Possible seeding problem at regionals

FIRST General Forum
1

Posted by Patrick Dingle at 1/7/2001 10:13 AM EST

Other on team #639, Red B^2, from Ithaca High School and Cornell University.

I was thinking last night as I miserably failed to fall asleep, about the scoring system for this year. The maximum possible score, I think, is 1320. That’s if all small balls (40) are in goal plus two big balls (20pts) plus 4 robots in endzone (40pts), and you have two goals on balanced bridge (x2x2), and match ends in first 30 seconds (x3), plus 10% for one of your balls is on the goal. (40+40+20)2231.1 = 1320. Did I miss anything?

Anyway, the possibility for a large score that is way, way above the average score concerns me a lot. Consider an alliance randomly formed that contains 3 or 4 outstanding robots, and they get a huge score. Since this score is 4, 5, or 6 times the average score, it becomes near-impossible to catch up to the 4 teams of the alliance for the rest of competition. If this happens, these teams finish 1-2-3-4. All the other matches they play are pretty much meaningless. Therefore I predict that in many regionals, the top 4 seeded teams will be teams that played together in a match. Maybe it would make more sense for FIRST to take the sum of the square roots of all your scores, not the plain sum?

Patrick

2

Posted by Steve Pierce at 1/7/2001 10:41 AM EST

Other on team #288, Robodawgs, from Grandville High School and X-Rite/Delphi.

In Reply to: Possible seeding problem at regionals
Posted by Patrick Dingle on 1/7/2001 10:13 AM EST:

: I was thinking last night as I miserably failed to fall asleep, about the scoring system for this year. The maximum possible score, I think, is 1320. That’s if all small balls (40) are in goal plus two big balls (20pts) plus 4 robots in endzone (40pts), and you have two goals on balanced bridge (x2x2), and match ends in first 30 seconds (x3), plus 10% for one of your balls is on the goal. (40+40+20)2231.1 = 1320. Did I miss anything?

good points, except I think it will be hard to fit 20 balls into each goal. they aren’t that big :slight_smile:

steve

3

Posted by bill whitley at 1/7/2001 11:07 AM EST

Student on team #70, Auto City Bandits, from Powers Catholic High School and Kettering University.

In Reply to: Re: Possible seeding problem at regionals
Posted by Steve Pierce on 1/7/2001 10:41 AM EST:

I am pretty skeptical about being able to balance the chutes on the ramp without a robot up there. I’ve given it quite a bit of thought, and couldn’t come up with a system of balancing from off the ramp, that was as reliable as balancing from on the ramp. I also wonder if small balls will even be picked up off the floor, because loading from the human player station is so efficient.

Bill

4

Posted by Jon at 1/7/2001 12:06 PM EST

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

In Reply to: Re: Possible seeding problem at regionals
Posted by bill whitley on 1/7/2001 11:07 AM EST:

: I am pretty skeptical about being able to balance the chutes on the ramp without a robot up there. I’ve given it quite a bit of thought, and couldn’t come up with a system of balancing from off the ramp, that was as reliable as balancing from on the ramp. I also wonder if small balls will even be picked up off the floor, because loading from the human player station is so efficient.

: Bill

That’s an interesting point, even if you load just from the player station, that’s a max of 10 balls per goal… realistic score count attempt here…

10 black balls per goal (2): 20
2 large balls on goals (10): 20
3 robots in end zone (10): 30
1 robot/stretcher in endzone (20): 20
2 goals balanced on bridge (2x2): 4x
Under 60sec (2x1): 2x

that’s 540… so i’m looking at that as closer to the real high scores we’re going to see…

5

Posted by Nate Smith at 1/7/2001 11:45 AM EST

Other on team #66, GM Powertrain/Willow Run HS, from Eastern Michigan University and GM Powertrain.

In Reply to: Re: Possible seeding problem at regionals
Posted by Steve Pierce on 1/7/2001 10:41 AM EST:

: : I was thinking last night as I miserably failed to fall asleep, about the scoring system for this year. The maximum possible score, I think, is 1320. That’s if all small balls (40) are in goal plus two big balls (20pts) plus 4 robots in endzone (40pts), and you have two goals on balanced bridge (x2x2), and match ends in first 30 seconds (x3), plus 10% for one of your balls is on the goal. (40+40+20)2231.1 = 1320. Did I miss anything?

: good points, except I think it will be hard to fit 20 balls into each goal. they aren’t that big :slight_smile:

: steve

Also, talking to Eric Rasmussen yesterday, being able to do that all in 30 seconds, especially getting everybody to the end zone, is VERY unlikely, if not impossible…

Nate

6

Posted by Jon at 1/7/2001 12:03 PM EST

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

In Reply to: Re: Possible seeding problem at regionals
Posted by Nate Smith on 1/7/2001 11:45 AM EST:

: Also, talking to Eric Rasmussen yesterday, being able to do that all in 30 seconds, especially getting everybody to the end zone, is VERY unlikely, if not impossible…

: Nate

That’s my concern… I really don’t think its physically possible to accomplish all these objectives in under 60 seconds… probably get the 2x but maybe right under to get the 2.5x but i really doubt that the 3x will be hit along with getting everything done…

7

Posted by Robby at 1/7/2001 4:06 PM EST

Other on team #108, The SigmaC@Ts, from AIFL and Motorola.

