The Big Question

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 7/16/99 11:57 AM MST


In Reply to: The Big Question posted by Mike on 7/15/99 11:23 PM MST:



I agree with Jon on this one. Although it's possible to get unlucky with partners, there's a catch that allows a good robot who had that misfortune to get called up into the finals. Perhaps more matches would eliminate the effects of luck? I’ve always been a fan of that change. Other than that, this is a great system. Matches were thick with strategy and outlined by teamwork. It was a great thing to see, and really fun to be tangled up in.

In regards to the strategy, I thought the alliances provided a wonderful opportunity for teams such as 177, 45, and my own 192 to roll up their sleeves, forget about floppies, and play some D. Every spectator sport has people on defense. Defense is exciting. What's the fun of watching a whole bunch of robots wander around and gather floppies? The excitement is lacking. There needs to be someone blocking, someone stealing, or someone getting lifted off the puck (watch match 40 of the NASA Ames regional). Without a partner, teams would be too busy gathering floppies of their own to worry about their opponents.

My one complaint about the game this year would be the basis for ranking the teams. In the finals, a robot does well by winning its matches. In the qualifiers, robots that win won’t necessarily make the top 16. Robots need to have high scores to move up in the ranks. So lets say a robot looses 4 out of 6 of it’s matches, but one of those wins is a 540 (lets say they had a stroke of luck with a good partner). If rating was based on wins, this robot wouldn’t have done quite so well. Ratings aren’t based on wins though, they’re based on points. Therefore, that 540 averaged a 1620 into their total. This robot is going to end up picking. Should they be? Or are there others who may deserve that position much more. Teams that had a better than 50% win to loss ratio. Perhaps there is some other in-between that takes wins into account a little more than this year’s system did. Any ideas?

-Daniel