High Score Low Rank????

[archiver]

Posted by Pat Major.

Other on team #468, Explorer, from BSA/Baker.

Posted on 3/13/2000 10:20 PM MST



Congratulations Chiefs, you were great. Do you have the number of point that your robot scored, including points for the other teams in your 7 qualifying matches. We were competing for the first time. In our 7 matches we scored 80 points ( I wonder how many of the top 16 teams scored 80 points in their 7 matches) we thought that was pretty good. Are allies scored 21, are opponents 47 and 41. (robot points only)
It did not get us ranked in the top 16 teams. I guess it's the luck of the draw. I would like to see FIRST change their 'socialize scoring system', and give individual that do well credit. How about top 4 team scores and the top 4 individual scores make the
top 8, or the top 8 team scorer pick partners from the top 8 individual scores.

[archiver]

Posted by Patrick Seeney.

Student on team #469, Las Guerrillas, from Oakland Robotics and Lawrence Technological University and Magna Seating Systems, Nachi and Kuka Robotics.

Posted on 3/14/2000 5:13 AM MST


In Reply to: High Score Low Rank???? posted by Pat Major on 3/13/2000 10:20 PM MST:



our team scored a total of 174 points, and we were the 15th rank team, i believe rochester, the number one team, scored 281 points. So that is how it went there.

Pat

[archiver]

Posted by Pat Major.

Other on team #468, Explorer, from BSA/Baker.

Posted on 3/14/2000 5:38 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: High Score Low Rank???? posted by Patrick Seeney on 3/14/2000 5:13 AM MST:



: our team scored a total of 174 points, and we were the 15th rank team, i believe rochester, the number one team, scored 281 points. So that is how it went there.

: Pat
I'm sorry I wasn't very clear. I'm wondering how our team would have ranked if the scoring was, you received the points that your robot scored not three times the loser score. If there was normal scoring did we do well at 80 points scored by our robot in seven matches ( not counting human scorers)

[archiver]

Posted by Nate Smith.

Other on team #66, GM Powertrain/Willow Run HS, from Eastern Michigan University and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 3/14/2000 10:26 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: High Score Low Rank???? posted by Pat Major on 3/14/2000 5:38 AM MST:



While there are pros and cons of any ranking system that FIRST chooses to use, I hope they do NOT change it this year...I'm remembering back to the confusion of them testing a new alliance selection system at the GLR(the last regional) last year. I say that we live with what we've been given this year...in general, it seemed to work well at the GLR this year(good teams who may not have ranked in the top 8 themselves were not overlooked), and for those of us who have spent time memorizing the rules(yes, myself included for certain parts), it's just another thing to confuse the strategies that we have worked so hard on this season...

Just my two cents...

Nate

[archiver]

Posted by Pat Major.

Other on team #468, Explorer, from BSA/Baker.

Posted on 3/14/2000 2:37 PM MST


In Reply to: No Changes at this point, PLEASE! posted by Nate Smith on 3/14/2000 10:26 AM MST:



: While there are pros and cons of any ranking system that FIRST chooses to use, I hope they do NOT change it this year...I'm remembering back to the confusion of them testing a new alliance selection system at the GLR(the last regional) last year. I say that we live with what we've been given this year...in general, it seemed to work well at the GLR this year(good teams who may not have ranked in the top 8 themselves were not overlooked), and for those of us who have spent time memorizing the rules(yes, myself included for certain parts), it's just another thing to confuse the strategies that we have worked so hard on this season...

: Just my two cents...
Nate,
I agree, I would not suggest that scoring be changed mid stream. We all knew the system of scoring when we started, and knew that it was done to keep the game exciting. I believe that is a very important goal, I don't think the suggestions I made would have much effect on the excitement factor. I would like your opion on this. I just think that FIRST should look at a change for next year. I think everyone knew that what happened to us could happen to any team. Believe me once it happens
to you, you feel it's your duty to speak up, so it doesn't continue to happen to other teams (in other years). To be honest I don't know if the 80 points (regular scoring, not tripling the losers score) our robot scored would have put us in the top 5 the top 10 or the top 20. If anyone out there had more points than 80 please let me know My gut feeling is it would have been the
top 5. I wonder if anyone from First is keeping track? If not maybe they should in the next regional just to see how often this happens. Remember this is our first year, we are a small team we didn't have money for more that one meet, so this was our one shot. I don't know who the proper person is to contact to make my feelings known. I thanks the Chiefs for providing this
forum. Maybe someone can give me a contact, or maybe someone will contact me. To all readers please be aware that our team had more fun than you can belive, we think FRIST is the greatest thing ever, and we'll be back. I hate to look like the bad apple in the barrel by writing this, but it needed to be said, maybe now I will be able to sleep.
Thanks
Pat


: Nate

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/14/2000 6:34 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: No Changes at this point, PLEASE! posted by Pat Major on 3/14/2000 2:37 PM MST:



I am far from knowing what is in the hearts of men, but I did talk to a few FIRST folks after the Great Lakes Regional.

