Maximum Points

[archiver]

Posted by Raul.

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 1/16/2000 10:13 PM MST


In Reply to: Answer me this first... posted by Joe Johnson on 1/16/2000 9:09 PM MST:



As we look back, 1996 and 1999 were relatively easy years to get a perfect score (we were not in it before that). In 1997, it was practically impossible to get the perfect score of 9 x 2 to the 9th power. In 1998, No one got a perfect score but in my opinion it was easier than it will be this year. In 1998 we could do it if the other robots made the wrong moves (we came close once). In 2000 it will require 4 robots hanging and all balls in the goals - in just the right amounts. The odds are incredible. I will eat my ladder-lift if any alliance does it.

Hey Joe, Hats are easy - will you eat your 4x4 translational drive system?

Raul

[archiver]

Posted by Dodd Stacy.

Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 1/18/2000 12:09 PM MST


In Reply to: Answer me this first... posted by Joe Johnson on 1/16/2000 9:09 PM MST:



I'm going to predict that we will see a general shift in strategy after the first 2 or 3 rounds of Qualifiers. I agree that the Teams controlling the flow of the match will probably err on the side of winning for sure. The alliances then looking clearly at a third or fourth good drubbing will ask themselves how to play out the last 30 seconds of the match. They've lost the first 2 or 3 with 15 - 20 points each, and it's coming clear that they are not going to seed into the Eliminations.

So do they play diligently to get the max points that their overwhelming opponents allow in this match? This curries favor with that particular opponent, showing what a good Beta team player they are, and helps that opponent to get seeded.

Or do they say, ok, we're not getting seeded this way ourselves and we're just getting beaten up, so let's show everybody what we're capable of defensively starting now? Let the seeding sort itself out, and we'll be visible and desirable as a killer defensive partner for the winner-take-all Elimination match strategies. And by the way, if none of the teams that cross our path get seeded because of that, then tough. They just didn't figure out the strategic options and machine offense capabilities well enough.

I think the people worried about wussification of the game may be surprised.

Dodd

[archiver]

Posted by mike aubry.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chiefs, from Pontiac Central.

Posted on 1/18/2000 9:20 PM MST


In Reply to: Prediction posted by Dodd Stacy on 1/18/2000 12:09 PM MST:



: I'm going to predict that we will see a general shift in strategy after the first 2 or 3 rounds of Qualifiers. I agree that the Teams controlling the flow of the match will probably err on the side of winning for sure. The alliances then looking clearly at a third or fourth good drubbing will ask themselves how to play out the last 30 seconds of the match. They've lost the first 2 or 3 with 15 - 20 points each, and it's coming clear that they are not going to seed into the Eliminations.

: So do they play diligently to get the max points that their overwhelming opponents allow in this match? This curries favor with that particular opponent, showing what a good Beta team player they are, and helps that opponent to get seeded.

: Or do they say, ok, we're not getting seeded this way ourselves and we're just getting beaten up, so let's show everybody what we're capable of defensively starting now? Let the seeding sort itself out, and we'll be visible and desirable as a killer defensive partner for the winner-take-all Elimination match strategies. And by the way, if none of the teams that cross our path get seeded because of that, then tough. They just didn't figure out the strategic options and machine offense capabilities well enough.

: I think the people worried about wussification of the game may be surprised.

: Dodd

Sounds reasonable to believe that, that may happen. The only thing is the winning alliances in the later rounds may also have to change strategy to keep a reasonabaly high score. Upon recoginition that this was happening, they would have to work harder to score enough points to win - yet avoid any serious interaction with the opponent. The last thing one must remember is that defending against a ghost doesn't really show anyone any real capability now does it? So once the winning team is far enough ahead, they would just simply go to a neutral corner and wait to be declared the winner, as the losing defender was too busy showcasing their defensive capability against no one.

[archiver]

Posted by Joshua Berthiaume.

Student on team #131, Chaos, from Manchester Central HS and Osram Sylvainia.

Posted on 1/19/2000 8:50 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Sounds about right - but will that ever be boring posted by mike aubry on 1/18/2000 9:20 PM MST:



On a coment about how the Qualifycation points the way that there set up,I think that it will provide an interesting set up because it keeps the teams closer in the maximum amout in QP's and the lowest amount of QP's it makes it easier for the teams lower seeded to catch up to the teams seeded in the top twenty, making it harder to pull away into the unsubstantial lead. Making the game not get boring keeping teams on the watch for loosing their seed.