OCCRA
Go to Post However, as a philosopher, while you need math, you can probably talk your way out of it. - sciguy125 [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
View Poll Results: What do you think the avg score will be for the winning team?
10-20 2 1.85%
20-30 5 4.63%
30-40 19 17.59%
40-50 17 15.74%
50-60 18 16.67%
60-70 14 12.96%
70-80 10 9.26%
80-90 16 14.81%
100-110 5 4.63%
110+ 2 1.85%
Voters: 108. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-06-2002, 08:36 PM
CMC
 
Posts: n/a
Question Avg Score

What do you think the avg score of the games will be?
Reply With Quote
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-06-2002, 09:03 PM
George1902's Avatar
George1902 George1902 is offline
It's a SPAM thing...
AKA: George1083; George180
FRC #0180 (S.P.A.M.)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 803
George1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond repute
after or before the multiplier?
qualifying or elemination rounds?

George
S.P.A.M.
Team 180
__________________
George

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-07-2002, 05:21 PM
Joel J's Avatar
Joel J Joel J is offline
do you..
no team
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,445
Joel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond repute
for the record: 65 - 90 average qualifying points (after the multipliers)
__________________
Joel Johnson

Division By Zero (229) Alumni, 2003-2007
RAGE (173) Alumni, 1999-2003
Reply With Quote
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-10-2002, 08:06 PM
Jan Olligs's Avatar
Jan Olligs Jan Olligs is offline
Registered User
#0448 (Crandroids)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bloomfield Hills, MI
Posts: 103
Jan Olligs is on a distinguished road
At the NASA/VCU Langley regional was, I think in the 80's to 90's. I suppose that the average scores will increase as the season proceeds.
__________________
I have great faith in fools - my friends call it self-confidence. --- Edgar Allen Poe
Reply With Quote
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-10-2002, 08:32 PM
gniticxe's Avatar
gniticxe gniticxe is offline
B.C.O.M. Forever!
AKA: Brian Gattman
no team (FRC2910 - Jack in the Bot / FRC365 - MOE)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 259
gniticxe will become famous soon enough
Unless I am highly mistaken, team 122, #1 seed at VCU had an average score in the 60s.
Reply With Quote
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-10-2002, 10:49 PM
Tom Fairchild's Avatar
Tom Fairchild Tom Fairchild is offline
Nice Guy
no team
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 308
Tom Fairchild will become famous soon enoughTom Fairchild will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to Tom Fairchild
Quote:
Originally posted by gniticxe
Unless I am highly mistaken, team 122, #1 seed at VCU had an average score in the 60s.
You are mistaken. Our final average qualifying score was 87.4, or somewhere right around there. In terms of actual score per round, good question. 2 goals, 2 bots, and 10 balls give or take for each match. Must've been around a 50 then for our actual score in each match.

~Tom Fairchild~
Reply With Quote
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-11-2002, 07:13 AM
Ken Leung's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Ken Leung Ken Leung is offline
Dare to Live!
FRC #0115 (Monta Vista Robotics Team)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Palo Alto, California
Posts: 2,120
Ken Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Ken Leung
Post Averages seems to point to 50~60

The average scores seems to point to about 50~60 points, depending on a team's seeding.

I see a lot of 30 something vs. 20 points match, which would have a 60 for winner's QP... and the loser get 20.

Then there are a lot of good 35 vs. 20 something, which means winners get about 70~80 while loser still get 20. So far the average of that is about 40~50...

There there were some excellent matches where the score was 40's and 30's vs. 30's, which would get about 90~100 QP for winners and high 30's for losers. Average of that about 60.

And a couple of rounds where teams get 20 vs 0 or so, and both alliance get really low QP's, which would be thrown away if it's the lowest score, which is very likely.

As a result, most of the top seed teams should get about high 50~60's because they got a some number of 100 QP for winning, a good number of average matches with around 50~60's by winning, few 20~30's for losing, and ones or twices with low 10's and low 20's for bad luck.

This would explain why they are top seeds. You got to win quite a bit to become top 8.
Reply With Quote
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-11-2002, 07:19 AM
Ken Leung's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Ken Leung Ken Leung is offline
Dare to Live!
FRC #0115 (Monta Vista Robotics Team)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Palo Alto, California
Posts: 2,120
Ken Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Ken Leung
Also, advice about QP's

Also, I just thought about this.

In a competitive regional where all the teams play smart and robots perform really well... The best qualifying points you can get from a round is a 66 vs. 64 points... (two robots two goals with 26 balls vs. two robots one goal with 34 balls), which mean a 192 QP... Even the losing alliance could get a great deal of QP's with 64...

