|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
Quote:
People, make sure your partners can move and have autonomous ... else you risk an inevitable loss. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
Quote:
As for leveling the field, yes and no. It's not so much a leveling the field effect as it just made making a dominant bot that much harder for everyone. The top level teams have been sunk down, so they are no longer immortal, but the bottom level has also fallen and often provides easy targets for the elite teams to feast upon. The statement that rings the most true is that each alliance is only as strong as its worst member (assuming the other alliance isn't blinded by the strength of their good bots, which is often the case, and doesn't strategize properly). If the alliance has one bad bot, they will get eaten alive. If an alliance has three quality machines, they can make life difficult for the top teams, although not always beat them. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
Quote:
I didn't see that match (being a bit busy at BAE this weekend ). Was that at DC? |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
Yes it was. Quarter-final 4-1. 2199, 1727, and 836 beat 2377, 272, and 1731 65-64 after a 10-point penalty. It was a nail biter in every respect.
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
The pin game is huge this year. We were able to win OKC using effective pinning at the end of matches and the whole reason is because of the flooring. If a bot lost any sort of momentum they were screwed. In about 4 of our elimination matches we held an opponent down for at least 45 seconds at a time, which worked really well for the last 30 seconds. I will say though that the ultimate game changer is the empty/ super cells. If you can't get one in the trailer, you'll probably lose based on the matches I saw first hand. A good HP with a couple of super cells can decimate a teams chances of winning.
Last edited by wcamp1742 : 28-02-2009 at 21:07. |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
Quote:
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
Proof is in the pudding. Analyze the xml data from FRC spy and you'll see the same powerhouse teams at the top. And yet - two of the absolutely top teams, teamed together, got beaten in the quarterfinals by the eighth seed.
Good teams still can do well. But there has been a broad evening across the board. For the top teams - this will be a tough adjustment. You can't simply destroy the other alliance anymore. There's a big chunk of luck involved. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
Quote:
|
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
At the Peachtree (GA) Regional, using the serpentine selection with this year's game seemed to give an advantage to the lower seeded alliances.
With the exception of Alliance 3 vs. Alliance 6 in the Quarter Finals, every elimination was an "upset" (the lower seeded alliance defeated the higher seeded alliance). One possible explanation is that the higher seeded alliances would have two really good robots, and one that wasn't so good that got scored on a lot, and cost their alliance the win. Unlike previous games such as Overdrive (2008) where two good robots could easily outscore three below-average robots, in this game one bad robot will get scored on a lot and drag down the alliance. This year, an alliance is only as good as their weakest team. |
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
What has been neglected so far in this discussion is the impact that defense has played on the game. From what we've seen so far, many, although not all, of the offensive powerhouses are veteran teams with much experience. However, in the elimination rounds, there seems to be a good market for defensive tanks to pin and neutralize the opposing scorers. That means that any team with a hefty chassis, good drivers, and maybe a solid human player is a viable third alliance partner. Many rookie teams have seized that opportunity to become an integral part of a winning alliance, even if their human player is the one scoring instead of their robot.
So far, there's no doubt that the veteran teams are seeding higher, scoring more, and playing better during the qualifying matches. I do think though that the strategy change we've seen in the elimination matches (defense starts to matter) has left the door wide open to many different teams to be successful, including newcomers. Last edited by JackG : 16-03-2009 at 20:47. |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
I know what happened with our alliance at Peachtree which was the #1 seeded alliance, was one of our robots broke in 3 out of the 4.5 quarterfinals matches. Our alliance was set up with one purely defensive bot that couldn't score, 1 scoring robot that ran empty cells, and 1 very high scoring robot. When the second scoring bot went down and couldn't move we couldn't win. Even with only 1 scoring robot, we managed to tie one match and only lose by 4 points in another match. The one match we were all functioning, we one by a very large margin, invoking the wonderful G14 penalty.
I guess the moral of the story is that no matter how good an alliance is or how good of a robot you have, there is still a great deal of luck involved in this competition. From what I have seen the field really hasnt changed much. Teams that traditionally do well have continued to do well. The only big difference has been the influence of the human player. Now, teams with a so so robot can end up seeding very highly due strictly to an amazing human player. |
|
#12
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
The whole idea of leveling a playing field is pointless. No matter how much you change the conventions and toss out an entire teams CAD library making them start from scratch, there are always going to be elite teams who have the smarts and resources to overcome anything you can throw at them. Every year it is obvious at first week regionals that some teams do start off way ahead of the pack and as the weeks progress they gain just as much experience as everyone else. Some will catch up after repairs and tweaks but some don't stand a chance to close the gap by the championship. Although it does get more exciting and competitive as the season rolls on it becomes kinda predictable.
|
|
#13
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
It does seem that this year the rules have boxed in creativity this year, and I think the speciality flooring has a little to do with that also.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| [Official 2008 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2009 game... | dlavery | FRC Game Design | 69 | 23-08-2009 19:54 |
| [Official 2008 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2008 game... | dlavery | FRC Game Design | 25 | 20-02-2008 23:31 |
| [Official 2007 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2007 game... | dlavery | FRC Game Design | 44 | 17-12-2006 17:05 |
| [Official 2006 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2006 game... | dlavery | FRC Game Design | 29 | 08-01-2006 00:21 |
| [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game... | dlavery | FRC Game Design | 37 | 26-10-2004 23:15 |