|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
What is the most lopsided score in Ultimate Ascent? How about beating someone by over 500?
The automatic scoring was on the blink for a bit, but allowed a fun shot of an amazing, yet incorrect, score at Peachtree.
20-03-2013 22:27
Gregor
Sorry, Finger Lake's got you beat https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.n...13411548_n.jpg

20-03-2013 22:32
WeJohnFriedItWould you happen to know what caused these scoring glitches? They appeared relatively frequent to me. Was it the new weight-based scoring system acting up?
20-03-2013 22:36
Jay O'DonnellI don't know where, but the highest I've heard is 1008 points, or 336 frisbees in the top goal. I'd like to congratulate the team who figured out how to quickly 3-D print frisbees into the goal from their robot 
20-03-2013 23:15
blueghoul
20-03-2013 23:31
orangemooreThese scores, from what I understand have been contained to mostly the 1st and 2nd week regional. From week 1 to week 2 FIRST implemented a different scoring system. In the blog post they just said it was going to be changed.
21-03-2013 00:31
Zebra_Fact_Man|
These scores, from what I understand have been contained to mostly the 1st and 2nd week regional. From week 1 to week 2 FIRST implemented a different scoring system. In the blog post they just said it was going to be changed.
|
21-03-2013 00:58
vhcook|
What is the new system? I haven't heard anything about this change and am rather curious.
|
21-03-2013 01:02
Gregor
The weight sensors are used for real time scoring, and for most matches they were within 1 disk of the correct score at GTR East. The manual count is the score used in the rankings.
If the real time score is close, they won't publish the score overhead until the manual count is in, but if the real time score has 1 alliance far ahead they will announce the score right away, and make manual changes afterwords.
21-03-2013 05:34
MikeReilly
21-03-2013 07:37
eddie12390|
Would you happen to know what caused these scoring glitches? They appeared relatively frequent to me. Was it the new weight-based scoring system acting up?
|
21-03-2013 09:30
Racer26From what I saw volunteering at GTREast:
The weight sensors are small load cells that are relatively fragile. They read out in Volts, and the difference between an empty goal, and a fully loaded goal is ~1V.
The scoring system is then calibrated to the sensors. I presume if the sensor breaks, its output slams to the input voltage (5V? 12V? not sure), which explains the readings being orders of magnitude off.
21-03-2013 09:41
Dancin103
|
These scores, from what I understand have been contained to mostly the 1st and 2nd week regional. From week 1 to week 2 FIRST implemented a different scoring system. In the blog post they just said it was going to be changed.
|
21-03-2013 10:00
Racer26|
The scores have not been contained to weeks 1 and 2. I wouldn't be surprised to see them off this week as well. While the spread isn't as bad as it was in week 1 it still is not correct. In some instances the regionals aren't re-calibrating the scoring system and they are not hand counting the frisbees, solely relying on the scoring system. We re-ran match footage, included penalty scores, and the final scores were still off by ~20 points...
/randt My $0.02. |
21-03-2013 10:31
Chris is me|
The scores have not been contained to weeks 1 and 2. I wouldn't be surprised to see them off this week as well. While the spread isn't as bad as it was in week 1 it still is not correct. In some instances the regionals aren't re-calibrating the scoring system and they are not hand counting the frisbees, solely relying on the scoring system. We re-ran match footage, included penalty scores, and the final scores were still off by ~20 points...
|
21-03-2013 11:18
Dancin103
|
Are you absolutely sure they are not hand-counting frisbees? Sometimes they will display a score before they correct it with a hand count, but only if the match outcome is obvious. The updated score in this case is put into the ranking system but not announced.
|
21-03-2013 12:21
blayde5From what I experienced as a volunteer doing Field Reset at Pittsburgh was this:
FIRST found out the sensors were a bit wonky in week 1 and week 2 so they started having some field reset people and volunteers count the frisbees. The weight sensors would only be used, like people said before, for real time scoring and could very well be off.
What Pittsburgh ended up doing was having the Field Reset people both count during the match and actually take out the frisbees from each goal at the end of the match, count and log them with the scorekeeper. The scorekeeper will then log everything, including penalties and pyramid goals and climb points and such, and then show the "Final Score" (the score that will be the "official score" used for everything needing it like the Qualification system and such). The score that people see during the match and immediately after is the estimated score based solely on the weight sensors in the goals (which can and have been off before)
Going into the future, I think they're probably going to require that regionals hand count frisbees to avoid errors in scoring, especially when a match is a close one.
21-03-2013 12:40
Chris is meOne minor clarification: FIRST has been hand counting frisbees after the match and having a volunteer give a count during auto since week 1 at BAE. I'm really, really surprised that some events didn't get the memo.
21-03-2013 12:41
Gregor
|
Yes, at one event so far my answer is yes. There is no way the frisbees were hand counted because the final posted score does not match the score when you replay the video of the match...
But it happens and getting these things to be consistent at each event is a challenge. |
21-03-2013 13:51
JohnFogarty
I was a field reset volunteer for Peachtree and I noticed that when this happened a Frisbee somehow got wedged in a very precarious position in the goal pushing the lexan "weight plate" down.
21-03-2013 13:57
RobotmmmDancin103
What event? I was at the TCNJ District where you last competed and was curious about if they were counting. I carefully watched the volunteers count and record all the discs after each match. I even counted the shots sometimes and checked it against their count and scoring and it seemed correct in the matches where I did this.
