 vs 90 means..)
It is probably obvious but I am not sure how to interpret your graph. I think it means the number of balls you are retrieving for shooting but I want to make sure that is clear.
thanks

The numbers in the key describing different options are listing the number of balls that design could carry. So a 60 high fuel means that every time they come to the boiler they shoot 60 fuel into the high goal (assuming 100% accuracy) and then go to get more fuel.

I probably should've made that more clear

[NRuzek]

As a general response, yes it would be beneficial to have more analysis of different options like bonus points instead of RP and what if we get more gears in auto, but 1, I was lazy. 2, It would've crowded the graph. and 3, I brought it to my team's meeting and it effectively got students thinking, critiquing, and reanalyzing their assumptions.

[MrForbes]

If I thought we could build a robot that would be able to shoot 60 fuel into the high goal repeatedly, I'd be leaning towards a fuel processing robot. Our team's track record for such feats is not very good.

I like the chart, thanks!

[prensing]

Originally Posted by andrew4130

False

https://team4130.slack.com/files/afr...110_071642.jpg

That URL is protected.

[Eric Scheuing]

Originally Posted by andrew4130

False

https://team4130.slack.com/files/afr...110_071642.jpg

Can you please host this on imgur or another site? We can't access files posted in your team Slack sadly.

[Donut]

Originally Posted by NRuzek

As a general response, yes it would be beneficial to have more analysis of different options like bonus points instead of RP and what if we get more gears in auto, but 1, I was lazy. 2, It would've crowded the graph. and 3, I brought it to my team's meeting and it effectively got students thinking, critiquing, and reanalyzing their assumptions.

Thank you for this graph, I think it is a great discussion tool. There are many scoring options that I think teams are overlooking as viable, as my longer post went into.

Andrew if you are able to host that file elsewhere I would like to know what I missed on my analysis. I've only done one rule read through so not sure what I might be missing in my assessment.