Rules Clarification in Team Update #1

As has been noted elsewhere, Team Update #1 is out.

It contains clarifications of the scoring rules, SC8 and SC9.

Please read them thoroughly and carefully, and understand what they say before you start screaming and yelling!

If you take the time to understand the clarifications, you will see that almost nothing has changed, except the ambiguity in terms of how the scores are calculated has been removed. The basic idea of how the score is determined is the same, it is just stated in a clearer fashion, that removes a lot of potential for subjective estimates and conflicts during scoring.

-dave


Y = AX^2 + BX + C (and it is true to this formula!)

Dave,

After reading them a couple of times, I now agree with you that nothing has changed in the stated rules between the original manual and Update #1.

All the confusion came from Woody’s example during kickoff. He put the idea in all of our heads that a crate on its side could push you into the next SHU, and therefore count as two crates. I now see that nothing in writing ever confirmed that. Update #1 now states that SHUs are rounded down, so that a stack of x is a stack of x – no matter what the orientation of each of the crates.

I assume you always had that interpretation based on the scoring in your animation you counted the stack of 7 with one upside-down crate as 7 (which I used to think that you got wrong – sorry!)

Are you (unofficially) in concurrence with my interpretation?

Thanks,

Aidan
:slight_smile:

P.S. - I guess the moral of this story (like in life) is believe what you read, not what you hear. :slight_smile:

I can’t believe Woody was wrong.:eek: Maybe he was so frightened by the autonomous mode not working that he couldn’t think straight.

As Woodie said during the kick-off, the written rules always take precedence over our attempts to quickly verbalizing them. The mistake was that the written rules were not quite as clear as was hoped, and caused some misinterpretation. That has now been corrected.

I also made a mistake when talking with a few people after the kick-off, describing how stacks placed in the grey area but overhanging the colored carpet would be scored. The updated rules make it clear how this situation would be scored. What I said at the kick-off was incorrect, and I apologize for any confusion to those that were misled.

-dave


Y = AX^2 + B… ehhh, whatever

I think an issue remains… please see this thread:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16123

This makes NO SENSE. This removes the complexity of the game. THIS RULE SUCKS!

Joseph,

Getting angry and excited will not help the situation. Make your case carefully and deliberately and people will take you and your opinions seriously.

BTW, I agree with you that rounding “up” makes for a more interesting strategy. However, you now have to deal with the pyramid problem…

Ok, I can understand, here is a well thought out list of complaints.

-The rounding down removes stratagie and sofistication from the game
-Rounding up adds to an intresting (unknown) feeling that one team might win over another if it’s not nesting.
-Adds a twist and another thing to do.
-Adds possiblitys to the design of the robot.

*Originally posted by JosephM *
**Ok, I can understand, here is a well thought out list of complaints.

-The rounding down removes stratagie and sofistication from the game
-Rounding up adds to an intresting (unknown) feeling that one team might win over another if it’s not nesting.
-Adds a twist and another thing to do.
-Adds possiblitys to the design of the robot. **

This is a matter of perspective. This doesn’t make the games less sophisticated, and strategy is still equally important.

In fact, I’d argue that the rule clarifications are beneficial. Where before you may have seen incentive to irregularly stack your bins to gain a larger multiplier, now there may be incentive to properly nest your bins or otherwise design a machine that protects the stability of a stack. It’s still a challenge.