[Official 2006 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas

[katiyeh07]

Originally Posted by BurningQuestion

Well, I am not sure exactly how "radical" this idea is, but since it would be a change from last year's system, I think it belongs in this thread.

I am surprised that no one has mentioned any reform to the penalty system. There were many complaints this year about proportionality of the penalties that were assessed, as compared to the points that were usually scored in a match.

Therefore I propose the following solution:

Why not assign a "penalty coefficient" to each of the rule infractions that can occur?

If we used this year as an example:

INFRACTION...|...PENALTY COEFFICIENT
---------------------------------------
LOAD ZONE INTERFERENCE - .85
HP INFRACTION------------ .95

Say the blue alliance scored a total of 50 points, and had 1 load zone infraction and 2 HP infractions. The red alliance had a total of 70 points, and only 1 HP infraction. The formula for determining the score with penalties for each alliance would be:

[((.85)^(# of Load infractions))*((.95)^(# of HP infractions))] * Raw Score

In this case, for blue alliance:

(.85)^1*(.95)^2 = .77
.77 * 50 = 38.5 .. (round up to 39 to give the blue alliance benefit of the doubt)

For the red alliance:

(.85)^0*(.95)^1 = .95
.95 * 70 = 66.5 .. (round up to 67 to give the red alliance the benefit of the doubt)

In this case, red would win, 67 to 39. By the old rules, blue would still have lost, but with an even greater and more devastating margin. The score would have been 60 to 0 ... very disproportionate (plus red would have gotten no qualifying points).

I realize that there are some quirks to this system that would probably have to be accounted for. But hey, it's just an idea, and ideas can be improved by more than one person.
What do you think?

-- Jaine

That's quite the innovative idea, but the penalties were that big for a reason. So we wouldn't want to get them. They were for safety purposes. I personally think that 20 point penalties for shoving is minimal. The point of the game is to get a high score, and work together. Defense is something that should be involved in that, but not to the extent that it has been in the past. Penalties are there for a reason. The game is just a pedistal, it's not really the focal point of FIRST in my opinion. Building the robot and learning is.

[663.keith]

the scoring idea you proposed looks really good and fair. However, It does not lend itself to outside spectator interaction very well. it is very difficult for Joe-six-pack off the street to understand a first game that has penalties that are similar to a sport like basketball or football. Imagine how confused he would be if we started giving him a large formula about who wins and who loses

just my $.02

[Arefin Bari]

Originally Posted by 663.keith

the scoring idea you proposed looks really good and fair. However, It does not lend itself to outside spectator interaction very well. it is very difficult for Joe-six-pack off the street to understand a first game that has penalties that are similar to a sport like basketball or football. Imagine how confused he would be if we started giving him a large formula about who wins and who loses

just my $.02

Tell you the truth, when the game is first announced (every year), I always get confuse until I go back and read the rules one more time and watch the Animation that Dave makes for us every year.

Every single game that FIRST has come up with has a lot of little details that get discussed throughout the season. For example, FIRST Triple play had a lot of details. When someone asked me what was the game, I said its a Tic-Tac-Toe game where you place the tetra (I explained it to them what a Tetra was) on the goals.

What I am trying to point out is, the idea that was thrown in here by Jaine is a very good idea. If we ever have a situation like that, us FIRSTers need to understand it. When it comes to public, they are more interested in knowing what your robot does more than how the game is scored.

[Billfred]

This might not be radical, but it does fall under the tournament as far as I can tell.

In the manual, there is a Regional Champion (or simply Champion at the Championship). However, the banners the winning teams simply read "WINNER" instead.

Without getting into too deep a philosophical thing (it is widely said that everyone who competes in FIRST is a winner), would it be possible to get the champions' banners to read Champion instead?

[ChrisH]

How about adding a Mentor's round?

Of course if we did that we'd also have to bring back "drop the lowest score" in the QP system. That way the Mentors couldn't ruin your standings all by themselves.

I'm assuming the IRI mentor definition would be used.

[Conor Ryan]

Originally Posted by ChrisH

How about adding a Mentor's round?

Of course if we did that we'd also have to bring back "drop the lowest score" in the QP system. That way the Mentors couldn't ruin your standings all by themselves.

I'm assuming the IRI mentor definition would be used.

the problem with doing this is that some teams, unlike many others don't have enough mentors to have a drive team. However I do like droping the lowest score idea again. Every team goes to a competition with one match that they'd like to forget.

[c-squared_2006]

Personally, I would like to see the continued increase in the programming field. I would love to see the auto mode have a bigger impact...

And perhaps a new shape for the playing field, just to twist things up a little...

I'll stop before my mind takes me somewhere crazy.

Just my opinion, don't hurt me!

[Collmandoman]

"Radical Idea #3:
Autonomous mode at the *end* of human-control mode. Then when a match is close, you have to rely on something you cannot control directly - much more exciting! "

by far the best idea here =P

[Billfred]

Here's something radical, although I do wonder whether I'm a bit late to the dance. (55 days until Kickoff--I'd imagine they've got a bit of the work done by now.)

Suppose that on Thursday, we have our normal practice day. Then, first thing Friday morning, we have alliance selections.

And for better or worse, in sickness and in health, that is your alliance for the remainder of the competition, both qualification and elimination.

Of course, this would require regionals to have capacities divisible by three, but it sure would be interesting.

[Andrew Blair]

How would you decide who got to pick first? Random pickers? That'd work, and would really promote teamwork, but if you got stuck with a bad team, you'd be in some serious trouble for the entire regional.

[Andrew Blair]

This way late... and reviving an old thread, but what if by completing a task in autonomous (i.e. hitting a switch), you got to start early? That would definently give teams an edge, promote autonomous, and be rather simple to implement.