Team Update #18

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Adam Freeman

Its already bad enough that we spent 6 weeks designing a HOSTBOT that can achieve all the tasks of this game at a very high level, only to have it marginalized by a minibot that every team can build in one day.

I'd like to offer another perspective on this....

We have a mediocre HOSTBOT that designed and built itself, without any effort on our part. It can play at the 90th percentile at an "easy" regional.

A couple of times during our matches, our HOSTBOT had a GAME PIECE right there ready to HANG, but the darn PEG dodged out of the way, and the GAME PIECE fell to the floor.

I wonder if we should have received points in that situation?

[Matt Krass]

Originally Posted by squirrel

I'd like to offer another perspective on this....

We have a mediocre HOSTBOT that designed and built itself, without any effort on our part. It can play at the 90th percentile at an "easy" regional.

A couple of times during our matches, our HOSTBOT had a GAME PIECE right there ready to HANG, but the darn PEG dodged out of the way, and the GAME PIECE fell to the floor.

I wonder if we should have received points in that situation?

I think maybe FIRST is starting to make your brain go in to that oatmeal state....

Seriously though, I think Adam is right, regardless of how well the minibot sensors work, or not, they're a little overweighted in the competition. I've seen a single minibot beat an entire other alliance scoring for the whole game. Just the minibot score. It's kind of frustrating, but it's probably also a topic for another thread.

Matt

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

I think maybe FIRST is starting to make your brain go in to that oatmeal state....

Seriously though, I think Adam is right, regardless of how well the minibot sensors work, or not, they're a little overweighted in the competition. I've seen a single minibot beat an entire other alliance scoring for the whole game. Just the minibot score. It's kind of frustrating, but it's probably also a topic for another thread.

Matt

Analysis of the game scoring should have happened in week 1 of the build season (if not the 1st day).

... and if your alliance cannot score more than the points of 1 minibot then you'd best be able to stop your opponent from launching said minibot.

On topic: The rules state that it is the order of the sensors being triggered by minibots, not the order of minibots to the top of the pole. Lets focus on what triggers (or doesn't trigger) the sensors rather than blame the system when a minibot doesn't trigger the sensors. Does anyone have factual data on the triggering mechinism and its failure modes?

[Matt Krass]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Analysis of the game scoring should have happened in week 1 of the build season (if not the 1st day).

... and if your alliance cannot score more than the points of 1 minibot then you'd best be able to stop your opponent from launching said minibot.

On topic: The rules state that it is the order of the sensors being triggered by minibots, not the order of minibots to the top of the pole. Lets focus on what triggers (or doesn't trigger) the sensors rather than blame the system when a minibot doesn't trigger the sensors. Does anyone have factual data on the triggering mechinism and its failure modes?

My gripe was with the distribution of the points, just because I'm voicing it now doesn't mean I didn't have a gripe with them in week 1 of build. I don't think it's a question of robot ability, I think it's a question of absurdity, one singular game action should not be able to offset the rest of the game so dramatically, to me that screams unbalanced.

Originally Posted by TheOtherGuy

It sure would be nice if we new all the specifics of the towers, but as it stands, there is a rule that says it is triggered when the sensor trips, and not before then. Sure, the towers may have some degree of unreliability, but if the rules are built that way (and this team update suggests FIRST is standing by their towers), then we all have to play the game they designed, whether we like it or not.

I remember a rule in 2008 that caused large amounts of penalties and was seemingly overdone, but it was a rule, and we all followed it.

I agree that the game should be played by the rules, even if I don't particularly like them. I think it's about time that FIRST gave us some concrete data to work with, if they're going to stand by the towers, we have a right to know what they're (the towers) expecting us to do exactly. I'm honestly getting a pretty sour impression from FIRST on this whole situation.

Matt

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

My gripe was with the distribution of the points, just because I'm voicing it now doesn't mean I didn't have a gripe with them in week 1 of build. I don't think it's a question of robot ability, I think it's a question of absurdity, one singular game action should not be able to offset the rest of the game so dramatically, to me that screams unbalanced.

Matt

In qualifications this seems to be true, but as far as Einstein (and many of the finals) goes, the robots will be much more important than the minibots. Teams will need minibots, don't get me wrong, but I don't think they will take home many banners. Minibots are worth at most 50 points, which can be offset by 3 ubertubes and 2 logos. I believe that the game is offset during qualification matches, but creates an incredible dynamic in finals matches.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by lineskier

In qualifications this seems to be true, but as far as Einstein (and many of the finals) goes, the robots will be much more important than the minibots. Teams will need minibots, don't get me wrong, but I don't think they will take home many banners. Minibots are worth at most 50 points, which can be offset by 3 ubertubes and 2 logos. I believe that the game is offset during qualification matches, but creates an incredible dynamic in finals matches.

