|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scoring. ACK!
Posted by Daniel.
Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too). Posted on 1/9/2000 7:47 PM MST I am very worried about scoring. Dean has said that the game will be easy to score this year. I don't get it. How is this easy to score? Here are the issues I can see: 1) Flying balls will knock others out of the goals. 2) Robots will knock balls out of the goals. 3) Some balls are worth different amounts than other balls. 4) Robots may or may not be brushing the ground from either the ramp or the bar. 5) A robot may be supporting one or more of the balls within the goal. 6) Burried balls will be very hard to see and count. All in all, this game seems near IMPOSSIBLE to score. Which would be okay, since it's been that way for years now.... ...BUT FIRST has made it VITAL to know exactly what the score is for both teams at any given time, as the differences between scores will be so small. A simple one-ball miscount would mean the difference between winning and losing. Last year, the scores were spread so well that it was usually obvious who the winner was. This year it simply will not be the case. Now this would be solved with realtime scoring but frankly, with balls resting on top of other balls, I can't see how this is possible! I am very concerned about this. Maybe - hopefully - I'm missing something. Any thoughts? -DL |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Robot/Goal scoring: Official Answer Mike Martus | Mike Martus | OCCRA | 6 | 21-10-2003 23:51 |
| User-friendly scoring chart | Jacqui Sutton | General Forum | 4 | 08-01-2003 17:38 |
| Proactive approach to scoring dilemmas | reisser | 3D Animation and Competition | 0 | 02-07-2002 21:54 |
| scoring question | archiver | 2000 | 1 | 24-06-2002 00:15 |
| scoring questions | archiver | 2000 | 3 | 23-06-2002 22:28 |