High Score??

[archiver]

Posted by Rob Zeuge at 2/19/2001 12:02 PM EST


Coach on team #121, Rhode Warrior, from University of Rhode Island and Naval Undersea Warfare Center.



I know this is a question that is in the polls, but now that teams can more realistically grasp this years game, what do you think the high score will be?

Also, what do you think the top qualifiers will have for averalge scores?

I think the top scpre will be somewhere around 600, and that the top qualifiers will have averages slightly over 200.

I will also make a bold prediction and say that VERY few of the top qualifiers will be in their position because of 10% bonuses earned from scoring their own big ball.

What do all of the great minds out there think about scoring?

Rob Zeuge
rzeu0470@postoffice.uri.edu

[archiver]

Posted by Katie Storch at 2/19/2001 8:10 PM EST


Student on team #86, Resistance, from Stanton College Prep and Vistakon.


In Reply to: High Score??
Posted by Rob Zeuge on 2/19/2001 12:02 PM EST:



Well, I'll just speak in reference to the big balls.

I sincerely doubt they are where the real points are. Speaking from the perspective of our 'bot, any team that sets a big ball on top of a goal we balance has about a 50/50 chance of it staying up there. Our robot sets both goals down on the bridge from the ground. The goal will wobble around a fair amount as we set it on the bridge... so it will take luck for it to stay on there.

We pretty much nixed the idea of the big balls at our first conceptualization meeting. It just seemed too difficulat a task to build a robot to cross the brdige without being top heavy. And of course.. the matter of fitting within the given dimensions.. so it would probably have to fold up, etc. It just seemed too much effort for as little point value as it was worth.

[archiver]

Posted by Josh Vetter at 2/19/2001 11:51 PM EST


Student on team #548, Robostangs, from Northville High School and BOSCH.


In Reply to: Re: High Score??
Posted by Katie Storch on 2/19/2001 8:10 PM EST:



But the multipliers are useless unless you have points to back them up. Two big balls on the goals, on the bridge, is 40 points, if you use up all of your time. We have driven back and forth over the bridge, then balanced on it, without the big balls ever falling off.


: Well, I'll just speak in reference to the big balls.

: I sincerely doubt they are where the real points are. Speaking from the perspective of our 'bot, any team that sets a big ball on top of a goal we balance has about a 50/50 chance of it staying up there. Our robot sets both goals down on the bridge from the ground. The goal will wobble around a fair amount as we set it on the bridge... so it will take luck for it to stay on there.

: We pretty much nixed the idea of the big balls at our first conceptualization meeting. It just seemed too difficulat a task to build a robot to cross the brdige without being top heavy. And of course.. the matter of fitting within the given dimensions.. so it would probably have to fold up, etc. It just seemed too much effort for as little point value as it was worth.

[archiver]

Posted by Katie Storch at 2/20/2001 4:43 PM EST


Student on team #86, Resistance, from Stanton College Prep and Vistakon.


In Reply to: Re: High Score??
Posted by Josh Vetter on 2/19/2001 11:51 PM EST:



We've spent a lot of time testing.. but no one has thought to even try balancing a big ball on top. We could probably do it if we don't drive too crazily.

But if you have a reasonable amount of balls in the goals.. which you can have your human players fill, then you're good to go. Ten balls in one goal with both goals on the bridge is worth 10 points.. and a x4 multiplier. That takes care of a big ball..

And.. two big balls on the goal on the bridge is actually worth 80 points... 10 per big ball and x2 per balanced goal. So, I do see your point. It does work for points.. but so do small balls without having to have a robot designed to deal with those balls.

And I believe the initial question was.. were the top teams going to be there because of a 1.1 multiplier? And I still think that they won't be.

[archiver]

Posted by Matt Ryan at 2/21/2001 4:20 PM EST


Student on team #69, HYPER, from Quincy Public Schools and Gillette.


In Reply to: High Score??
Posted by Rob Zeuge on 2/19/2001 12:02 PM EST:



Lets take a look at the scrimmage held in Quincy.

Highest ALLIANCE Score: 288
Highest TEAM Score: 317 (rounded up to the nearest whole point)

That was the ABSOLUTE HIGHEST on the night...I have a hard time seeing ANY score above 350.

I was surprised of how many matches had LESS THAN 120 points...the same as if all robots just went to the endzone and the match was stopped (lets assume human players didn't take any shots)...

I think the range this year will be 120-320 points.

FYI, the ABSOLUTE HIGHEST ALLIANCE Score is about 1305...assuming ALL 40 balls are in scoring position...all 4 big balls being supported by a goal...both goals balanced, 4 robots in the endzone, all in less than 30 seconds (29 seconds to get the 3x multiplier)...its basically impossible to get the maximum score.