21-03-2013 14:05
Kristian CalhounIMO, there should be two people manually verifying the scores for each alliance.
I would also gladly wait the extra 2-3 minutes for the scorekeepers to input the official manual disc counts into the system before displaying the scores to the audience. Even if the outcome of a match isn't changed, it would show everyone at the event that the scoring is at least being done properly.
21-03-2013 14:13
KrazyCarl92|
IMO, there should be two people manually verifying the scores for each alliance.
I would also gladly wait the extra 2-3 minutes for the scorekeepers to input the official manual disc counts into the system before displaying the scores to the audience. Even if the outcome of a match isn't changed, it would show everyone at the event that the scoring is at least being done properly. |
21-03-2013 14:56
JohnFogarty
|
I volunteered as a scorer at an off season event this year. At least for last year, the FMS system could not begin connecting to the next matches robots until after the score from the previous match was posted. This means that in matches where you wait for the discs to be meticulously counted, waiting for that count becomes the rate determining step in match cycle times. I believe this may be why FIRST elected to post scores ASAP for matches that aren't close; it will speed up the match cycles because they can connect to the next match's robots sooner.
|
21-03-2013 15:50
Gregor
|
IMO, there should be two people manually verifying the scores for each alliance.
|
21-03-2013 16:06
Kristian Calhoun|
There are multiple field reset volunteers who manually count the frisbees. The same people who get them out of the goals also count them. It takes a small army to do field reset this year. Every match is manually counted.
|
21-03-2013 16:08
mhos1997We just saw a score of 514 from all disc points in LA. Then we read about the glitches. =(
21-03-2013 16:12
Gregor
|
I'm not debating that point. I've been to events this year that only had one person counting the frisbees for each alliance for the entire weekend. In such cases, it would have been nice to have some redundancy/error checking in the final counts.
|
21-03-2013 18:23
Jared Russell
|
Yes, at one event so far my answer is yes. There is no way the frisbees were hand counted because the final posted score does not match the score when you replay the video of the match...
But it happens and getting these things to be consistent at each event is a challenge. |
21-03-2013 22:53
akoscielski3
WOOT WOOT 762 points FTW!
Too bad we didn't have 10 more points 
22-03-2013 12:36
Karibou
|
I'm not debating that point. I've been to events this year that only had one person counting the frisbees for each alliance for the entire weekend. In such cases, it would have been nice to have some redundancy/error checking in the final counts.
|
22-03-2013 21:49
GaryVoshol
A person at the score table at Grand Blanc today reports that while discs counted by humans* disagree with the sensor score, in most matches it is only one disc per goal that must be adjusted up or down.
* I believe, but do not know for sure, that they are counting the discs as the goals are emptied. They do a visual count at the end of autonomous.
23-03-2013 20:16
NXTGeekFYI, the --real-- high score as of week 4 is Waterloo's 277-81, scored in Q28 by 1114/2056/1846 beating 1241/2200/4039.
24-03-2013 11:50
Racer26|
FYI, the --real-- high score as of week 4 is Waterloo's 277-81, scored in Q28 by 1114/2056/1846 beating 1241/2200/4039.
|
24-03-2013 11:58
JB987|
That match had 89 foul points in the 277.
The 1114/2056/4069 alliance put up 274 in the semifinals with no fouls. |
24-03-2013 13:30
Racer26You seem to be right, but I'm sure I remember 274 going up. Perhaps a miscounted RTS score. Weird.
24-03-2013 13:35
Ivan Malik|
A person at the score table at Grand Blanc today reports that while discs counted by humans* disagree with the sensor score, in most matches it is only one disc per goal that must be adjusted up or down.
* I believe, but do not know for sure, that they are counting the discs as the goals are emptied. They do a visual count at the end of autonomous. |
29-03-2013 00:50
AluminumNarwhalDuring Inland Empire's Practice Match 25, somehow the real-time scoring reported the final score as 42-2817. Interestingly, 2803 of those points were listed as foul points.
29-03-2013 01:40
xSAWxBLADEx|
During Inland Empire's Practice Match 25, somehow the real-time scoring reported the final score as 42-2817. Interestingly, 2803 of those points were listed as foul points.
|
29-03-2013 02:53
dellagd
29-03-2013 04:05
markmcgary|
Go home live scoring system,
You're drunk But really, the foul points? I...what? Unless some ref didn't realize that his phone was set to vibrate right on top of the foul button, how is an automated system supposed to ever add foul points? |
29-03-2013 19:39
dellagd
|
Our bot went rogue and was getting friendly with the blue pyramid. [j/k]
|
29-03-2013 20:37
Racer26my guess? the refs decided to have fun and see how many times they could push the techfoul button in a match.
29-03-2013 22:34
JoeWithTheSpecsPretty certain most people have seen this practice match score already, but here it is anyways;

2803 Foul points here as well? Conspiracy I tell you.
29-03-2013 23:48
Zebra_Fact_Man|
Pretty certain most people have seen this practice match score already, but here it is anyways;
![]() 2803 Foul points here as well? Conspiracy I tell you. |
29-03-2013 23:56
dellagd
|
28 v 26, that's a pretty close match.
But to look at it another way, we should be impressed that these alliances were able to invoke a 20pt penalty more than once a second for 120 seconds. That's actually a rather impressive feat. |
30-03-2013 07:13
GaryVoshol
Those Blue refs are just slow.
It was a bad call, anyway. 