Avg Score

[CMC]

What do you think the avg score of the games will be?

[George1902]

after or before the multiplier?
qualifying or elemination rounds?

George
S.P.A.M.
Team 180

[Joel J]

for the record: 65 - 90 average qualifying points (after the multipliers)

[Jan Olligs]

At the NASA/VCU Langley regional was, I think in the 80's to 90's. I suppose that the average scores will increase as the season proceeds.

[gniticxe]

Unless I am highly mistaken, team 122, #1 seed at VCU had an average score in the 60s.

[Tom Fairchild]

Originally posted by gniticxe
Unless I am highly mistaken, team 122, #1 seed at VCU had an average score in the 60s.

You are mistaken. Our final average qualifying score was 87.4, or somewhere right around there. In terms of actual score per round, good question. 2 goals, 2 bots, and 10 balls give or take for each match. Must've been around a 50 then for our actual score in each match.

~Tom Fairchild~

[Ken Leung]

The average scores seems to point to about 50~60 points, depending on a team's seeding.

I see a lot of 30 something vs. 20 points match, which would have a 60 for winner's QP... and the loser get 20.

Then there are a lot of good 35 vs. 20 something, which means winners get about 70~80 while loser still get 20. So far the average of that is about 40~50...

There there were some excellent matches where the score was 40's and 30's vs. 30's, which would get about 90~100 QP for winners and high 30's for losers. Average of that about 60.

And a couple of rounds where teams get 20 vs 0 or so, and both alliance get really low QP's, which would be thrown away if it's the lowest score, which is very likely.

As a result, most of the top seed teams should get about high 50~60's because they got a some number of 100 QP for winning, a good number of average matches with around 50~60's by winning, few 20~30's for losing, and ones or twices with low 10's and low 20's for bad luck.

This would explain why they are top seeds. You got to win quite a bit to become top 8.

[Ken Leung]

Also, I just thought about this.

In a competitive regional where all the teams play smart and robots perform really well... The best qualifying points you can get from a round is a 66 vs. 64 points... (two robots two goals with 26 balls vs. two robots one goal with 34 balls), which mean a 192 QP... Even the losing alliance could get a great deal of QP's with 64...

(OR a 65 vs 65 tie)

So, I think that teams should work out between each others... Especially since teams know who they are paired up with and who they are going against. Work ahead before the match, arrange that balls robots don't get blocked when they are scoring balls, and leave the goals up to the competitive nature of the game.

Even if not both alliances have ball robots, they should still let the ball robot go around and score balls for both sides. In the qualifying rounds, the whole 2 minutes was a bit long sometimes. So let your opponent go around and score some QP for you. Mean while, you should include scoring for opponents as a big part of your strategy. If you plan it out smart, you can let opponents score while you still win the match.

Yes, you would have to rely on your opponent sometimes with this stragety... So go ahead and have a good talk with your opponent before the matches about this.

There shouldn't be any reason stopping you from working with your opponents. Look at how well 4 teams could work together from last year. Look at the big picture, and don't be afraid to let your opponents score. It will help out in the long way, until finals.


I think it would be really interesting seeing a 66 vs 64, or a 65 vs 65 tie. I can imagine how loud the teams will cheer when that happen.

[Manoel]

Ken, that's a wonderful idea and I'll work as hard as possible to convince the opposing alliance to do that. However... Isn't it a bit ungracious to set the match score before it even happens? I mean, it certainly is if you agree to lose before a match, but what about if you make a deal to benefit both teams? Seems nice to me, but what about others?

[Joel J]

Originally posted by Ken Leung
Also, I just thought about this.

In a competitive regional where all the teams play smart and robots perform really well... The best qualifying points you can get from a round is a 66 vs. 64 points... (two robots two goals with 26 balls vs. two robots one goal with 34 balls), which mean a 192 QP... Even the losing alliance could get a great deal of QP's with 64...

(OR a 65 vs 65 tie)

So, I think that teams should work out between each others... Especially since teams know who they are paired up with and who they are going against. Work ahead before the match, arrange that balls robots don't get blocked when they are scoring balls, and leave the goals up to the competitive nature of the game.

::shrugs::, thats no fun . . everything else is all good.

[dlavery]

Originally posted by Ken Leung
In a competitive regional where all the teams play smart and robots perform really well... The best qualifying points you can get from a round is a 66 vs. 64 points... (two robots two goals with 26 balls vs. two robots one goal with 34 balls), which mean a 192 QP... Even the losing alliance could get a great deal of QP's with 64...

