Breakaway improvement

[pfreivald]

What is the issue with matches that end in a tie? They were a great benefit to both alliances, but not quite as good as a win -- and every tie game I saw (aside from the really low scoring ones) were very exciting to watch.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

What is the issue with matches that end in a tie? They were a great benefit to both alliances, but not quite as good as a win -- and every tie game I saw (aside from the really low scoring ones) were very exciting to watch.

I agree that ties during qualification matches are fine. When they happen during the elimination rounds, however, some sort of sudden death or overtime might be better than replaying the entire match.

[Craig Roys]

1 ball placed in the middle of the field.
6 robots (3 per side) all up against their alliance station walls.
Normal breakaway rules apply except for the starting position and no auton.
Sudden death - 1st alliance to score the ball wins.

I don't have anything against ties, but this could be an interesting scenario...

[CN-U-NEFCU?]

Originally Posted by Craig Roys

1 ball placed in the middle of the field.
6 robots (3 per side) all up against their alliance station walls.
Normal breakaway rules apply except for the starting position and no auton.
Sudden death - 1st alliance to score the ball wins.

I don't have anything against ties, but this could be an interesting scenario...

You would need a time limit to move out of the zone, otherwise two of your robots could park it

[Craig Roys]

Originally Posted by CN-U-NEFCU?

You would need a time limit to move out of the zone, otherwise two of your robots could park it

You start in your scoring zone - you'd want to block the opposite side of the field and you can only have one robot in the d-zone.

Again, I'm not promoting the idea - just thought it seemed interesting.

[SteveJanesch]

Interesting idea, but post-regulation-time tiebreakers of any kind have the potential to screw up the match schedule in a big way. It's one thing if it's the only game going on in an arena that day (pro sport regular season) or much shorter than the game if there's more than one (NCAA hoops tournament, world cup), but it's different when you've got 60+ matches going off at 7 minute intervals in a single day.

[Chris is me]

I'm opposed to any tiebreakers that reward robot functions not necessarily rewarded in the game. People built their robots with specific strategic analysis in mind. It's unfair to teams that decided not to hang to make elevation a tiebreaker, because that makes it more important than it was in the design phase. The same goes for shootouts and accurate ranged kicking.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I'm opposed to any tiebreakers that reward robot functions not necessarily rewarded in the game. People built their robots with specific strategic analysis in mind. It's unfair to teams that decided not to hang to make elevation a tiebreaker, because that makes it more important than it was in the design phase. The same goes for shootouts and accurate ranged kicking.

Unless these tie breakers were in the original game manual. Then those teams DECIDED not to worry about those design requirements.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Unless these tie breakers were in the original game manual. Then those teams DECIDED not to worry about those design requirements.

That's my point. Since they weren't in the original manual, teams made decisions they might not have made if this change was in the manual.

[Leeebowitz]

I have to agree with Chris is me here. I'm not a big fan of tie-breakers.

My team, as is the case with many other teams and especially rookie teams, does not have a kicker or a hanger. Forcing a single robot to take a ball from the midfield into the goal when it struggles to even pull itself over the bump is just cruel. Although this may not end up being the scenario of the tie-breaker, I think that telling a push-bot team that they have one shot on goal will not be easy to enforce unless you come up with a new meaning for the word "shot."

Also, imagine a tie scenario where neither alliance scores during the entire match. Needless to say, it's going to take a while for the teams to score a point if they couldn't within the original 2:15 time limit. Not only would that throw off the match schedule, it would also frustrate all six teams on the field to no end.

I hate to be a naysayer, though. If someone comes up with a plausible way to break a tie fairly without favoring any robot which wouldn't already be favored by the current rule system, I would be all for it and would be excited to see it implemented at the offseason events. Looking back at some of the ideas in this thread, Craig's idea of one ball in the middle could potentially work, although it does make some hanger-bots worthless.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Since they weren't in the original manual, teams made decisions they might not have made if this change was in the manual.

Of course any tiebreakers would need to be in the original manual. This is exactly why things like this should not be implemented (a) after the build season starts, or (b) for off-season events.

[akeisic]

If you ever found yourself defending 469, it was exactly like a penalty shot! As the defending robot, you had to guess which way they were going to go and dive that way! You just hoped you guessed right!

That said, I'd be opposed to having a sudden death in the actual competition as teams that excelled in normal game play may not have the design features necessary to succeed in sudden death. Plus, having elimination rounds reply the match because of a tie was really exciting. The semi's on Newton were really exciting because of the tie! Going to 4 matches in the finals in LA was also really exciting.

The suspense of a 2 minute long match that goes back and forth is much better then a 20 second sudden death shoot out.

[Bill_B]

If there is a problem with this thread it is the word "improvement." In post-season and/or demo playing situations, those participating are free to agree to any and all rules changes of interest to them. Many other games owe extended life to their adaptability and have several alternate versions of the rules. One needs look no further than poker to see how bored people are with the "original" rules since so many variations have blossomed. So if Breakaway were to survive longer than I think it will, perhaps there will be a version of the game that an enterprising FRC team can "play" at supermarkets and malls during fund-raising events. They might even be able to get some additional donations by allowing alternate drivers/kickers/hanger-pilots to get their hands on the controls--for a "fee".

Meanwhile, imagining what could happen with some rule change may be interesting, but I'd really rather find a way to convince my team members to pay more attention to the original rules a LOT earlier in the season.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Bill_B

I'd really rather find a way to convince my team members to pay more attention to the original rules a LOT earlier in the season.

LOL. I'm with you there!

[Craig Roys]

Originally Posted by akeisic

The semi's on Newton were really exciting because of the tie! Going to 4 matches in the finals in LA was also really exciting.

The suspense of a 2 minute long match that goes back and forth is much better then a 20 second sudden death shoot out.

I definitely agree - it was fun being part of those 2 ties in a row...I would have hated for the match to be determined by a shootout or something similar. I would hate to be on the winning or losing end of that scenario.

Actually, I was thinking that my idea listed above would be entertaining as a separate side activity at an offseason event to be played for fun by teams that volunteer to participate. I would not want to see it used to determine the winner of a match.