What do you think of team 131 CHAOS? Pros/Cons

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Ross at 03/06/2001 11:31 PM EST


Engineer on team #330, Beach Bot, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA/JPL , J&F Machine, and Raytheon.


In Reply to: After!
Posted by Andy Baker on 03/06/2001 10:51 PM EST:



: Who knows, seeing a 700 point match may be worth a Big Mac for Jason!

hmmm, my logs show that the bet was for something a little better than a big mac

[archiver]

Posted by Jessica Boucher at 03/07/2001 7:04 AM EST


Student on team #237, Sie-H2O-Bots, from Watertown High School and Eastern Awning Systems & The Siemon Company.


In Reply to: How old is the bet?
Posted by P.J. Baker on 03/06/2001 10:37 PM EST:



:The tourney format might keep the essential pieces of a 700 pt alliance from actually coming together.

Hate to say this, but I hope this happens. The selection process for the divisions is "semi-random", and I personally think it'll be much more of an intriguing challenge to have to rely on lesser-known robots.....in the past few years, I personally think that the picking at Nationals is predictable, because you barely ever see the newer teams 'breaking through the glass ceiling' simply because they are new, and they aren't as familiar to the teams that are seeded high, which leans more towards the older teams.

Maybe, since the focus has changed (aka, choosing within your division), the finals will be a little more varied.

-Jessica B, #237

[archiver]

Posted by Chris Orimoto at 03/07/2001 3:35 AM EST


Student on team #368, Kika Mana, from McKinley High School and Nasa Ames/Hawaiian Electric/Weinberg Foundation.


In Reply to: the need to break 700's
Posted by Ken Leung on 03/06/2001 7:38 PM EST:



Hey man,
All of this just re-emphasizes the NEED for a stretcher to top that 700 point total. With a good 'bot in there that can pull the stretcher, then a 700 pointer is definitely possible!
3 robots in endzone, 1 STRETCHER, 2 big balls, 10 small balls = 70
Get all that done in 1 minute or less and as Dr. Joe says "double-double-double-and-a-half"...*bam! slam! thank you ma'am!* AND...you have 700!

Just my personal thoughts...

Chris, #368

[archiver]

Posted by Michael Ciavaglia at 03/06/2001 12:12 PM EST


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


In Reply to: impressive balance... but a tactical error
Posted by JVN on 03/05/2001 12:22 AM EST:



John,

I must comment on a couple of things.

Yes, we were supposed to place a big ball on top of the goal with the bridge balanced. We have practiced doing that. However, we practiced this from the end of the bridge...Not the side of the bridge.

Bottom Line: We didn't get it done... We tried... We're sorry.

Second, that was the second match of the elimination round. We had to beat a score of 392! A score of 350 would not be enough. The plan the alliance had would get us 400 or 408. But the big ball was necessary for the alliance to have another chance.

Any score less than 392 would eliminate the alliance. That is why we needed to score with the big ball. Not because we were being selfish or greedy.

This year is different than past years. For example:

Team A goes first and scores 100.
Team B goes next and scores 95.
Team A scored higher so they go next and score 60.
Team B must score more than 100 for the round to continue. So even if Team be scores 95 again they would still be eliminated.

The method is not the same as previous years. Under previous years rationale, Team A won round 1, Team B won round 2. Let's play a 3rd round to determine the winner. Not true this year!!

Finally, thanks to Team 157 for picking us and to our partners Teams 131, 151, and 176. Sorry we let the team down. I wish things worked out differently.

Sorry Again,

Mike Ciavaglia


P.S. John, this was definitely not the case. See below.


: I've been spending a TON of time on strategy...
: after what i saw at UTC i'm doing even more... it's
: all about the strategy this year people... leave your ego at the door...

: Chaos, you got ripped off on that one

[archiver]

Posted by Matt Ryan at 03/06/2001 6:12 PM EST


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


In Reply to: Tactical Error... Yes Was It Necessary...Most Definitely
Posted by Michael Ciavaglia on 03/06/2001 12:12 PM EST:



: John,

: I must comment on a couple of things.

: Yes, we were supposed to place a big ball on top of the goal with the bridge balanced. We have practiced doing that. However, we practiced this from the end of the bridge...Not the side of the bridge.