(OR a 65 vs 65 tie)

So, I think that teams should work out between each others... Especially since teams know who they are paired up with and who they are going against. Work ahead before the match, arrange that balls robots don't get blocked when they are scoring balls, and leave the goals up to the competitive nature of the game.

Even if not both alliances have ball robots, they should still let the ball robot go around and score balls for both sides. In the qualifying rounds, the whole 2 minutes was a bit long sometimes. So let your opponent go around and score some QP for you. Mean while, you should include scoring for opponents as a big part of your strategy. If you plan it out smart, you can let opponents score while you still win the match.

Yes, you would have to rely on your opponent sometimes with this stragety... So go ahead and have a good talk with your opponent before the matches about this.

There shouldn't be any reason stopping you from working with your opponents. Look at how well 4 teams could work together from last year. Look at the big picture, and don't be afraid to let your opponents score. It will help out in the long way, until finals.


I think it would be really interesting seeing a 66 vs 64, or a 65 vs 65 tie. I can imagine how loud the teams will cheer when that happen.
Reply With Quote
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-11-2002, 05:14 PM
Manoel's Avatar
Manoel Manoel is offline
Registered User
FRC #0383 (Brazilian Machine)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
Posts: 608
Manoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via ICQ to Manoel Send a message via MSN to Manoel
Ken, that's a wonderful idea and I'll work as hard as possible to convince the opposing alliance to do that. However... Isn't it a bit ungracious to set the match score before it even happens? I mean, it certainly is if you agree to lose before a match, but what about if you make a deal to benefit both teams? Seems nice to me, but what about others?
__________________
Manoel Flores da Cunha
Mentor
Brazilian Machine
Team # 383
Reply With Quote
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-11-2002, 09:55 PM
Joel J's Avatar
Joel J Joel J is offline
do you..
no team
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,445
Joel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Also, advice about QP's

Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Leung
Also, I just thought about this.

In a competitive regional where all the teams play smart and robots perform really well... The best qualifying points you can get from a round is a 66 vs. 64 points... (two robots two goals with 26 balls vs. two robots one goal with 34 balls), which mean a 192 QP... Even the losing alliance could get a great deal of QP's with 64...

(OR a 65 vs 65 tie)

So, I think that teams should work out between each others... Especially since teams know who they are paired up with and who they are going against. Work ahead before the match, arrange that balls robots don't get blocked when they are scoring balls, and leave the goals up to the competitive nature of the game.
::shrugs::, thats no fun . . everything else is all good.
__________________
Joel Johnson

Division By Zero (229) Alumni, 2003-2007
RAGE (173) Alumni, 1999-2003
Reply With Quote
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-11-2002, 11:44 PM
dlavery's Avatar
dlavery dlavery is offline
Curmudgeon
FRC #0116 (Epsilon Delta)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 3,170
dlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Also, advice about QP's

Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Leung
In a competitive regional where all the teams play smart and robots perform really well... The best qualifying points you can get from a round is a 66 vs. 64 points... (two robots two goals with 26 balls vs. two robots one goal with 34 balls), which mean a 192 QP... Even the losing alliance could get a great deal of QP's with 64...
Actually, the best qualifying round you could have is one that ended 84-86, giving 252 qualifying points to the winner.

It requires that the four robots playing have the ability to place themselves in both home zones, while the distribution of goals and balls remains as outlined above. There was at least one team at VCU that could do this (the team number escapes me at the moment, but I will find it in my notes). If there are three more teams out there with the same ability, and they all end up in the same match at nationals, it would be VERY exciting!

-dave

-------------------

The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
- Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-11-2002, 11:58 PM
Jan Olligs's Avatar
Jan Olligs Jan Olligs is offline
Registered User
#0448 (Crandroids)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bloomfield Hills, MI
Posts: 103
Jan Olligs is on a distinguished road
Re: Re: Also, advice about QP's

Quote:
Originally posted by dlavery
Actually, the best qualifying round you could have is one that ended 84-86, giving 252 qualifying points to the winner.
What I figured out as maximum score is as follows:
Four robots with extenders to both sides

Blue alliance:
- 4 robots (extenders)
- 2 goals
- 25 balls
=> 85 match points

Red alliance:
- 4 robots (extenders)
- 1 goal
- 35 balls
=> 85 match points

Blue alliance wins by "most goals in scoring position" tie breaker, gets 255 QPs, Red alliance gets 85 QPs.