Actually, the best qualifying round you could have is one that ended 84-86, giving 252 qualifying points to the winner.

It requires that the four robots playing have the ability to place themselves in both home zones, while the distribution of goals and balls remains as outlined above. There was at least one team at VCU that could do this (the team number escapes me at the moment, but I will find it in my notes). If there are three more teams out there with the same ability, and they all end up in the same match at nationals, it would be VERY exciting!

-dave

-------------------

The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
- Albert Einstein

[Jan Olligs]

Originally posted by dlavery
Actually, the best qualifying round you could have is one that ended 84-86, giving 252 qualifying points to the winner.

What I figured out as maximum score is as follows:
Four robots with extenders to both sides

Blue alliance:
- 4 robots (extenders)
- 2 goals
- 25 balls
=> 85 match points

Red alliance:
- 4 robots (extenders)
- 1 goal
- 35 balls
=> 85 match points

Blue alliance wins by "most goals in scoring position" tie breaker, gets 255 QPs, Red alliance gets 85 QPs.

Did I figure that right or is there a mistake somewhere?

[Jan Olligs]

Originally posted by dlavery
It requires that the four robots playing have the ability to place themselves in both home zones, while the distribution of goals and balls remains as outlined above. There was at least one team at VCU that could do this (the team number escapes me at the moment, but I will find it in my notes). If there are three more teams out there with the same ability, and they all end up in the same match at nationals, it would be VERY exciting!

As far as I remember, there were 11 out of 66 teams with some kind of extender at VCU. And there were a couple of multiple-extender matches (at least three robots with extenders). Nevertheless, I don't know about teams that can extend in both directions. We can (and can retract completely, too), but I didn't pay that much attention to the number of extenders; all the teams I went scouting had none at all. Bad luck...

[Andrew Dahl]

actually team 122's final total score was 545 points
divided by 7 (they throw out the lowest score )
that makes 122's average score
77.8 qp----122
71.4 qp----497

the thing is is that we were both in the mid 90's unitl we bothgot hit with some low scores near the end



dahl
team 497 2nd Individal (71.4 qp) VCU
2002 winner of the GM Design award

[Ken Leung]

Originally posted by Manoel
Ken, that's a wonderful idea and I'll work as hard as possible to convince the opposing alliance to do that. However... Isn't it a bit ungracious to set the match score before it even happens? I mean, it certainly is if you agree to lose before a match, but what about if you make a deal to benefit both teams? Seems nice to me, but what about others?

No... I don't mean to tell teams to be ungracious during matches... Just suggesting to teams that they should plan out a match with more effort.

Set the match score before it even match? Teams do it all the time. They plan how their machine would run, exactly what moves their robot will do, so they should have a pretty good idea what scores they will get.

I don't think it is wrong for teams to talk with their opponents like this: "Look. The more score we both get in this coming match, the better it will help us in the ranking. So lets keep out of each other's way to score as much points as possible, and still play our best at the end and see who win."

FIRST didn't tell us we HAVE to play nice with our opponents and help them score, but I think it's a nice way to play this game. The way I see it, if you tell your opponents that all 4 robots should stay out of each other's way (except when fighting for goals), there will be less chance of contacts between robots. This will give drivers a great chance to practice, and your machine will be healthier for finals.

Mean while, by no means am I telling teams to stop being competitive in matches. Play nice when you feel like getting lots of points, or play to beat the opponent when you are trying to prove your machine. I am just saying, IF you are planning to rely on teams to play nice and score high with each other, why not take it to the next level and tell your opponents about that. Take away a few surprises and get higher seedings.

Besides, play nice and stay out of each other's way doesn't mean you should give up on the goals and lose. When there are 30~45 seconds left, make the right moves to win the match.

It might even make the qualifying rounds more interesting, if the first minute is used to set up good scores, and the second minute for some intense action to see who wins.


And yeah, I guess I am wrong about the max QP teams can get, but you get my idea... Just trying to explain how teams could score big by spliting the points almost even with their opponents. There are some teams who could get to both sides, but not many of them. Just the idea of an extension was already not popular among teams... What are the chances of getting 4 really really long robots to score a 86 vs 84 match?

Hey, if there is a round where such 4 robots got together who can do a lot of balls, take my suggestion and make a 86 vs. 84 match happen. 84 points is already a great QP adding to your average. Consider it.