Alliances in touble?

[archiver]

Posted by Michael Ciavaglia.

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Interior Systems.

Posted on 4/13/2000 2:20 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Alliances in touble? - maybe it's the scoring posted by Trevor McCulloch on 4/12/2000 6:15 PM MST:



You might say that defensive bots were at a disadvantage, but I would say,' Look at our machine we went through X many matches and scored 0 QP's. We will make sure the other alliance has 0 points.' My point is that defensive machines could have marketed themselves like that and who wouldn't want to be partnered with them.

Now the flip side. If I were allianced with them or against them in the same qualifying match, I would be pretty upset if they were trying to keep everyone from scoring just to prove they are a good defensive team. But, it would have been totally within the rules.

What do you think?

Mike C.

[archiver]

Posted by Matt Rock.

Student on team #115, MVRT, from Monta Vista High School and Hitachi Data Systems - 3Com - NASA Ames.

Posted on 4/12/2000 6:59 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Alliances in touble? - reason for post posted by Chris on 4/12/2000 2:52 PM MST:



Even though you may get lowered down in the qp's and stuff i really like the alliances. And about the scoring i really like the copertition (or whatever it was). I think these a great ideas, and its only been in it for 2 years, so i say give it some more time, and then it will work just fine in the end. Good Luck to all the teams staying in it for next year

-Matt Rock
Team 115
(didn't make to finals, wanted to, but still had fun)

: Please don't interpret my post as a complaint for not getting picked. Of course I was upset at not getting picked, but that's not the point. The point is that since Saturday, I've talked to five people who told me that they wished alliances would go away. I've also noticed a lot of people very upset (much more upset than I was). This is not the first time this has happened.. A lot of people posted here after regionals about how upset they were that they weren't picked.

: The point is this: if having alliances (in the current manner) makes many people upset, is it a smart thing? How upset will some people get before they quit FIRST? I'll guarantee that almost anyone that posts on this board wouldn't quit over something like this. However, only a very small portion of the FIRST population posts on this site. I guess that anything that makes people this upset probably isn't in FIRST's best interests.

: Once again, I'm not upset enough about not getting picked to complain about it. However, a lot of people were. To me, that puts up a red flag that something isn't right. People will always disagree with something or another, but I've seen some pretty harsh posts on this board after some of the regionals and the nationals - harsher than over any other subject.

: Okay, now I hoped no one questions my motives. Now I'll shut up and let people post.

[archiver]

Posted by Travis Covington.

Student on team #115, MV ROBOTICS, from Monta Vista High School and Hitachi Data Systems - 3com - NASA Ames.

Posted on 4/12/2000 6:46 PM MST


In Reply to: Alliances in touble? posted by Chris on 4/12/2000 7:05 AM MST:



Hi all

I remember a week or so before nationals some talk about making the competiotion NCAA style.

It would consist of 4 different groups of about 70 or so (spaeaking of this year) And regular qualifying and eliminations in each group. Then you end up with top 4 or so in each group or who will go on to finals against the other top 4 in each group.

This would make the scouting problems absolete. Alot less teams to get to know and also a group to cheer for during finals.

When I read the posts before I was wondering about how the groups would be didvided...Any thoughts? I was thinking seeding at regionals or ranking after finals at regionals...something of the sort. Or just randomly divided.

Just throwing out ideas.

But when I did hear this, I thought it was pretty neat. We sure would not have the problem of teams not knowing other teams.

Any suggestions or thoughts.

Travis-Team 115
(another team disapointed about not being picked)

[archiver]

Posted by Michael Ciavaglia.

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Interior Systems.

Posted on 4/13/2000 2:06 PM MST


In Reply to: Yet another solution posted by Travis Covington on 4/12/2000 6:46 PM MST:



What if FIRST had some type of event (maybe Wed. night before nationals or at some regional) that would choose which team went into which region. For example, we have parobably all seen the lotto drawing where there are some number of balls that are dropped into a glass container and then the 6 balls flow into the top of the container where they can be read.

My suggestion would be for an event to be held to determine which team is placed in which region. This would be totally random and could become quite a spectacle. I could envision teams cheering and hollering as teams and their region were being announced. I also know that there could be logistical problems with this, but I am sure that FIRST could work them out.

Just my 2 cents.

Mike C.

[archiver]

Posted by Janna.

Student on team #349, The RoBahamas, from International Academy and Ford Motor Company.

Posted on 4/13/2000 7:49 PM MST


In Reply to: Lottery Ball Drop posted by Michael Ciavaglia on 4/13/2000 2:06 PM MST:



Yeah, I think that would be fun. It would obviously be totally random...but then you might end up getting in a 'region' with a bunch of really really good robots. And if you're robot is average-good, you would have less of a chance of making it to the finals than perhaps if you were in another 'region.' And *then*, at the end, you couldn't really compare QPs among the regions either since the robot abilities would be varied by region - higher QPs could mean something better in a region with better robots. I don't know. But I think that you can't really find a perfect solution to this- you just can't have all the teams together *and* be known amongst each other at the same time. And the region suggestion definitely has fewer disadvantages than having everyone together. So yeah, good idea. I like it. : )

Janna

[archiver]

Posted by Chris Orimoto.

Student on team #368 from McKinley High School and Nasa Ames.

Posted on 4/13/2000 6:51 PM MST


In Reply to: Alliances in touble? posted by Chris on 4/12/2000 7:05 AM MST:



I've read through most of these posts about the
alliance problem and I think that most teams aren't
angry at the alliances themselves, but angry at the
fact that they didn't get picked for the elimination
tournament. The top 8 teams (16 nationals) are up
there for a reason, therefore they deserve to
participate in such an event as a tournament to decide
the final champions. The alliance thing allows teams
to get to know other teams well, which definitely aids
the alliance picking process.
Now for the scoring system. I believe that getting 3x
the losing team's score adds the aspect of strategy to
the game. This way, big offensive robots can't kick
the crap out of little ones and make out big.
Versatile and consistent robots become much more
valuable over 'super-robots'.
All in all, I hope that FIRST keeps consistent with the
idea of alliances and strategy, and also that they
continue to devise complicated games for us.

[archiver]

Posted by Brownscombe.

Other on team #49, Delphi Knights, from Buena Vista High School.

Posted on 4/14/2000 10:16 AM MST


In Reply to: Alliances in touble? posted by Chris on 4/12/2000 7:05 AM MST:



: The problem if there is one at Nationals is that in the seeding rounds a team will only play with a very small percent of the total robots. At even the largest regional teams played with 25 or so teams out of 60 or about 40% of the teams; where as at the Nationals we played with only about 7% of the teams present. If a team attended two regionals and the Nationals they would have played with about 21% of the teams at some point in the competition if there were no duplicates. The way FIRST makes random choices seems to lead to about 3 or 4 teams being paired in the same games at the regional so the percentages are off slightly.

The Parings at the Nationals could be enhanced if the teams were placed in groups of about 60 teams that play among themselves on all the fields. These groups should contain teams that have not been together before this time. The Top teams from each group could then select alliance members (from the entire group of robots present) for the finals. The minimum number choosing should represent about 10% of the teams present so that almost a third of the teams will be represented in the finals. Also since teams will be selected from each group teams that end up playing in groups that are strong defensively or in groups where scoring is low will not be penalized. This is from a team that averaged 23 points a round and won 6 out of 7 games at the Nationals but placed 109 in the rankings.

The last comment of a long suggestion is what an incredible Game.

[archiver]

Posted by mike graser.

Engineer on team #174, Arctic Warriors, from Liverpool and Carrier.

Posted on 4/14/2000 11:43 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Alliances in touble? posted by Brownscombe on 4/14/2000 10:16 AM MST:



I agree with this suggestion for a number of reasons.

1. 268 teams is too many to pick from, too many to scout, too many to know. People pick on
scores and reputation.
2. Do you know what its like to finish 268th in the seeding rounds? If there were groups of 64 the
worst you would finish is tied for 64th out of 254.
3. People might root for their section or region to win the championship.

To add to the original suggestion:

Regions could be assigned stages on a permenant basis, always on Einstein or Watt for example.
This would make predicting the match schedule easier.

To make regions fair assign each region an equal number of rookie teams and split up the old-timers, Delphi's, UTC's etc..

Alliances are good. But the goals should be:

1. Maximum number of matches for all teams
2. Maximum sense of accomplishment for all teams
3. Strengthen sense of partnership and co-operation
4. Make real friendships and bonds

One last suggestion:

When showing a match on the screen - post the match number on the screen.
Have a board that shows what match is going on - for each stage.

[archiver]

Posted by Brownscombe.

Other on team #49, Delphi Knights, from Buena Vista High School.

Posted on 4/14/2000 1:36 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Alliances in touble? posted by mike graser on 4/14/2000 11:43 AM MST:



: The problem with using one field is that there are slight differences in scoring and interpretation of rules on each field. That along with the fact that every space affects the performance of a team would keep a team from appearing on Einstein only in the Finals for the event and being overwhelmed.

The other suggestions are right on!

Add
FIRST should not be so afraid of publishing results. We all could learn from them. (I realize that winning is not all there is but building better robots is and how an idea functioned against others provides proof)

[archiver]

Posted by Nate Smith.

Other on team #66, GM Powertrain/Willow Run HS, from Eastern Michigan University and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 4/14/2000 2:27 PM MST


In Reply to: Alliances in touble? posted by Chris on 4/12/2000 7:05 AM MST:



: Any thoughts? Does anyone have any ideas as to how to improve the system? Does the system need any improving? Please share your thoughts.

Thinking back to when alliances came into being last year, along with the fact that not everyone would advance to the elimination rounds, I remember a few of the different things that came up. The majority of the comments below this one seem to be pointed towards the fact that the 'new' game structure isn't good because such-and-such a team didn't make it, despite their performance. While I was on one of those teams that, deep down, thought that we had put on a good enough showing to make it into the finals as a chosen ally(our 23-6 solo win on Friday comes to mind), we have to look at how much the competition has grown in the past few years. As Dean said at closing ceremonies, this is growing at a rate of 50% a year...which means that, eventually, it will simply not be possible to accomodate all the teams at nationals, and the regionals will act as qualifiers for the national competition. I believe(and a few other people did too, if I remember the discussions last year correctly), that the fact that not everybody advances was put into place by FIRST to prepare teams for the year that, for the first time, you DO have to qualify for nationals.

People have made comments about how not making it to the 'big show' detracts from the goal of inspiring the students. However, on years when a sports team doesn't make it to the state finals, you don't see half the team dropping out. Instead, they plan for how they can do better next year. Also(speaking from personal experience now), for the past two years, I was with a team that, while we thought we had a good machine, never quite pulled off making it into the finals. However, after 2 yrs, I'm still here, and more involved with FIRST than I ever was. So, rather than saying that a loss causes a loss of interest, I believe that it causes MORE interest, as the students who came so close in years past push even harder to get to the top of the heap.

Just my thoughts...

Nate