: Bottom Line: We didn't get it done... We tried... We're sorry.

: Second, that was the second match of the elimination round. We had to beat a score of 392! A score of 350 would not be enough. The plan the alliance had would get us 400 or 408. But the big ball was necessary for the alliance to have another chance.

: Any score less than 392 would eliminate the alliance. That is why we needed to score with the big ball. Not because we were being selfish or greedy.

: This year is different than past years. For example:

The first two matches (A plays one and B plays one) are to decide who gets to "set the bar" (using Team 126's terminology, THANKS AGAINS FOR PICKING US!!!).

Lets say A got a higher score than B in those first matches. A scores "60" in its next match. B, to stay in the finals, MUST get higher than "60" points. Then, if this happens, A must get higher than that score to "stay alive". It keeps going until one team can't top the other (by "team", I mean "alliance&quot.

: Team A goes first and scores 100.
: Team B goes next and scores 95.
: Team A scored higher so they go next and score 60.
: Team B must score more than 100 for the round to continue. So even if Team be scores 95 again they would still be eliminated.

[archiver]

Posted by Michael Ciavaglia at 03/07/2001 7:47 AM EST


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


In Reply to: Re: Tactical Error... Yes Was It Necessary...Most Definitely
Posted by Matt Ryan on 03/06/2001 6:12 PM EST:



Matt,

Your example is wrong. Check it out below.

: The first two matches (A plays one and B plays one) are to decide who gets to "set the bar" (using Team 126's terminology, THANKS AGAINS FOR PICKING US!!!).

: Lets say A got a higher score than B in those first matches. A scores "60" in its next match. B, to stay in the finals, MUST get higher than "60" points. Then, if this happens, A must get higher than that score to "stay alive". It keeps going until one team can't top the other (by "team", I mean "alliance&quot.

This is not true!!

Goto Rule T12, Scenario 1

Match 1, Alliance A scores 100. Match 2 Allaince B scores 90. So Alliance A plays in Match 3 because it scored more points in Match 1. In Match 3 Alliance A scores 65.

Now Alliance B must score more than 100 to stay alive. In the scenario Team B scores 99. Alliance A is declared the winner.

There is no first round, second round, third round this year. Once match 1 and 2 are played, the alliance that scored fewer points has ONE chance in Match 4 to best the higher score.

It's weird!!

This is correct.

: : Team A goes first and scores 100.
: : Team B goes next and scores 95.
: : Team A scored higher so they go next and score 60.
: : Team B must score more than 100 for the round to continue. So even if Team be scores 95 again they would still be eliminated.

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson at 03/07/2001 8:35 AM EST


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


In Reply to: Not True! Check out Scoring Rule T12
Posted by Michael Ciavaglia on 03/07/2001 7:47 AM EST:



Can I just start out by saying that the method FIRST has devised for playing the Elimination rounds is about as confusing as anything they have ever come up with.

I have tried to explain it to many folks and it is nearly impossible to do without pen & paper or 15 minutes or, depending on the audience, both.

On the drive back from UTC, Mike Ciavaglia and I discussed this topic and we have a modest proposal:

Play the finals the Bocci way.

Each alliance gets 3 games to use per match.

The highest ranked alliance (A) goes 1st.

Other alliance (B) goes 2nd and keeps playing until either they best the score of their competition or they run out of games.

If (B) bests (A)'s score before they run out of games, it is now (A)'s turn to try to best (B)'s highest score.

Play continues until an alliance is out of games and has not yet bested the score of their competition.

This method is MUCH easier to explain and it has the added benefit of making sense ;-)

What do folks think?

In the interest of fairness, there are 2 things I don't like.

#1, If an alliance is very good, they only play one game per match which is not as satisfactory as playing at least 2 games to advance (though I suppose the advancing team will have the fact that they advanced to console themselves with).

#2, If an alliance is playing a very good alliance they have to run 3 games in a row trying to beat a score they are not likely to beat -- kind of a downer.

I have just thought of another potential problem. It involves the tiebreakers that FIRST has set up. The issue is a bit complicated, so I will hold it for another time. In the mean time, you may want to read the tiebreakers. It is not that hard to think of a very strange result that follows from the tiebreakers they have devised.

Joe J.