Here is my impression of FIRST's opinion on the competition.

FIRST is VERY happy with the outcome of the competition.

Basically, they believe they have found a format that allows teams with a HUGE variation in skills & resources to co-exist.

Teams that have large budgets, teams with no budgets, teams with 20 engineers, teams with no engineers, they all have to compete and more or less get along with each other on Friday and Saturday. FIRST really wants to encourage this getting along together thing.

FIRST was also happy with the excitement of the Elimination Rounds. I have to admit that, at least in the case of the Great Lakes Regional, these rounds were full of exciting clips worthy of the evening news.

SO...

I believe that FIRST is very happy with the system they have this year.

I know that there are a number of teams that really were hurt by the luck of the draw in the seeding rounds. But, this is always the case.

The question I guess is did this system have more or less than last year's system?

Also, can a better system be defined that has the attributes that Dean & Woodie & the FIRST gang want to keep?

All good questions.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Pat Major.

Other on team #468, Explorer, from BSA/Baker.

Posted on 3/14/2000 8:46 PM MST


In Reply to: My read of FIRST folks... posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/2000 6:34 PM MST:



: I am far from knowing what is in the hearts of men, but I did talk to a few FIRST folks after the Great Lakes Regional.

: Here is my impression of FIRST's opinion on the competition.

: FIRST is VERY happy with the outcome of the competition.

: Basically, they believe they have found a format that allows teams with a HUGE variation in skills & resources to co-exist.

: Teams that have large budgets, teams with no budgets, teams with 20 engineers, teams with no engineers, they all have to compete and more or less get along with each other on Friday and Saturday. FIRST really wants to encourage this getting along together thing.

: FIRST was also happy with the excitement of the Elimination Rounds. I have to admit that, at least in the case of the Great Lakes Regional, these rounds were full of exciting clips worthy of the evening news.

: SO...

: I believe that FIRST is very happy with the system they have this year.

: I know that there are a number of teams that really were hurt by the luck of the draw in the seeding rounds. But, this is always the case.

: The question I guess is did this system have more or less than last year's system?

: Also, can a better system be defined that has the attributes that Dean & Woodie & the FIRST gang want to keep?

: All good questions.

: Joe J.
Joe,
Thanks for the insight, this being my first year I have no history as a reference. If this was better than past years, it makes me feel better knowing that the system as a whole is benefiting. I did talk to one of your teammates early on Friday and he voiced concerns about the new scoring system. It would have been a pity if your team had been stuck in our position, a lot of people would have missed the great performance you put on, my head is still spinning from watching you remove those balls from your
opponents goal and put them in yours. I think with your versatility you have less of a chance to end up where we did. I can't see you not going all the way to the top every time you compete. I do hope there is someone out there that can give you some competition I didn't see any at GLR. Could you do team 468 a great big favor and let us know how we would have ranked against you if you scored your 7 matches using regular scoring ( not three times your opponents score) and include any points you scored for you opponents (we assume you would have scored those points for yourself) Not that we could ever come close to you head to head. It would be nice for our team to be able to just think about the fact that if the scoring was different we would have ranked up close to the Chief. That would be a great consolation to us.
Hope to hear from you, you can post, or email me at: maj@tir.com
Thanks and Good Luck
Pat

[archiver]

Posted by Chris.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/15/2000 6:47 AM MST


In Reply to: My read of FIRST folks... posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/2000 6:34 PM MST:



I think this year's game has definitely helped getting all of the teams to talk to each other and get along well. However, I still have a major problem with the game:

My problem is that the qualification game and the elimination game are almost two different games (even though the rules are the same). Robots that do well qualifying may be bad elimination teams and teams that are great elimination teams may be very poor qualifiers. (This was also true last year, but to a smaller extent).

It seems to me that the qualification rounds should determine the teams that are the best elimination teams. This is especially true due to the alliance selection process. Regardless of what anyone says, reputation is still more important than reality. This causes many more deserving teams to be passed upon so that teams with a bigger reputation can be picked. This kind of bothers me. (I guess whenever humans are selecting teams, this is going to happen - see UNC in this year's NCAA tourney.)

The one thing I can say is that I can see how FIRST wants to emphasize offense. However, if that is the case I would prefer to scrap the eliminations and do a modified round robin tournament. In this scenario, the teams are divided into small groups that play a round robin. The team with the most Q.P.'s in each group at the end advances. All of the advancing teams then get broken up into groups again and another round robin is played. The most Q.P.'s advances again. Eventually, you will have a winner. This scenario would be a logistical nightmare, but at least it keeps the game the same through the entire competition.

