New Game Criticism

[EricH]

Originally Posted by rsisk

Not sure about the new ranking system.

Look at section 9.3.4 and 9.3.5 of the manual and consider the following match

Winning alliance scores 3 points and is penalized 2 points
Losing alliance scores 0 points

Final results will be

WINNING ALLIANCE
Seed points 1
Coopertition pts 0
Total 1

LOSING ALLIANCE
Seed points 3
Coop points 0
Total 3


So, the losing team scoring zero points gets more points than the winning alliance? That doesn't seem right. Or am I missing something?

You aren't missing anything there. But, let's change the scenario slightly. Winning scores 3, penalized 2. Loser scores 1, penalized 1.
Winner: 1 seed, 2 Coop, 3 total
Loser: 3 seed, 0 coop, 3 total.

All you have to do is make sure that there is not a shutout due to scoring capability, and you come out at least even, if not ahead.

[thapto]

My team has had a huge discussion about the seeding scoring, and we think it works like this:

First note: Losing alliance gets NO coopertition bonus.

Alliance A (the winning alliance) gets their raw score minus any penalties plus double alliance B's raw score.

A_final = A_raw - A_penalties + 2*B_raw

Alliance B gets alliance A's raw score.

B_final = A_raw

With this method, the winning alliance always gets more points (logical), yet close games and not blowing out opponents are encouraged.

To the rest of the game:

Likes: Strategy, easier to understand, many kinds of bots, importance of different scoring types

Dislike: The seeding system! And the complicated nature of a lot of the rules (2 second time limits, same position relative to the robot, etc); they will be hard to keep track of mid-game.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Logical, but not how the system works. Seeding Points and highest Coopertition bonus are different columns, CP is only used in the case of a tie in the SP.

Coopertition points are a part of Seeding Points, so the above interpretation is correct. It reminds me of seeds in 2000 / 2002?

[DanDon]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Logical, but not how the system works. Seeding Points and highest Coopertition bonus are different columns, CP is only used in the case of a tie in the SP.

9.3.5 CoopertitionTM Bonus
All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a coopertition bonus: a number of seeding points equal to twice the un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE.
In the case of a tie, all participating teams will receive a coopertition bonus of a number of seeding points equal to twice their ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties).

Andrew- read through 9.3.5 again...the way I read it is that Coopertition is a bonus of SEEDING POINTS and thus factored into your seeding score.

[Jeff Waegelin]

Originally Posted by iCurtis

Wow! That's really neat Andrew. Interestingly, a below the radar team (175) had the highest cumulative score, while other favorites (121 & 20) didn't even make the top 8! Just basing off my memory (I can't seem to find last years scouting data) it seems that instead of the top 8 consisting of good and exceptionally lucky teams, there are more average robots in the top, with the good ones down farther in the rankings. I assume the GDC is hoping this will even out alliance goodness to make for more exciting eliminations. Regardless, it makes for a very interesting ranking system. I'm anxious to see it play out.

I think one of the big differences is that these "rankings" would punish teams that were very good at avoiding being scored upon. In last year's game, there was a definite advantage to teams that could outrun and avoid other robots, so a team like 121 that rarely ever had more than a handful of balls in its trailer would get correspondingly fewer Coopertition Points. All that being said, it was a totally different game, and that wasn't a concern for drivers and coaches last year.

[StephLee]

Originally Posted by jamie_1930

At first I didn't like this, but while thinking it through a little more I like it because it doesn't allow you to do something simple like have the robot go forward and stop for your autonomous mode. Instead it forces you to actually have your robot be autonomously controlled unlike in past years were just going forward can do you good.

What if you position yourself in the near section (your scoring zone) and place a ball directly on the allowed grid in front of you? Driving straight forward would potentially score a goal quite easily.

<G09>:

BALL Starting Positions – Prior to the MATCH, each ALLIANCE is provided with six BALLS to be placed on the FIELD. The BALLS must be placed on a STARTING GRID location prior to the MATCH start. When the FIELD is viewed from the ALLIANCE STATION, the BALLS must be placed on the right side of the CENTER LINE, with one BALL in the near ZONE, two BALLS in the MIDFIELD, and three BALLS in the far ZONE. The BALLS must not be in contact with a ROBOT at the start of the MATCH.

Bold added for emphasis. I believe the bolded text is saying that the alliance itself gets to place the balls. If you look at page 5 of the game section, there is a "get the idea" picture that shows, in the upper right corner, a blue robot with a ball right in front of it, perfectly positioned to drive straight forward and score.

As others have pointed out, this kind of is the autonomous bonus: the ability to score that goal unimpeded.

[quinxorin]

Personally, my oppinion on the game is a little indifferent. This is because it fits my team perfectly in that the game has various distinct tasks which can be accomplished with different subsystems that do not interact with each other (we have a very large team, so a game like that is best). I dislike how we still have restricted expansion rules and how we have to stay low to the ground when manupulating the ball.


I ABSOLUTELY HATE THE SEEDING SYSTEM THOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!