paper: Stop the Stop Build - Counterpoint

[bobbysq]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I'm absolutely certain that kids prefer scoring points to not scoring points

https://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2010cur_qm100

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Originally Posted by bobbysq

https://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2010cur_qm100

Based on the ranking system for that year, the students from both alliances are essentially still scoring points.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by bobbysq

https://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2010cur_qm100

In this example, all six robots on the alliance are scoring as many ranking points as possible. They are achieving the competitive objectives of this game. What's confusing is the way the real time score displayed conflicts with the way ranking points are calculated. The match isn't being thrown to deliberately make the teams perform worse than optimal - they are genuinely trying to increase the score as much as possible. It's just that in 2010, if you were going to lose the match, scoring on the goals your alliance is "supposed to" score in only helps your opponents.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by bobbysq

https://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2010cur_qm100

This is a strategy choice, not a complete lack of robot functionality.

Choosing to not score as part of a strategy is one thing, being completely unable to score regardless of choice is what I was commenting on.

[Brian Maher]

Originally Posted by bobbysq

https://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2010cur_qm100

In this match, 1114's alliance does prefer scoring points over not scoring points, but they are prioritizing seeding points over game points.

<tangent>

For anyone curious how this works, in 2010, ranking points were awarded for each match as follows:

Winner: 5 + (Winner's Score) + 2 * Loser's score
Loser: (Winner's Score)

Seeding points from that match, if blue tried to win and the final score was, for example, 20-10:
Red (469, 111, 888): 5 + 20 + 2*10 = 45
Blue (1114, 231, 288): 20 = 20
Top two ranked teams and seeding scores:
1) 111 296 (251 + 45)
2) 1114 291 (271 + 20)

Seeding points from that match as it happened (30-0):
Red (469, 111, 888): 5 + 30 + 2*0 = 35
Blue (1114, 231, 288): 30 = 30
Top two ranked teams and seeding scores:
1) 1114 301 (271 + 30)
2) 111 286 (251 + 35)

By playing a 6v0 match, the blue alliance was able to claim ten additional seeding points and deny their opponents ten points compared to a hypothetical losing 3v3 match.

1114 and 111 had been going back and forth for the #1 seed, and this match gave the Simbots the ability to earn that coveted first opportunity to pick. Whichever alliance had 469, in all their game-breaking-ness that year (watch the match if you don't know what I mean), would be nearly unstoppable at the division level and a powerful contender to win Einstein. Essentially, this match and its strategy won 1114 the division.

This is my go-to example of how important it is to analyze the ranking system each year and that the best strategy may not always be the most intuitive one.

</tangent>