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/15/2000 7:49 AM MST


In Reply to: Two Different Games posted by Chris on 3/15/2000 6:47 AM MST:



Chris,

I agree with you about it being two different games. But, this has always been the case with FIRST to some degree. It used to be 1 on 1 from the quarter-finals on while the game was 3 teams at a time in the early stages of the tourney. Last year it was 'score score score' -- until the elimination rounds and then it became 'get the double and have more triples.' Again, this resulted in two very different games. This year is not really all that different in that respect.

The thing I do find strange is the method of gaining QP's

One way I try to explain the weirdness is to say it is like playing the entire MLB season keeping score and counting wins but then deciding who gets into the playoffs by the number of bunts a team managed to execute successfully. Then, having decided who is in the playoffs, everyone is swinging for the fences because teams that win advance to the next round.

It makes for a very weird season.

Just my view of it.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Greg Mills.

Engineer on team #16, Baxter Bomb Squad, from Mountain Home and Baxter Healthcare.

Posted on 3/15/2000 9:22 AM MST


In Reply to: Bunting to the playoffs... posted by Joe Johnson on 3/15/2000 7:49 AM MST:



:

Joe is right in that it has always been two different games. One BIG difference with alliances & the draft is that a machine can get into the finals without scoring a point. Before you had to have a machine to score or you didn't advance. It seemed really strange that we made to the #6 seed by scoring points and then the game plan in the finals dictated that we do something that we never planned on - play defense or protect our partners back so that they could score. It turned out to be great strategy because Heat Wave can score points and we were able to keep the other guys from scoring.

A couple of thoughts - I'm not sure how I feel about a #1 seed being allowed to pick another seeded team (although it worked great for us here).

It is very possible and even likely that a machine that has only a few capibilities will determine the outcome of the finals just by being a spoiler. I am not sure that I like a machine stopping another that is a superior machine is terms of abilities because it can just push him in a corner. It is far too easy to just get in the way and prevent a wonderful robot from showing his stuff because two minutes doesn't allow enough time to get around.

After watching this year - far more teams will elect to develop a specialty machine and plan on being picked as the perfect partner - it is a very viable plan.

[archiver]

Posted by michael ciavaglia.

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Interior Systems.

Posted on 3/15/2000 10:16 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Bunting to the playoffs... posted by Greg Mills on 3/15/2000 9:22 AM MST:



Winning in the qualifying rounds 1-0 will not make you number one seed. Winning in the elimination rounds 1-0 will make you NATIONAL CHAMPS.

I would win all day 1-0 to become National Champs!!

Mike C.

[archiver]

Posted by Ken Patton.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 3/15/2000 10:42 AM MST


In Reply to: 1-0 ALL THE WAY!! posted by michael ciavaglia on 3/15/2000 10:16 AM MST:



Hey Mike-

I've seen your robot! If theres anybody with high scoring potential (and the ability to vaccuum out the opponents bin - we're still smarting from that!) its you guys. I think of you as the 59-20 guys!

Here's how I get 59-20: All the balls in your bin (none in opponents), your opponents hanging on the pole, and you guys on the floor helping your ally get 10 points.

Unless that is, you guys know how to hang too......? As Joe would say, DO TELL! )

Nice job BTW - Congrats again!,
Ken

[archiver]

Posted by mike aubry.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chiefs, from Pontiac Central.

Posted on 3/15/2000 9:27 PM MST


In Reply to: don't you mean 59-20?? ) posted by Ken Patton on 3/15/2000 10:42 AM MST:



Ken,
Thanks for the kind words. We truely do appreciate them, especially from a classy guy like you! But, here's where it get really fun because it's really the 21-20 score that will win the match. (The rest is just insurance) As far as hanging goes, you'll just have to wait and see! When the time is right, there is another surprise in store - we can't let everything show the first time out! This game requires some real strategic thinking, then execution of the plan - and then throw in a little luck! Later, Mike A

[archiver]

Posted by Brett R..

Student on team #201, Viste-Feds, from Rochester High School and Visteon Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/16/2000 8:10 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: how about the 21-20 guys? posted by mike aubry on 3/15/2000 9:27 PM MST:



Oh my gosh, you mean you have more stuff in there? We were surprised when you dropped your jaw open in the finals (we know what it is we just didn't know you had it). Our drivers say you have a really .. er. complex control system, pedals on the floor, switches galore?

[archiver]

Posted by Greg Mills.

Engineer on team #16, Baxter Bomb Squad, from Mountain Home and Baxter Healthcare.

Posted on 3/15/2000 1:50 PM MST


In Reply to: Two Different Games posted by Chris on 3/15/2000 6:47 AM MST:



:
The reality is that reputation is very important. That reputation was earned for a reason. The robot is only a part of the alliance partner selection. Does that team have what it takes to make it through a tough bracket? A ready pit crew with available spares, a series of charged batteries, a robust enough design to handle many back to back rounds, an unflappable driving and coaching team, etc? Are they willing to do what the alliance captain wants? Did they have a scouting infrastructure to help with the next pick or to help with strategy?

If I am lucky enough to be in the position of picking - I know some teams that will get high consideration just because I know what they are capable of.