Poll:What do you think the effect of G14 will be?

[Bongle]

This is a poll, vote your opinion. I'm not going to post my opinion (yet) for fear of skewing the poll results.

By "affect outcome", I mean that you think that missing a supercell will generally cause a team to lose that would have otherwise won. I know there are lots of cases where this may or may not happen, but this poll is about the general case.

Edit: Assume that by supercells, I mean "supercells or empty cells". There wasn't any room to put that in the poll.

[SWIM]

Boring games as good teams try not to score too much.

[Taylor]

I really don't see the 2x or 3x score happening very often.

[Herodotus]

I have feeling that many matches will see a 2x or 3x score, but I don't think the supercells will be an important part of any matches until late in the season. You aren't going to see all of the supercells being scored probably until a Atlanta or IRI, so I don't see this rule having much effect.

That said, I still think it is treading on thin ice.

[Bongle]

My personal opinion is option 1: Teams will fairly commonly break the 2x or 3x barrier (especially with the QA clarification that 2-0 scores are >3x), and since the 3 teams on the alliance that does will be scattered among several subsequent games, it will be very common to have matches with 1 or more removed supercells or empty cells. However, I don't think scoring 3 supercells is entirely likely. 20 seconds is a very short period to score them.

[Teched3]

In my opinion, I feel the rule is poor, but we will have to live with it, I guess. If the penalties occurred during the match that was played that caused the lopsided score that would be one thing. But carrying over a penalty that will affect two other teams in an alliance that had nothing to do with that score goes beyond any rationale I can provide.

[Ryan Caldwell]

So long as they don't remove more than the 2 super cells, i don't see this rule being a huge issue.

If all three members of an alliance get caught being completely dependent on scoring 80 points in the last 20 seconds to win, they probably have a very poor strategy to begin with.

I still think it's ridiculous that FIRST plans to punish teams for doing the assigned task TOO WELL. I mean honestly, this game has started to tick me off a little bit. First they lock the bumper rules down enough to limit any major chassis innovation, next they punish teams for being good at what they're told to do?

I guess no skill goes unpunished...

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by CraigHickman

I still think it's ridiculous that FIRST plans to punish teams for doing the assigned task TOO WELL. I mean honestly, this game has started to tick me off a little bit. First they lock the bumper rules down enough to limit any major chassis innovation, next they punish teams for being good at what they're told to do?
I guess no skill goes unpunished...

I'm sure many will throw rocks at me for this, but I think you're totally missing the point. The culture WE are RESPONSIBLE FOR CULTIVATING according to our founder and national advisors dictates that we find ways to compete like crazy and treat each other well in the process. This game has most clearly represented that ideal. If you choose to pummel an opponent, then there is a corresponding consequence. That consequence may or may not happen often at events.

Secondly, the challenge we are given this year is different than in the past. If chassis innovation isn't it, then....I dunno ... maybe spending our time ensuring all teams can move well on this slippery surface might be a good use of our time??? Maybe looking into these cool traction control systems?? Maybe scheduling a few more outreach demos?

Sorry for sounding snide, but I see this whole thing as a wake up call. If we continue down this road and get too focused on our individual robots then we run the risk of caring too much about winning at the game which, in turn, leads to the same ills we have is sports and popular culture in general.

namaste,
kressly

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

I'm sure many will throw rocks at me for this, but I think you're totally missing the point. The culture WE are RESPONSIBLE FOR CULTIVATING according to our founder and national advisors dictates that we find ways to compete like crazy and treat each other well in the process. This game has most clearly represented that ideal. If you choose to pummel an opponent, then there is a corresponding consequence. That consequence may or may not happen often at events.

I understand the point of FIRST being inspiring innovation and science, and I'm not going against that. However, with any attempted change, you need to penetrate the population before change can happen. If you just start doing something different, you'll be that odd group instead of a changing force. If you instead start with a competition, make it known, and then begin the shift, I'm willing to bet that change will happen MUCH faster.

