Level 3 Point Upgrade for Champs?

[JB987]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I'll be honest, I don't even like that they allow themselves the option of changing the points at CMP. The beauty of this competition is we all start from the same set of rules and decide our strategies from there. We then have to either adapt to changing circumstances (rebuild per 67 in 2009) or deal with it.

Climbers without shooters knew they were capped at earning 30 points. Shooters knew they would be more variable in their points and more susceptible to defense. These are called tradeoffs and we all had to make them. We made our bed, now we have to lay in it.


I hope the GDC doesn't touch the scoring.

+1

[stuart2054]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I'll be honest, I don't even like that they allow themselves the option of changing the points at CMP. The beauty of this competition is we all start from the same set of rules and decide our strategies from there. We then have to either adapt to changing circumstances (rebuild per 67 in 2009) or deal with it.

Climbers without shooters knew they were capped at earning 30 points. Shooters knew they would be more variable in their points and more susceptible to defense. These are called tradeoffs and we all had to make them. We made our bed, now we have to lay in it.


I hope the GDC doesn't touch the scoring.

I agree 100%. The GDC should not change the scoring for the champs. We all started out with the same rules and picked a strategy based on the rules and scoring that was presented. In our case we ruled out more than a 10 point hang as our feeling is that the 30 or 50 potential points of climbing is not worth the difficulty / risk of damage. It is a risk/reward thing but everybody looks at it different. That is what makes things interesting is to see the diversity of robots and the change in strategy as the competitons progress.

If the scoring had been higher for climbing out of the gate we would have factored that in and maybe went a different direction.

[MikeE]

Originally Posted by stuart2054

We all started out with the same rules and picked a strategy based on the rules and scoring that was presented.

And that set of rules explicitly included the clause that climbing points could be varied by up to ±10 points. If a team didn't include that consideration as part of your strategy decisions then don't blame the GDC.

The core imbalance is that a relatively trivial capability on all three alliance robots - 10pt hang following the 3-day robot example - gives the same score as the much harder and riskier challenge of climbing the pyramid.

As several posters have already said, dropping the level 1 score to 5-7pts is probably the most likely action if there is any scoring change for Championships.

[JB987]

Originally Posted by MikeE

And that set of rules explicitly included the clause that climbing points could be varied by up to ±10 points. If a team didn't include that consideration as part of your strategy decisions then don't blame the GDC.

The core imbalance is that a relatively trivial capability on all three alliance robots - 10pt hang following the 3-day robot example - gives the same score as the much harder and riskier challenge of climbing the pyramid.

As several posters have already said, dropping the level 1 score to 5-7pts is probably the most likely action if there is any scoring change for Championships.

3 trivial hangs gives the same score as just 1 climber. So... what if the alliance has 2 or three 30 point climbers instead of one?

[AmoryG]

A lot of teams worked very hard building robots that would be competitive given the current scoring system. I'm sure many of those teams knew St Louis would be a different kind of beast and changed their designs accordingly. I just don't see how someone could justify changing the scoring system given the amount of planning and work that would be wasted if the scoring system was changed.

[M.O'Reilly]

Originally Posted by MikeE

And that set of rules explicitly included the clause that climbing points could be varied by up to ±10 points. If a team didn't include that consideration as part of your strategy decisions then don't blame the GDC.

The core imbalance is that a relatively trivial capability on all three alliance robots - 10pt hang following the 3-day robot example - gives the same score as the much harder and riskier challenge of climbing the pyramid.

As several posters have already said, dropping the level 1 score to 5-7pts is probably the most likely action if there is any scoring change for Championships.

Considering a single robot in autonomous frequently goes for 40+ points in 15 seconds, and only one robot to date has climbed for 30 points in a 15 second window, the game is pretty lopsided.

Perhaps those teams predicted correctly how the game would be scored as is, but also consider MikeE's point quoted above.

I would be pretty disappointed at the end of the season if I felt like the hardest task FIRST has even assigned was undervalued. In a 150 point match, it only counts for 20% right now. I think FIRST reserved the right to change the point total to see how the game played out.

[pntbll1313]

Originally Posted by M.O'Reilly

Considering a single robot in autonomous frequently goes for 40+ points in 15 seconds, and only one robot to date has climbed for 30 points in a 15 second window, the game is pretty lopsided.

I'm pretty sure the number of robots that can score 40+ can be counted on one hand so far. And you need to be comparing teleop time to climb time. Since that is when both would be taking place. Probably about the same number of really good shooters can score 30pts in the last 45 seconds that can climb for 30pts in the last 45 seconds. It seems pretty even to me. I agree that this may be one of the hardest tasks FRC has given but at the same time they also released the point values. Knowing both should have determined your teams build strategy.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by M.O'Reilly

Considering a single robot in autonomous frequently goes for 40+ points in 15 seconds, and only one robot to date has climbed for 30 points in a 15 second window, the game is pretty lopsided.

There are 12 teams that have an autonomous OPR of greater then 18. There are 13 teams with a climb OPR greater then 18.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by stuart2054

I agree 100%. The GDC should not change the scoring for the champs. We all started out with the same rules and picked a strategy based on the rules and scoring that was presented. In our case we ruled out more than a 10 point hang as our feeling is that the 30 or 50 potential points of climbing is not worth the difficulty / risk of damage. It is a risk/reward thing but everybody looks at it different. That is what makes things interesting is to see the diversity of robots and the change in strategy as the competitons progress.

If the scoring had been higher for climbing out of the gate we would have factored that in and maybe went a different direction.

Ding Ding Ding! Winner, winner Thunderchicken dinner!

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Ding Ding Ding! Winner, winner Thunderchicken dinner!

Yes, we all started with the same rules, including:

As competition at the FIRST Championship is typically different from that during the competition season, FIRST may alter the value of CLIMBING at the FIRST Championship by up to ten (10) points per Level.

While I agree with much of what has been said, and I hope the points do NOT change, I find some of the arguments being made in this thread surprising. It said in the game manual, on day 1, that the points might vary.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by JVN

Yes, we all started with the same rules, including:



While I agree with much of what has been said, and I hope the points do NOT change, I find some of the arguments being made in this thread, surprising. It said in the game manual, on day 1, that the points might vary.

I viewed that rules as a safeguard in case it was discovered that hanging was as over valued as minibots were in 2011. If the game were unbalanced and climbing or shooting were completely worthless I'd be all for changing it. As it stands, either is a perfectly viable strategy.

My primary complaint is the people that built solely hanging robots and complained that "we tried the harder challenge and aren't being rewarded like we thought we would be".

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I viewed that rules as a safeguard in case it was discovered that hanging was as over valued as minibots were in 2011. If the game were unbalanced and climbing or shooting were completely worthless I'd be all for changing it. As it stands, either is a perfectly viable strategy.

My primary complaint is the people that built solely hanging robots and complained that "we tried the harder challenge and aren't being rewarded like we thought we would be".

I'm with JVN on this. Historically, you are correct about the reasoning for the point adjustment. Who's to say that the GDC didn't add this rule for a completely different reason - that the parameters for Championships would be different than Regionals. When we strategized how we would build this year's bot, we designed it with that possibility in mind, since they were in the rules on day one.

Our build strategy thoughts were:

• Climb points lowered = more shooting cycles, and climb to lower level or not at all.
• Climb points higher = fewer shooting cycles and climb to 30.
• Climb points the same = balance of shooting cycles with 20 point climb.

These strategies are also beneficial within the changing aspects of any match, especially in regional eliminations.

I don't think, given the way the GDC has adjusted the rules in the past, that you can design a bot for a static strategy. Those who say - "This isn't fair, I didn't account for any changes by the GDC" - are going to find it more difficult to advance at Championships.

Steve

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by SteveGPage

Who's to say that the GDC didn't add this rule for a completely different reason - that the parameters for Championships would be different than Regionals. When we strategized how we would build this year's bot, we designed it with that possibility in mind, since they were in the rules on day one.

Because that'd be just plain silly and counterproductive. If this were an engineering competition I'd agree with you that it'd add in a good "real world" twist. But if the goal of this program is to change the culture we would be best to not discourage our kids with what I consider the darker side of engineering (the fact that sometimes the right solution is wrong because some arbitrary group decides your product is bad). Because explaining that they can't throw frisbees for safety reasons was hard. Explaining that that suddenly the rules change "because some dudes in their ivory tower decided it was so" is even worse. Though, I guess "to level the playing field" is even worse... so whatever. The GDC can do whatever they want... I'm just tired of hearing teams gripe about how their 30 point climber isn't an instant win.

[Racer26]

Other thought: How different would the game be if hanging for 10 was changed to hanging for 0?

[MikeE]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

My primary complaint is the people that built solely hanging robots and complained that "we tried the harder challenge and aren't being rewarded like we thought we would be".

I'm not seeing (m)any posts like that.

What I am seeing is lots of posts from people who did not build a pyramid climbing capability into their robots and didn't read the rules completely now complaining that "we don't want any changes to rules which currently benefit us, so that they potentially benefit others".

And there is nothing wrong in that view until it gets wrapped up in self-serving and sanctimonious claims of "fairness".

I don't expect to see a change at the Championships. But as I stated earlier if there is a change I'd expect a moderate adjustment downwards for a level 1 hang rather than an increase in level 2 or 3 climbing.