In Reply to: Re: Possible seeding problem at regionals
Posted by Nate Smith on 1/7/2001 11:45 AM EST:

: Also, talking to Eric Rasmussen yesterday, being able to do that all in 30 seconds, especially getting everybody to the end zone, is VERY unlikely, if not impossible…

: Nate

Ah, Nate, Nate, my “GLASS IS HALF EMPTY” Friend. Remember this: “No way to get four robots on a puck” or “No way to get four robots on that bar”. And not to mention perfect score doubts in previous years. Now while I do agree that this is quite the IMPROBABLE task, you never know until the comp comes around. Besides, with the more lax rules on kit parts, yknow someone is itching to ask the FIRST rules group about building a warp-field generator so as to slow down time.

Also, what was that Raul was yammering on about a score simulator? Back in my day sonny we didnt have no fancy shmancy score sim. Heck, we had to stand squinting in the florida sun counting balls one by one. If we ran out of fingers and toes, It just meant that that was the maximum score!
In what way would one go about making a score sim? I have a few ideas, but any way in particular were you talking about? Also, I believe our stint at Kate’s revealed Nates want to write a scoring program for a visor.

Im bout done for now. Gonna go help Nick find his pills.

-Robby (Awww, cmon, Nate, Raul, you guys know I love ya right? Right? Raul, yknow without team 111 id be very unhappy in chicago. And Nate yknow I had a blast of a time chillin with you at kates house)

8

Posted by Jon at 1/7/2001 11:58 AM EST

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

In Reply to: Possible seeding problem at regionals
Posted by Patrick Dingle on 1/7/2001 10:13 AM EST:

hey pat! how goes?

I think your estimate needs some touchups…

my guess on max score is as follows:
11 black balls per goal (2): 22
2 large balls on goals (10): 20
3 robots in end zone (10): 30
1 robot/stretcher in endzone (20): 20
2 goals balanced on bridge (2x2): 4x
Under 30sec (3x1): 3x

that’s 1104 right there… if its qualifier, then the two teams that get the bonus jump up to 1214…

anyways… a really high score will throw the average all out of whack… i do agree with that.

9

Posted by Anthony Xu at 1/7/2001 12:05 PM EST

Student on team #188, Blizzard, from Woburn Collegiate Institute and Ontario Power Generation.

In Reply to: Possible seeding problem at regionals
Posted by Patrick Dingle on 1/7/2001 10:13 AM EST:

The max score is 1452 I think. You forgot to take into account the stretcher. If all four robots are in the endzone plust the stretcher, you get 50 points so the max is (50+40+20)2231.1 = 1452. This isn’t very likely to happen though, but we can always hope.

Anthony

: I was thinking last night as I miserably failed to fall asleep, about the scoring system for this year. The maximum possible score, I think, is 1320. That’s if all small balls (40) are in goal plus two big balls (20pts) plus 4 robots in endzone (40pts), and you have two goals on balanced bridge (x2x2), and match ends in first 30 seconds (x3), plus 10% for one of your balls is on the goal. (40+40+20)2231.1 = 1320. Did I miss anything?

10

Posted by Raul at 1/7/2001 12:41 PM EST

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

In Reply to: Higher Max Score
Posted by Anthony Xu on 1/7/2001 12:05 PM EST:

These max scores are impossible.

  1. You cannot fit 40 black balls in or on the goals.
  2. No way you can do all this in less than 30 seconds. I bet even if 4 people tried to do it (instead of robots) it still could not be done in less than 30 seconds!

I know many teams out there are doing what we are doing - developing a scoring simulator to run through many scenarios to see what the optimum score can be. If you do this right, your simulator will account for difficulty factors in doing each of the scoring tasks.

Raul

: The max score is 1452 I think. You forgot to take into account the stretcher. If all four robots are in the endzone plust the stretcher, you get 50 points so the max is (50+40+20)2231.1 = 1452. This isn’t very likely to happen though, but we can always hope.

: Anthony

:
: : I was thinking last night as I miserably failed to fall asleep, about the scoring system for this year. The maximum possible score, I think, is 1320. That’s if all small balls (40) are in goal plus two big balls (20pts) plus 4 robots in endzone (40pts), and you have two goals on balanced bridge (x2x2), and match ends in first 30 seconds (x3), plus 10% for one of your balls is on the goal. (40+40+20)2231.1 = 1320. Did I miss anything?

11

Posted by nick237 at 1/7/2001 4:47 PM EST

Engineer on team #237, sie h2o bots, from Watertown high school ct and sieman co.

In Reply to: Possible seeding problem at regionals
Posted by Patrick Dingle on 1/7/2001 10:13 AM EST:

Sorry patrick but the goals only can hold 11 balls max each, so the highest scores possible would be much lower than 1320.
nick237

: I was thinking last night as I miserably failed to fall asleep, about the scoring system for this year. The maximum possible score, I think, is 1320. That’s if all small balls (40) are in goal plus two big balls (20pts) plus 4 robots in endzone (40pts), and you have two goals on balanced bridge (x2x2), and match ends in first 30 seconds (x3), plus 10% for one of your balls is on the goal. (40+40+20)2231.1 = 1320. Did I miss anything?

: Anyway, the possibility for a large score that is way, way above the average score concerns me a lot. Consider an alliance randomly formed that contains 3 or 4 outstanding robots, and they get a huge score. Since this score is 4, 5, or 6 times the average score, it becomes near-impossible to catch up to the 4 teams of the alliance for the rest of competition. If this happens, these teams finish 1-2-3-4. All the other matches they play are pretty much meaningless. Therefore I predict that in many regionals, the top 4 seeded teams will be teams that played together in a match. Maybe it would make more sense for FIRST to take the sum of the square roots of all your scores, not the plain sum?

: Patrick