|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: A statistical look at G14
I think our team's plan is to make G14 a non-issue by just attempting to dominate every match, even the ones we have no super cells in.Hopefully we'll never have a supercell available to us for just that reason.
Doesn't change the fact that it's a horrible rule though. |
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: A statistical look at G14
Quote:
There have been plenty of years where walking through the pits all you hear is "We're matched up against (insert amazing performing team here) 3 times today, we can't win against them." This rule may even the odds a little bit. It's similar to when your score was based on a multiple of the losing score, it brings the score a little closer together without implementing a mercy rule. |
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: A statistical look at G14
Quote:
My problem with G14 is not what I do, but what my alliance partners do. I can control my team, but I can't control what my randomly paired partners did the match before. |
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: A statistical look at G14
Quote:
but in general, i think the idea for G14 is a good one, but it will certainly not be as much fun as trying to get the highest possible score. another bad thing about week 1 this year is the open "fix-it" windows, which seems to allow all teams unlimited time to work on parts for our robots, at least that is how i read it. |
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: A statistical look at G14
Quote:
|
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: A statistical look at G14
In order to truly align the statistical data with what we should expect from this year's game, we need to figure out which game had similar point values for the game pieces and for the endgame. 2008's scoring happened in one spot for each alliance (except for hybrid mode), so I don't believe 2008's matches provide a valid anaylsis for 2009's midgame. 2008's endgame only provided a maximum of 24 points and also wasn't even an option if the alliance didn't already have great midgame execution potential.
In all honesty, 2007 has the correct structure. Even though the game pieces could be worth more individually, there was in fact a sort of scarcity of them relative to this year. This scarcity combined with the 'factor of two' multiplication will provide a more direct correlation to what we can expect in 2009 midgame results. Also, the endgame point values are identical -- in the last 20 seconds, teams have the opportunity to score 60 points without having to rely on mistakes made by their opponents. Then, do a statistical analysis on teams who would have lost a match had their endgame point values been slashed in half (alot of research, yes). I know for a fact that the '07 VCU finals and '07 Einstein finals would have had a different outcome. Overall, I'm pretty sure that what we'd find is that alliances who put more emphasis on midgame active robot scoring in teleop would have prevailed over alliances who went for defense/endgame strategies. |
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: A statistical look at G14
Quote:
2008 or 2006 would be better choices than 2007 as proxies because your score was approximately proportional to what you did in the game and how many times you did it, much like Lunacy. Lunacy will have less lopsided scoring than either because even if your alliance's robots are all horrible and can't score, your human players can still rack up some points. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A statistical look at G14
regardless of the statistics using previous games to determine the quality of a rule, the rule isn't going to change. however, if we use practice games to gain the data, it would at least give us a reasonably estimate of how often the rule will come into effect
|
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: A statistical look at G14
Quote:
2008's endgame was the deciding factor in some matches, but didn't have as much impact as 2007 or 2009. 2006's endgame was somewhere in between, though many teams incorporated it into the way they scored to begin with...so it then was no longer an isolated 'endgame' strategy like 2007 was or 2009 will be, which rules it out. None of the three years had direct and, consistent human player scoring so it's difficult to gauge where that plays into statistics. While I agree that 2007's exponential scoring and where you placed ringers had more effects than quantity of ringers, I could still argue that 2007's scoring is more directly related to 2009's than any other because 2009 has similar potential for spikes in scoring. For dumper bots, the scores spike relative to the maximum score just as much as placing ringers in a row did in a typical match -- remember, in 2007 rows of 6 or more were fairly rare. However, my point was more to the fact that 2007's game strategies were more inlined with 2009's spectrum of strategies: on one end you are a bot who can score the game piece magnificently, and on the other you are a defensive bot who's primary strategy is to hold out for the endgame. <G14> makes the latter less attractive as a primary strategy for a game like Lunacy or Rack 'N Roll, and I believe we would immediately see that if <G14>'s implications were put into effect for 2007 rather than 2008/2006. Though I don't want to do that much work, and neither does anyone else I don't think. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| <G14> Shenanigans? | Team1710 | Rules/Strategy | 123 | 12-01-2009 12:42 |
| My case against <G14> | bduddy | General Forum | 58 | 07-01-2009 15:20 |
| Rule G14 | KE5WGE | Technical Discussion | 3 | 03-01-2009 17:36 |
| Statistical Analysis of Regional Competion Scores | rourke | Regional Competitions | 9 | 08-04-2004 01:05 |
| Statistical ? | aman | Regional Competitions | 0 | 09-03-2003 11:23 |