G40 - modifying ballancing points for the Championship

It seems to me that the GDC got the bridge points just about right for the risk involved - triple balance is not a guarantee so it takes some incentive to go for it, and the timing for choosing to go for the 10-20 on either side seems to be consistent with the amount of time to score extra balls in teleop. The blue box in G40 says they may change the value of the balancing score for the Championship based on the higher level of competition - does anyone think they should or will?

Oops - too many LL’s in balancing; too used to auto-spellcheck.

Personally, I hope they make no changes. We’ll see what happens at MSC and MAR champs, but as of right now, the values seem about right. If anything, I could see them changing the value of a single from 10 to 5, since really, anyone at a high level can do it and it shouldn’t change the game too much.

At first I thought the bridge points were over powered, but after seeing what good shooting robots were capable of in thirty seconds it seems almost perfect. If triple balances start to become too easy with “stingers” then we may see a change, though I doubt it.

I think the scoring is basically perfect (for the deep field at CMP) as it is. At some events without a lot of top tier ball scorers a triple was a bit overpowered, but I think it’s just the right mix of challenge vs. incentive when Championship-caliber alliances are on the field.

I don’t think they should, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they increased the bridge points just to make the year even more interesting. I don’t think they should go all the way to 50 points, but 45 sounds like a good number. Just so it can offset one additional 3 point shot.

No need to change it. It’s not leading to perverse results, and even if it were, the simplicity of leaving it as is would probably outweigh the benefit of making an adjustment.

Indeed, the number of elimination matches I’ve seen where a triple balance would not have won had the other alliance made a double, combined with the number of elimination matches I’ve seen where a triple balance would have won had the other alliance made a double, is sufficient for me to say that the GDC absolutely nailed this one.

I would like to see a triple balance count in qualifications [maybe not the whole 40 points, but 30]. It might not be a popular idea, but I think it would make qualis a lot more interesting.

But that would be incentive for teams to not use the Coopertition bridge during qualifications. For anybody that has followed Bill Miller’s tweets, it’s apparent that FIRST Corporate is really excited and hanging their collective hat on the Coop bridge concept, and it may foreshadow similar cross-alliance common-goal opportunities in future games.

Irrespective of the point spreads in 6 weeks of Regionals, I think [G40] is more about what the GDC wants spectators to see. If they want more balancing, they’ll incentivize it more. If they don’t feel the game has enough hoop action, they’ll keep balancing the same or lower it.

Personally I think Eliminations for this game are very entertaining to watch as-is.

While this is true, it doesn’t change the incentive of going to the co-op bridge. At worst, it makes the co-op bridge more of a “real” decision, because before the only incentive not to go for the bridge was to screw over other teams not involved in the match or to score baskets. Now it’s the same, except instead [or in addition to] scoring baskets it’s an additional ten points triple.

I don’t think it will be a massive game changer, but there are scenarios where not having a triple balance detracts from the game:

  • Your team is down by 9 points with thirty seconds to go, the other team has double balanced, and the opposition co-op bot has flipped/disabled/unwilling to co-op.

  • It’s a winner take all where co-op points won’t make a difference, and the difference between score is within ten points. Triple balancing is more exciting than baskets in my opinion.

Because of the dynamic of the triple balance is that it’s more risky than the co-op - you could lose a banked 20 points, and a triple is harder to pull off than a co-op in certain cases - and because of the very nature of the seeding system, teams will still choose the co-op. If my team was going to CMP, I would tell them co-op every time, except for very exceptional circumstances [including those highlighted above].

It also helps, because qualifications is not just about ranking, but testing/advertising your robot and scouting/figuring out other robots, and not testing a triple until eliminations can hide some difficulties people may have over-looked.