Did I figure that right or is there a mistake somewhere?
__________________
I have great faith in fools - my friends call it self-confidence. --- Edgar Allen Poe
Reply With Quote
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-12-2002, 12:03 AM
Jan Olligs's Avatar
Jan Olligs Jan Olligs is offline
Registered User
#0448 (Crandroids)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bloomfield Hills, MI
Posts: 103
Jan Olligs is on a distinguished road
Re: Re: Also, advice about QP's

Quote:
Originally posted by dlavery
It requires that the four robots playing have the ability to place themselves in both home zones, while the distribution of goals and balls remains as outlined above. There was at least one team at VCU that could do this (the team number escapes me at the moment, but I will find it in my notes). If there are three more teams out there with the same ability, and they all end up in the same match at nationals, it would be VERY exciting!
As far as I remember, there were 11 out of 66 teams with some kind of extender at VCU. And there were a couple of multiple-extender matches (at least three robots with extenders). Nevertheless, I don't know about teams that can extend in both directions. We can (and can retract completely, too), but I didn't pay that much attention to the number of extenders; all the teams I went scouting had none at all. Bad luck...
__________________
I have great faith in fools - my friends call it self-confidence. --- Edgar Allen Poe
Reply With Quote
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-12-2002, 07:21 AM
Andrew Dahl's Avatar
Andrew Dahl Andrew Dahl is offline
Registered User
#0497 (Orange Crush)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Orange-VA
Posts: 160
Andrew Dahl is an unknown quantity at this point
actually team 122's final total score was 545 points
divided by 7 (they throw out the lowest score )
that makes 122's average score
77.8 qp----122
71.4 qp----497

the thing is is that we were both in the mid 90's unitl we bothgot hit with some low scores near the end



dahl
team 497 2nd Individal (71.4 qp) VCU
2002 winner of the GM Design award
__________________
2002 VCU Regional winner of the GM Industrial Design award

whooot!
Reply With Quote
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-12-2002, 07:23 AM
Ken Leung's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Ken Leung Ken Leung is offline
Dare to Live!
FRC #0115 (Monta Vista Robotics Team)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Palo Alto, California
Posts: 2,120
Ken Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond reputeKen Leung has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Ken Leung
Talking it's like more planning for your match

Quote:
Originally posted by Manoel
Ken, that's a wonderful idea and I'll work as hard as possible to convince the opposing alliance to do that. However... Isn't it a bit ungracious to set the match score before it even happens? I mean, it certainly is if you agree to lose before a match, but what about if you make a deal to benefit both teams? Seems nice to me, but what about others?
No... I don't mean to tell teams to be ungracious during matches... Just suggesting to teams that they should plan out a match with more effort.

Set the match score before it even match? Teams do it all the time. They plan how their machine would run, exactly what moves their robot will do, so they should have a pretty good idea what scores they will get.

I don't think it is wrong for teams to talk with their opponents like this: "Look. The more score we both get in this coming match, the better it will help us in the ranking. So lets keep out of each other's way to score as much points as possible, and still play our best at the end and see who win."

FIRST didn't tell us we HAVE to play nice with our opponents and help them score, but I think it's a nice way to play this game. The way I see it, if you tell your opponents that all 4 robots should stay out of each other's way (except when fighting for goals), there will be less chance of contacts between robots. This will give drivers a great chance to practice, and your machine will be healthier for finals.

Mean while, by no means am I telling teams to stop being competitive in matches. Play nice when you feel like getting lots of points, or play to beat the opponent when you are trying to prove your machine. I am just saying, IF you are planning to rely on teams to play nice and score high with each other, why not take it to the next level and tell your opponents about that. Take away a few surprises and get higher seedings.

Besides, play nice and stay out of each other's way doesn't mean you should give up on the goals and lose. When there are 30~45 seconds left, make the right moves to win the match.

It might even make the qualifying rounds more interesting, if the first minute is used to set up good scores, and the second minute for some intense action to see who wins.


And yeah, I guess I am wrong about the max QP teams can get, but you get my idea... Just trying to explain how teams could score big by spliting the points almost even with their opponents. There are some teams who could get to both sides, but not many of them. Just the idea of an extension was already not popular among teams... What are the chances of getting 4 really really long robots to score a 86 vs 84 match?

Hey, if there is a round where such 4 robots got together who can do a lot of balls, take my suggestion and make a 86 vs. 84 match happen. 84 points is already a great QP adding to your average. Consider it.

Last edited by Ken Leung : 03-12-2002 at 07:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
disablity score Ryan Albright Regional Competitions 23 03-24-2003 08:35 PM
Will There Ever Be Negative Scores? Joe Matt General Forum 30 01-18-2003 05:15 PM
Avg. # of QP points Jack Rules/Strategy 0 01-04-2003 08:20 PM
visual aids for score keeping??? cam-man General Forum 3 03-24-2002 09:37 PM
Will your team behave badly this year? Kris Verdeyen General Forum 19 02-07-2002 08:42 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:47 PM.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi