[Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by Andrew Blair

I'd like to see the human player engaged more in physical competition. I know that FIRST isn't a physical competition, but too often, the human player gets stuck in a secondary role, where they do little, let alone affect the outcome of the match. 2004 and 2006 were exceptions.

An engaging game would include something like an obstacle course, or button reaction and subsequent action, where the first human player or alliance to complete the task, or to continue completing the task gets a multiplier, or a more lucrative scoring opportunity. Spectators like to see physical involvement, because it shows human side of the competition a bit better. If we want FIRST to act more like sports- we need to include sport.

Along this line, and I know its too late for this year, but I always wanted to see a the human player have to run on a treadmill or ride a staionary bike and maintian a minimum power output, say 150 watts. If you fell below this your robot would be handicapped by limiting max voltage available to the motors.

[Billfred]

I thought about this while running to my business law class (remember kids, don't forget to make sure your alarm will actually go off in the morning): What about a "knockout punch" that, if achieved, would end the match immediately in favor of the alliance that achieves it?

The nearest example I can think of is if the center goal in Aim High was cleared by a human player instead of a field crew member. (Yes, I realize this introduces other issues, like using the stick to remove balls from the goal, but play along here.) If one alliance clogged the center goal to the point that the human player could not clear the clog within ten seconds, the match would end immediately.

In Triple Play, an example might be maintaining ownership of all nine goals at one time.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Billfred

I thought about this while running to my business law class (remember kids, don't forget to make sure your alarm will actually go off in the morning): What about a "knockout punch" that, if achieved, would end the match immediately in favor of the alliance that achieves it?

The nearest example I can think of is if the center goal in Aim High was cleared by a human player instead of a field crew member. (Yes, I realize this introduces other issues, like using the stick to remove balls from the goal, but play along here.) If one alliance clogged the center goal to the point that the human player could not clear the clog within ten seconds, the match would end immediately.

In Triple Play, an example might be maintaining ownership of all nine goals at one time.

Remembers variable length matches in 2001..... oh god

[65_Xero_Huskie]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

You want some out of the box ideas?

8. Instead of doing alliance selection as they now, allow the top seeded teams to bid on partners using virtual bucks. Give each team $100 virtual dollars and have a silent auction for alliance partners. Team numbers and a picture of their robot are posted on a wall (or other conveniently flat surface) and the top-seeded teams then enter their bids on a bidding computer. A top-seeded team (alliance captain) on which other teams have bid can choose to allow themselves to be "sold" or not. If they choose not to accept the high bidder, they are "off the market" and will be an alliance captain. The high bidder gets their bucks back and can rebid them. Maybe this is done in real-time from eight bidding computers and the current bid amounts are displayed on the big screen. I know this seems complicated, but I want to noodle on it a bit. I like the games theory aspect, and it would introduce teams to a lot of modern mathematical theory they don't normally see in FIRST -- but it needs work. I promise to post a more fully-developed version later.

I would think that this is considered gambling. Im not sure, but it sure sounds like it, and it would make the teams imbalanced even more than they are.

im not knocking it, i would love to see it happen, it would be a nice twist.

WE could also have the teams that arnt selected vote on the matchups for the playoffs so that they can get to see the matches they want.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Steve W

GTR actually had 16 alliances. We played like a regional on each field (8 alliances) and then the winners from each field met for the finals.

I am bad. I was one of the people fighting for 12 alliances and my mind just .....

Getting old I guess. Here is the link to the ladder that I posted (THANKS Richard)

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=46331

[Billfred]

One change that might make for an interesting dynamic: Allow each team one five-second timeout, to be used over the course of the event. When the timeout is invoked, all play stops on the field to allow the alliance to strategize or regroup, particularly after a significant shift in gameplay happens. (The offensive muscle of the match tipping comes to mind.)

I imagine this being implemented as a second differently-colored button in the alliance station, next to the (individual) E-stop button. The usage could be tracked in scoring software (which also allows for the software to disable the button for teams that have used it). Alternatively, one operator badge could come with a coupon for the time-out attached, which would be given to a referee once it's been used. Stopping the match a second time, naturally, would be cause for a disqualification.

While it might throw off match scheduling a bit, a ten-second time-out used by forty teams (which is bigger than some regionals, and is about half of a divison in Atlanta) would add less than seven minutes onto the day. Regionals take up that much time playing the YMCA.

[Andrew Blair]

Here's an idea for something that still can be done:

The week prior to Kickoff, give us the game piece! We wouldn't need the hint (though they're so vauge anyway), and the rush to purchase game items, if an issue like the balls, could be spread out over another week. Teams still would have no idea what was being done in the actual game, so no serious work or prototyping could be done, but we could still see how large the piece was, how to interact with it, and how it interacted with other game pieces. It's just an idea, but I really think that it would be cool, get us thinking, and get teams excited and together a bit prior to the actual start of build.

[Branden Ghena]

Why not make the game rules apply differently for each match, with the number of rules, and which ones, that apply chosen randomly before each match?

[Dan Petrovic]

Originally Posted by Andrew Blair

Here's an idea for something that still can be done:

The week prior to Kickoff, give us the game piece! We wouldn't need the hint (though they're so vauge anyway), and the rush to purchase game items, if an issue like the balls, could be spread out over another week. Teams still would have no idea what was being done in the actual game, so no serious work or prototyping could be done, but we could still see how large the piece was, how to interact with it, and how it interacted with other game pieces. It's just an idea, but I really think that it would be cool, get us thinking, and get teams excited and together a bit prior to the actual start of build.

How about just a silhouette of an isometric view just to make it even more interesting?

Try guessing the tetra after that curve ball!

[Billfred]

So here's a notion I had the other day, one that might not be perfect. (dons asbestos underwear)

On Saturday, you tend to draw the largest crowds at regionals. In the afternoon, you also get some of the more exciting matches of a regional. But what about the morning?

Imagine, if you will, that the match list for Saturday wasn't posted until Saturday, like it's done on the other two days. But before the list goes out, the scoring software applies a little black magic to the list to organize the six teams in each match according to their seed. The six teams in a match wouldn't change (that'd be a scheduling nightmare), just possibly their affiliations within the match. So if we've got seeds number 2, 9, 11, 25, 30, and 42 in a match, it would be organized 2/11/30 versus 9/25/42.

This system isn't perfect--247 and 1251 were both pretty low seeds at Palmetto, and they're both wearing gold now--but it might help prevent a total squashing, which (all fairness debates aside) just isn't as interesting to watch.

EDIT: And another idea in a completely different vein, inspired by Rick TYler's post on page 1:

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

8. Instead of doing alliance selection as they now, allow the top seeded teams to bid on partners using virtual bucks. Give each team $100 virtual dollars and have a silent auction for alliance partners. Team numbers and a picture of their robot are posted on a wall (or other conveniently flat surface) and the top-seeded teams then enter their bids on a bidding computer. A top-seeded team (alliance captain) on which other teams have bid can choose to allow themselves to be "sold" or not. If they choose not to accept the high bidder, they are "off the market" and will be an alliance captain. The high bidder gets their bucks back and can rebid them. Maybe this is done in real-time from eight bidding computers and the current bid amounts are displayed on the big screen. I know this seems complicated, but I want to noodle on it a bit. I like the games theory aspect, and it would introduce teams to a lot of modern mathematical theory they don't normally see in FIRST -- but it needs work. I promise to post a more fully-developed version later.

So imagine if we took this a step further. The Top 8 would be prohibited from picking each other, which I'm normally in favor of allowing, but that would be too painful here. Each alliance captain would have X number of points with which to purchase their alliance partners. Note that I didn't specify how many--alliances in eliminations would not be limited in size, at least in theory. You could just bid on two great partners and hope nobody breaks, or maybe have four or five mid-card robots that you could switch between to suit your strategy.

What this doesn't include is some means for a team to decline (say, their robot's broken beyond hope of repair in time)--I assume you'd just notify the captains that they're out.

[Graham Donaldson]

Originally Posted by Billfred

EDIT: And another idea in a completely different vein, inspired by Rick TYler's post on page 1:


So imagine if we took this a step further. The Top 8 would be prohibited from picking each other, which I'm normally in favor of allowing, but that would be too painful here. Each alliance captain would have X number of points with which to purchase their alliance partners. Note that I didn't specify how many--alliances in eliminations would not be limited in size, at least in theory. You could just bid on two great partners and hope nobody breaks, or maybe have four or five mid-card robots that you could switch between to suit your strategy.

What this doesn't include is some means for a team to decline (say, their robot's broken beyond hope of repair in time)--I assume you'd just notify the captains that they're out.

I like that idea. That would add another interesting element to strategy and scouting, and alliance selection. Do you want to max out your points on two robots and hope their abilities will work to your advantage, or do you want to have a variable-team alliance where you can switch out teams depending on the alliance you're playing? Hmm...

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Billfred

EDIT: And another idea in a completely different vein, inspired by Rick TYler's post on page 1:


So imagine if we took this a step further. The Top 8 would be prohibited from picking each other, which I'm normally in favor of allowing, but that would be too painful here. Each alliance captain would have X number of points with which to purchase their alliance partners. Note that I didn't specify how many--alliances in eliminations would not be limited in size, at least in theory. You could just bid on two great partners and hope nobody breaks, or maybe have four or five mid-card robots that you could switch between to suit your strategy.

This sounds fun. Kinda like a GM building a sports team by signing free agents, while restricted by a salary cap.

But I do think the higher seeded alliance captains should get a bigger budget. Say the number one alliance captain gets 135 bananas to bid with, number two gets 130 bananas, and so on, with number eight getting 100 bananas. Once you've spent your bananas, they are gone -- use 'em or lose 'em.

[Joel J]

I was thinking about the serpentine system that I hate so much.. and started to wonder about the feasibility of using qualifying points (W-L-T) to determine the draft order in the first round, and then ranking points (32.28938) to determine draft order in the second round. I don't know whether it would be the RP of the alliance captain, average RP, or max RP between the two current alliance members that would be used to rank the alliances for the second round of the draft, but either way. I'm not sure about this idea, but I thought I'd mention it here.. That method of determining draft positions wouldn't really mess with the draft currency idea suggested above (warming up to the idea), as they still have to select in some order.

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by Joel J.

I was thinking about the serpentine system that I hate so much.. and started to wonder about the feasibility of using qualifying points (W-L-T) to determine the draft order in the first round, and then ranking points (32.28938) to determine draft order in the second round. I don't know whether it would be the RP of the alliance captain, average RP, or max RP between the two current alliance members that would be used to rank the alliances for the second round of the draft, but either way. I'm not sure about this idea, but I thought I'd mention it here.. That method of determining draft positions wouldn't really mess with the draft currency idea suggested above (warming up to the idea), as they still have to select in some order.

Interesting idea, because since we went to the current seeding system in 2004 these items have been somewhat at odds with each other. Just winning is the most important item in seeding because you get the QP for that. When you tie and it goes to the tie breaker of opposing score it would say you want a high opponents score but letting them score a lot can bite you with a penalty. So you don't want the score to be too close. Frankly I've never been a fan of using opposing score in rankings because to much involved is beyond the control of your own team/alliance, i.e. no robots for the opposing alliance show up, none of them work, and if you strategy is based on keeping the total score low in your matches it hurts you. Remember in 2003 the best robots didn't qualify well because they kept the score low (I know it was a different qualifying system but the logic still applies), a similar situation can keep a better team out of the top qualifying spot. The current ranking system has favored pure offense to "managing" or "controlling" the game.

In short I like the idea of using something else to determine the second round picking order if you want to mix things up just don't use opponents score. I would prefer it if they want to limit purely defensive play and mix things up to use lowest average scoring differential rather than average opponents score.

P.S. I'm intentionally being contrarian to the game designers intent of keeping the games highly offense based for the last 3 years. I believe low scoring doesn't mean a defensive battle all the time, it can mean efficient control of the field by an alliance.

[Joel J]

Originally Posted by Peter Matteson

Interesting idea, because since we went to the current seeding system in 2004 these items have been somewhat at odds with each other. Just winning is the most important item in seeding because you get the QP for that. When you tie and it goes to the tie breaker of opposing score it would say you want a high opponents score but letting them score a lot can bite you with a penalty. So you don't want the score to be too close. Frankly I've never been a fan of using opposing score in rankings because to much involved is beyond the control of your own team/alliance, i.e. no robots for the opposing alliance show up, none of them work, and if you strategy is based on keeping the total score low in your matches it hurts you. Remember in 2003 the best robots didn't qualify well because they kept the score low (I know it was a different qualifying system but the logic still applies), a similar situation can keep a better team out of the top qualifying spot. The current ranking system has favored pure offense to "managing" or "controlling" the game.

In short I like the idea of using something else to determine the second round picking order if you want to mix things up just don't use opponents score. I would prefer it if they want to limit purely defensive play and mix things up to use lowest average scoring differential rather than average opponents score.

P.S. I'm intentionally being contrarian to the game designers intent of keeping the games highly offense based for the last 3 years. I believe low scoring doesn't mean a defensive battle all the time, it can mean efficient control of the field by an alliance.

I'm still thinking more about options that are better than the serpentine, but I have to say that your post has made me get off the fence with respect to using the average loser's score as a possible means to determine second round draft order. I am now more fond of the idea.

Putting reality aside for a minute here:

One could find it reasonable to assume that a win of 98 - 4 was probably "easier" to come by than a win of 98 - 75. That is, one could say that the alliance that scored 75 points was probably stronger and more of a challenge than the 4 point scoring alliance. Now, there is a match that ends with a score of 5 - 4. While the winning alliance did less "damage" to get their win, one would have to say that the strength of their opponents was probably not much greater than the strength of the losing alliance in the 98 - 4 match. So, the average loser's score may tend to represent the strength of the alliances a given team has gone up against?

Now, to snap back to reality, one of the problems I see is that a team winning 98 - 4, would probably have been able to win 98 - 75, or 98 - 97, had their opponents risen to the challenge (not necessarily, of course), while a win of 5-4 doesn't get much closer. Anyway, to not ramble, it seems like the one measure better than the strength of the schedule is the strength of a given alliance, which could be measured by their winning score? Sure, but just look again at two examples mentioned above: 98 - 4 and 98 - 75. You could argue that (in general) the two 98's are equal, but who had the harder time getting to 98? Maybe the 98 - 4, because the weaker alliance probably played alot of defense? Or maybe it was the 98 - 75 alliance, because there was a better mix of offense/defense throughout (with the 98 scoring alliance playing defense every once in a while, then scoring, rather than focusing solely on trying to score). Maybe the 98 - 75 alliance would have scored a bit more points, if there opponents were as weak as the 98 - 4 losing alliance. I'm making assumptions (and not even considering scoring for the opponents, etc), but do you see what I'm getting at here? Maybe its time I look at data from the elimination rounds, where the strength of a given alliance tends not to change, while the strength of their opponent does (with the progression from the quarterfinals to the semifinals to the finals). Maybe there are some trends there.

I don't know.. as I said before, I'm getting more fond of using the loser's score.. what are the strong reasons against my line of thinking? What am I missing here?

I really hate the serpentine!