<G14> Shenanigans?

[Chris Hibner]

I kind of like the rule, but I don't like it as is. I think there needs to be a minimum floor on the score differential.

Here is where I see a problem: let's say you have a bunch of teams that don't have their robot working yet, so none are powerhouse teams. The Red Alliance sinks one hail mary and the Blue Alliance sinks three. These are the only scores of the match.

In the above scenario, the Blue Alliance teams would lose all of their Super Cells for the next match despite their ineptitude. Also, what if you win 2-0?

Once again, I would like to see some sort of floor on this rule, like it doesn't kick in until the winning alliance scores at least 20 points (or some other number).

Hopefully there will be enough scoring where this won't be an issue, but if past competitions are any indication, this might be an issue.


Edit: Doh! Someone above posted this same thing while I was typing.

[ATannahill]

I think there should be at least 5 points between scores before it is taken into effect, If you do 4-0 you lose nothing. If you do 6-2 you lose nothing. I think this fixes all problems.

I also agree with Billfred that you can score for your opponents so this shouldn't be too big of a problem.

[nicktoptine]

Don't forget that once an empty or super cell is put onto the field that any robot can gain control of it. There are bound to be empty cells floating around the field, whether an alliance is down a couple or not. An alliance down an empty cell or two can possibly pick up the empty cells from the opposing alliance, push them through the airlock, and get all their super cells anyway. If an alliance is down a super cell, and the opposing alliance's payload specialist haphazardly throws a super cell onto the field, then any alliance can pick it up and score it.

I really like this rule for that reason. It adds another level of strategy to the gameplay. If you're against an alliance that is down a couple of super cells, do you use yours and risk that your opponents will pick them up and get your 60 (your alliance's 4 super cells) points plus their 30 (the two super cells the opposing alliance still has)? Or do you hold your super cells back and try to outscore your opponent with just moon rocks?

[M. Faticanti]

I understand FIRST's intent here but the rule does not make sense to me.

3 teams win match 1 by more than 2x < 3x. At match 6 one of those 3 winning teams plays (less one super cell via the rule) but their 2 partners in match 6 both lost their first match. Who are we penalizing??

Am I missing something here???

Could we have a match with 0 super cells. Team A won by 2x, Team B won by 3x, and Team C won by 2x, now they are all paired together in their next match. 0 super cells according to the rule.

Take it a step further, all 6 teams in say match 20 meet the above criteria = 0 super cells for both teams

More importantly, who's going to keep track of all this???

The more I think about it it still makes no sense

[markulrich]

FIRST is trying to give a "real-word" engineering experience, but this rule is just the opposite unless you're Microsoft trying to avoid Monopoly Laws. It should be modified or removed, teams learn more from failure than success, having the other team actually trying to bring your score up would just be humiliating. This is another example making the game too much about strategy.

Either putting a cap before the rule went into effect as mentioned above and/or comparing the unpenalized score of both alliances would be a good compromise.

Overall I love this year's game!

[DanDon]

Originally Posted by markulrich

This is another example making the game too much about strategy.

What's wrong about emphasizing strategy? Overdrive had practically no strategy (except hybrid and some defensive maneuvers (i.e. keepaway)). Lunacy is more like Aim High with regards to dynamic strategy, and if I recall correctly, Aim High was one of the more popular of the recent batch of games.

[Cyberphil]

What happens if by some random event, your opponent scores 0, because of penalties, or just robots not working. Than you are a hue dis advantage in the next match.

[Team1710]

Originally Posted by Cyberphil

What happens if by some random event, your opponent scores 0, because of penalties, or just robots not working. Than you are a hue dis advantage in the next match.

I highly doubt that will happen but it will be interesting if it happens.

[GGCO]

Originally Posted by markulrich

FIRST is trying to give a "real-word" engineering experience, but this rule is just the opposite unless you're Microsoft trying to avoid Monopoly Laws. It should be modified or removed, teams learn more from failure than success, having the other team actually trying to bring your score up would just be humiliating. This is another example making the game too much about strategy.

Either putting a cap before the rule went into effect as mentioned above and/or comparing the unpenalized score of both alliances would be a good compromise.

Overall I love this year's game!

I couldn't have said it better. It sounds like socialism to me...

Anyways, what is the purpose of this rule? Not to make some rookie teams feel bad? It makes no sense to me. The really good alliances are going to win because they are superior, even without the supercell! The really bad alliances are going to lose because they are inferior, even with the supercells. The people who get the short end of the stick are the medium skilled alliances. If they get on a good alliance and shut the other alliance out they get gypped in their next round! If anything, it should be implemented during the final rounds. Even then I don't like it.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by GGCO

If they get on a good alliance and shut the other alliance out...

...then they have made a mistake. Their alliance should have employed a different strategy and not shut the other alliance out.

As with last years <G22> ("If you don't want to be penalized, don't break it!"), the proper response to <G14> this year seems obvious to me. If you don't want to start the next match missing a bonus option, pay attention to the score and don't win by a factor of two or more.

[ThunderKate]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

...then they have made a mistake. Their alliance should have employed a different strategy and not shut the other alliance out.

As with last years <G22> ("If you don't want to be penalized, don't break it!"), the proper response to <G14> this year seems obvious to me. If you don't want to start the next match missing a bonus option, pay attention to the score and don't win by a factor of two or more.

<G14> states that the rule is only valid during a "non-surrogate MATCH". We interpreted this as any elimination match.

And there is no way to pay attention to the score. This years scoring will not be like last years where there was live scoring. So one must guess the score.

[ExarKun666]

Originally Posted by ThunderKate

<G14> states that the rule is only valid during a "non-surrogate MATCH". We interpreted this as any elimination match.

And there is no way to pay attention to the score. This years scoring will not be like last years where there was live scoring. So one must guess the score.

Not entirely, the balls in the basket will add up to your raw score, but I can see where penalties will be hard to figure out.

[Greg Marra]

Originally Posted by ThunderKate

And there is no way to pay attention to the score. This years scoring will not be like last years where there was live scoring. So one must guess the score.

There appear to be handheld boxes for Refs to use to keep live scoring. If we presume there is no descoring, this will be completely accurate live scoring:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2242118...7611844292070/

[Alexa Stott]

Originally Posted by Greg Marra

There appear to be handheld boxes for Refs to use to keep live scoring. If we presume there is no descoring, this will be completely accurate live scoring:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2242118...7611844292070/

I think most of us who have ever attended week one regionals (when the field software always has a few kinks yet to be worked out--as in 2006, when the scoring couldn't keep up with rapid-fire autonomous) have learned the risks of trusting live scoring...

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Greg Marra

There appear to be handheld boxes for Refs to use to keep live scoring. If we presume there is no descoring, this will be completely accurate live scoring:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2242118...7611844292070/

There is a new position this year, the Official Scorer. Regional volunteer coordinators were told to get 4 referees, who were to be trained and certified. In addition there will be 6 scorers, who do not need pre-certification.

I'm guessing now - These scorers will attempt to provide real-time scoring using the shown handheld. Then at the end of the match they will come onto the field to confirm the ball counts, based on <T13>.