The minibot score can't be offset at the high level of play, every competent alliance come champs will fill the top and middle rows along with some ubertubes. The sole decider in the win will be the minibots.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

The minibot score can't be offset at the high level of play, every competent alliance come champs will fill the top and middle rows along with some ubertubes. The sole decider in the win will be the minibots.

I would pick 148 or 1114 with no minibot over the fastest minibot any day.

Both robots put up over an average of 33 pts per match (only robots, excluding minibots)

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by lineskier

I would pick 148 or 1114 with no minibot over the fastest minibot any day.

Both robots put up over an average of 33 pts per match (only robots, excluding minibots)

Come champs, every competent alliance in eliminations will be scoring the entire top and middle row. Elite teams, great teams, or even just good teams, it will happen.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by lineskier

Both robots put up over an average of 33 pts per match (only robots, excluding minibots)

I'm not sure you can say that without watching all of their matches and figuring out how many points they scored on tubes each match and then averaging them. I'm all for using statistics, but they must be reported properly. I'm not sure ERC (or opr) supports that statement.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I'm not sure you can say that without watching all of their matches and figuring out how many points they scored on tubes each match and then averaging them. I'm all for using statistics, but they must be reported properly. I'm not sure ERC (or opr) supports that statement.

I think considering both had a double cap, and were both powerhouses on the rack, 33 points as a guesstimate is pretty fair. Also I think I am safe to say what separates 1114 from 148 is their minibot.

that being said I think you are right. I shouldn't have stated that they average that, I should have said that I estimate it. just so everyone know the E in ERC stands for estimated. Sometimes I forget to argue that these numbers are rough estimates. I chose 148 and 1114 specifically because of their reputation right now.

[The Lucas]

At Chesapeake, the only bot I saw touch the plate and not trigger the tower were slow minibots that either didn't exert the required force or ran out of time (I am not sure which was the case).

There was a case in QF 2-1 where our Minibot was the the first to reach the top but the lights on the tower turned off. The rest of the towers lit up with 4 lights, 3 and 2 when the next 3 minibots hit. We still got the 30 pts for first so I guess they looked at the triggers in FMS and the lights just malfunctioned.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by The Lucas

At Chesapeake, the only bot I saw touch the plate and not trigger the tower were slow minibots that either didn't exert the required force or ran out of time (I am not sure which was the case).

There was a case in QF 2-1 where our Minibot was the the first to reach the top but the lights on the tower turned off. The rest of the towers lit up with 4 lights, 3 and 2 when the next 3 minibots hit. We still got the 30 pts for first so I guess they looked at the triggers in FMS and the lights just malfunctioned.

If the tower lights turned off (as opposed to continuing to cycle up and down), that means the tower was disabled. Apparently the referees later determined they were incorrect to do so.

EDIT: Or, there was a major malfunction of the tower.

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by bduddy

If the tower lights turned off (as opposed to continuing to cycle up and down), that means the tower was disabled. Apparently the referees later determined they were incorrect to do so.

Thats what I thought initially but I was told that wasn't the case. I am really not sure.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by squirrel

I'd like to offer another perspective on this....

We have a mediocre HOSTBOT that designed and built itself, without any effort on our part. It can play at the 90th percentile at an "easy" regional.

A couple of times during our matches, our HOSTBOT had a GAME PIECE right there ready to HANG, but the darn PEG dodged out of the way, and the GAME PIECE fell to the floor.

I wonder if we should have received points in that situation?

This isn't even close to a fair comparison.

The pegs work, and they are purely mechanical; there is no mystery magic involved.

The towers currently "work", and during week 3 regionals there are some good points of evidence that show they aren't perfect.

[TheOtherGuy]

It sure would be nice if we new all the specifics of the towers, but as it stands, there is a rule that says it is triggered when the sensor trips, and not before then. Sure, the towers may have some degree of unreliability, but if the rules are built that way (and this team update suggests FIRST is standing by their towers), then we all have to play the game they designed, whether we like it or not.

I remember a rule in 2008 that caused large amounts of penalties and was seemingly overdone, but it was a rule, and we all followed it.