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

Secondly, the challenge we are given this year is differnt than in the past. If chassis innovation isn't it, then....I dunno ... maybe spending our time ensuring all teams can move well on this slippery surface might be a good use of our time??? Maybe looking into these cool traction control systems??
Maybe scheduling a few more outreach demos?

Already done all this. Is it too much to be allowed to compete like crazy too?

New chassis design: Check.
We can drive QUITE well on slick surfaces. Check.
If there were any rookie teams near us, we'd be helping them. Check.
Traction control: Check.
Outreach demos: Check.

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

Sorry for sounding snide, but I see this whole thing as a wake up call. If we continue down this road and get too focused on our individual robots then we run the risk of caring too much about winning at the game which, in turn, leads to the same ills we have is sports and popular culture in general.

namaste,
kressly

[Nate Smith]

Originally Posted by CraigHickman

I still think it's ridiculous that FIRST plans to punish teams for doing the assigned task TOO WELL. I mean honestly, this game has started to tick me off a little bit. First they lock the bumper rules down enough to limit any major chassis innovation, next they punish teams for being good at what they're told to do?

I guess no skill goes unpunished...

Looking at things this way, you could potentially say that FIRST has been "punishing" teams since...

2008 - Ranking Points = Loser's Score
2007 - Ranking Points = Loser's Score
2006 - Ranking Points = "unpenalized score of winning or losing alliance, whichever is lower"
2005 - Docs no longer available on FIRST's site (that I can find)
2004 - Same
2003 - "Both teams in thewinning alliance get their own score plus twice the losing alliance’s score in EP's"
2002 - "Each team in the winning alliance receives triple the number of match points of the losing alliance in QPs"

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

I'm sure many will throw rocks at me for this

I know better than to throw rocks at a guy with better aim than me, so I'll lob 'em real easy.

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

If you choose to pummel an opponent, then there is a corresponding consequence.

Why does that have to be the case? It seems like I see an article like this every week. The winning coach always says something like this one: "We show the most respect for our opponents by continuing to play hard." I invariably find myself in agreement. It's no fun to get blown out, but if a team is going to slow themselves up because they're crushing you, it borders on demeaning.

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

If we continue down this road and get too focused on our individual robots then we run the risk of caring too much about winning at the game which, in turn, leads to the same ills we have is sports and popular culture in general.

I appreciate this sentiment, but I don't think you'll find what you're looking for in <G14>. I'm not going to feel better about losing 29-10 when I know the only reason it wasn't 90-0 is because my opponents found it beneficial to ease up. The culture change has to come from things with no selfish subtext, or no one's going to buy into it. This is the kind of behavior we should be encouraging.

[Joe Ross]

Like Nate said, in the past, we were penalized for blowing out the opponents through the ranking score. However, the last two years, you were penalized for scoring for your opponent, so there was not much you could do about it.

I think I prefer this year's approach of more directly penalizing you for blowing out your opponents, but making it trivial to score for them.

[GaryVoshol]

Need a new option for this poll: Referees, field resetters and queuers will tear out their hair in frustration while trying to implement it. OK, I know the GDC said the field management system would track it. But there's more information needed before starting the match than with the ball randomizer last year. I see delays while the crews check to see that every team has the authorized number of balls in their stations.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Need a new option for this poll: Referees, field resetters and queuers will tear out their hair in frustration while trying to implement it. OK, I know the GDC said the field management system would track it. But there's more information needed before starting the match than with the ball randomizer last year. I see delays while the crews check to see that every team has the authorized number of balls in their stations.

Also the right kind of balls... I mistook an Empty Cell for a Moon rock a couple days ago while it wasn't brightly lit.

Having the walls be clear will help a bit, and having distinctive team uniforms won't hurt, but it is going to be tricky.

That said, I think the effects won't be felt for the most part, as most teams who get 2x-3x their opponents' score won't need the cells.