I know at the UTC Regional our team won 5 out of our 8 matches. unfortunatly our opposing alliance scored low and thus our robot was seeded in 31st place at the end of saturday.
even though our robot was chosen in the quaterfinals, we felt this scoring method was a little unreasonable. but other than that the regional was a great time and I hope the rookie teams learned a lot of experience.
Badjokeguy
Eh⌠you forget that in '00 the whole idea of using this system was to make the teams work together to get the highest score. A good, smart alliance will give their opponents points, via goals or robots, at the end of the match, increasing both their opponentâs score as well as theirs.
At SBPLI, we commonly gave our opposing alliances a goal or a robot, so that our score would go up by thirty, while theirsâ would still go up ten.
Do I like the system they have now? No, personally Iâd rather see just straight wins and losses or QP. Do I think itâs fair? Yeah.
(Although what I think would be cool next year if they do this scoring system would be to do the final matches the same way. Have each series play 3 matches, with the winners getting 3x the losersâ score each time, and the highest aggregate score advancing. The dynamic of the game wouldnât shift as much towards the 30-0 shutout, would it?)
How about a weighted system for QP that yields 3x loserâs score + 1x winnerâs score for the winner of the match? The loser would receive 2x their own score, or something similar.
FIRSTfan
I actually like the scoring system. It makes strategies more interesting. The losing team not only can try and regain points, they can also lose all their points, thus giving the winning team nothing. It is more of a nasty strategy but it is possible. And the winning team then has to adapt and figure out what the other team is doing.
Not only do you just use pure power to win the round, you also have to give a little. Ya know the saying, âgive a little to get a lotâ or somethin like thatâŚ
I agree that this yearâs scoring system is extremely interesting with the 3x.
I noticed at the UTC regionals that several teams went into matches with the strategy of defeating other alliances by a significant margin (30+ pts), possibly to demonstrate that they would be an excellent partner in the eliminations, while the majority of teams opted to win while keeping their opponentâs score reasonably high. When a team tries to control the score and doesnât leave a large enough margin, they can end up losing because of what is basically a play mistake. Regardless, itâs a wicked twist!
~Synthia Tonn
Driver, Team 121
Alot of people I know dislike the âwinner gets triple the loserâs scoreâ rule, but I like the variety that adds into the game. Otherwise all the robots would be goal grabbers.
To avoid making this yearâs game a tugging mathc, all that hadto be done is give more value to the balls. If the balls were worth 2 or even 3 points, then the robots that had ball picker uppers would be even on the playing feild with the tuggers. It definitley is easier to count when the balls are 1 point, but then everyone knows that the competition is one dimensional, clamp goal stand around for two minutes, it was amazing nonetheless, great competition.
thanks
Martin
907
I understand the idea behind the current scoring plan and it does make some sense. I have to admit that I got a kick out of a couple of teams who did last second moves to totally distroy the other alliance only to wind up with zero QP. The qualification process was harder than a âjust win itâ scoring would be and there is some value to that. It forces people to think about what they are doing more.
On the other hand you can do your plan and have your team and robot do all you ask but if the other alliance does stuff stupid or decides that if they are going to lose than you should get nothing they can hurt you for QP.
One other thing that this scoring system does that many really dislike, but I have the tendency not to mind, is that it changes the meaning to who acually whens the silly competitionâŚ
If you notice, a team that canât even move can end up being in the top eight seed just from getting lucky. This doesnât help much, but they could end up winning a regional, and never have moved out of their home zone. of course this is theoretical and I can explain if wished
I think this scoring system does a good job to promote gratious professionalism and that if people stop and think, will help promote the spirit of FIRST in generalâŚ
I wish they made a game that your robot would be good in both Seeding and Finals.
If you had a great goal grabber robot you could win every match and be seeded 20 or lower.
So you had to hope someone picked you.
This games has been set up in two ways have a good ball handler is good for the seeding and a good powerful robot is good for the finals.
Put a game out there that the best robot will win no matter what.
Four robots on the field all trying to fight for themself for the points.
We had this a few years ago and I thought that those games were great.
Ever since they brought team work into the game I think the game has gone down hill ( These are my thoughts)
This year was better because we didnât need the partners too much. They were great if they just stayed in the end zone for 10 pts. if they did anything else it was a plus.
But this is what FIRST is all about. :rolleyes:
watch teams drop by the waste side.
The qualification rounds are more a game of good strategy rather than good robot ability (but having a good robot doesnât hurt). Teams have to find a way to win consistently and at the same time make sure their opponents get a good score. This means ensuring that their opponent has a goal in scoring postion and sometimes filling it with balls for them. It may even require scoring in their endzone. I always get disappointed when I see a team win by more than 20 points, because it means they cheated themselves out of QP by not scoring enough for their opponent. As far as QP go, itâs better to chance it and lose a 45-40 match than go for a blow out and win a 40-10 match.
Mike
I donât care what any of you say, i LOVE the triple loserâs score system. Thought: What if, to make some of you hate them even more, they gave the winner three times the loserâs score, and the loser gets the winnerâs score. ImagineâŚin a shutout match, the loser would actually win. Yah, i guess itâs a dumb idea, but i wouldnât put it past dean kamen.