2008 Game Format Preference

[Kevin_Sevcik]

To give an example of this (based on this year’s game), lets say Team BLUE has a bot which can score on the middle and low rack easily and has a ramp. That team would get 3 pts for low scoring, 5 pts for mid scoring and the ramp boosts there score another 5pts, totaling up to 13 pts. Then lets say Team RED builds a robot which can reach all three heights for the tubes and score well. Then this team would get 3 pts for low scoring, 5 pts for mid scoring and 8 pts for high scoring, bringing their total to 16 pts. Now since both teams have more than 8 pts, which would be the cut-off for qualification points, both teams could possible make it into the final rounds. And robots which can’t achieve this minimal requirement are automatically disqualified. (Qualification points don’t affect your actual score in the game)

That’s… distressing. You have basically designed a game wherein you tell teams, “You MUST build a robot that can successfully do two of these four things, or we just won’t like your robot and refuse to let it play.” You could just as well put into the game rules that every team must have an arm on their robot. Forcing teams to build arms, etc. under the threat that their robot automatically loses everything if some of thir systems don’t work… The just rubs me the wrong way. I think putting things in the rules to artificially force teams into design decisions will do the opposite of inspire students. Notice how much grumbling there is around here when teams are forced to use a giant heavy power distribution block, or design their robots to start with the longest dimension vertical. Teams really don’t like contrived restrictions on what they can and can’t do.

[Steve_W]

I am for alliances! If we drop back to a 4 team match then there will be a lot less matches played.

Offense is nothing without defense.

How can you tell if you have made a good robot if you have no competition to test with. Auto manufacturers test and retest so that when products are put into extreme conditions they should not fail. What would a car race be if the best designed and best looking car got on the track and went 10 MPH around the track and then drove to the winners podium. It would mean nothing. If you were to sit down and play a game by yourself then you would have no competition and really would never know how good you were or what was needed to improve.

[TetraBot]

That’s… distressing. You have basically designed a game wherein you tell teams, “You MUST build a robot that can successfully do two of these four things, or we just won’t like your robot and refuse to let it play.” You could just as well put into the game rules that every team must have an arm on their robot. Forcing teams to build arms, etc. under the threat that their robot automatically loses everything if some of thir systems don’t work… The just rubs me the wrong way. I think putting things in the rules to artificially force teams into design decisions will do the opposite of inspire students. Notice how much grumbling there is around here when teams are forced to use a giant heavy power distribution block, or design their robots to start with the longest dimension vertical. Teams really don’t like contrived restrictions on what they can and can’t do.

Well, if you don’t like this idea, that’s fine.

What I’m trying to say is that the game should be divided into 2 parts, with individual and team control. That way more teams would focus on building a robot that can actually score and not just push other bots around.

Defense can be a very good strategy, but if that’s all your robot can do, then your at the mercy of you alliance and opponents. Having matches were the teams must play by themselves should at least motivate next year’s teams to build robots that can score and defend (if necessary)