The "complicated" scoring system

Posted by Chris at 04/10/2001 9:07 PM EST

Student on team #610, Coyotes, from Crescent School.

I thought that this year’s competition had a decent scoring system. However, Dean seemed to think otherwise. What do other people think?

Posted by Chris Orimoto at 04/10/2001 9:25 PM EST

Student on team #368, Kika Mana, from McKinley High School and Nasa Ames/Hawaiian Electric/Weinberg Foundation.

In Reply to: The “complicated” scoring system
Posted by Chris on 04/10/2001 9:07 PM EST:

Somehow, the only big difficulty to this year’s scoring system seemed to be the time multipliers. Other than that, the scoring was pretty simple. Bridge balancing was self-explanatory…

I think last year’s scoring was more diabolical, with the winning team’s score being 3 times that of the losing team. I think at San Jose last year, Team 330 was the only undefeated team after the qualifying matches, but they were only seeded 5th or something like that because of match scores.
There was also another round when we were paired with 360 (I think) and we had to score ALL the points for the other team. I think we barely outscored ourselves though, but ended up with a HUGE amount of qualifying points.

All in all, I can’t wait to see how scoring develops next year.

Just my personal thoughts…

Chris, #368

Posted by Pamela at 04/10/2001 10:14 PM EST

Student on team #166, Techno Insanity, from Merrimack High School and Texas Instruments.

In Reply to: Re: The “complicated” scoring system
Posted by Chris Orimoto on 04/10/2001 9:25 PM EST:

I don’t think the scoring this year was all that bad, if you knew the rules it was pretty easy math to do in your head real quick! I personally liked last years game and scoring system better, this years game, I felt, took away alot of excitement from the whole “competition”. Last years game made teams go head to head agianst one another, yet you still needed to help out your opposing alliance in order for your team to get high scores. I liked having 2 on 2 alliances, it added excitement and kept more dynamics in the game, because not only did you have to worry about your robots performance, you had to think about what you could graciously do to try and stop the other alliance from beating you. One other thought: Why does animation recieve such little acknowledgement? They work just as hard if not harder sitting there and meticulosly designing and animating every litlle bit and piece which goes into their animation, I feel the deserve more recognition!
Pamela 166

Posted by ChrisH at 04/11/2001 4:21 PM EST

Engineer on team #330, Beach 'Bots, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA JPL, J & F Machine, Raytheon, et al.

In Reply to: Re: The “complicated” scoring system
Posted by Pamela on 04/10/2001 10:14 PM EST:

: I don’t think the scoring this year was all that bad, if you knew the rules it was pretty easy math to do in your head real quick!

Unfortunately your average media person can’t multiply, even addition seems to be a stretch for them at times.

:One other thought: Why does animation recieve such little acknowledgement? They work just as hard if not harder sitting there and meticulosly designing and animating every litlle bit and piece which goes into their animation, I feel the deserve more recognition!
: Pamela 166

For the same reason dot.coms are folding all over the place. It’s hard to see how something virtual adds value to the real world. Building hardware on the other hand obviously adds value.

Just my thoughts

Chris Husmann
Team 330 the Beach’Bots

Posted by Billy Mallard at 04/11/2001 12:39 AM EST

Student on team #254, the Cheesy Poofs, from Bellarmine College Prep and NASA.

In Reply to: The “complicated” scoring system
Posted by Chris on 04/10/2001 9:07 PM EST:

Posted by Carolyn Duncan at 04/11/2001 4:16 PM EST

Student on team #495, The Pack, from Jamestown High School and VBEP/Raytheon/Saic.

In Reply to: The “complicated” scoring system
Posted by Chris on 04/10/2001 9:07 PM EST:

I was a rookie this year on a rookie team but I thought the rules were fairly simple. Sure, they were difficult to verbally convey to someone but once they saw the match in motion it was o.k. Perfect example, my Grandmother went to Orlando to see the competition on Saturday. I tried to explain the rules to her but it was a bit overwhelming. Once she saw a match she got it. The second match she saw was the semi- on Galileo with team 122, my adopted team. and their alliance. Once they hit the kill switch she looked at me an said, “Wow! That’s gonna be a big one. At least 500 points.” She was right, it was 530. My Grandmother isn’t the typical little old lady, she’s pretty quick. That’s just my take on the situation.
:Carolyn
Team 495

Posted by Peter Krumdieck at 04/11/2001 7:34 PM EST

Engineer on team #353, Pobots, from POB Central School District.

In Reply to: The “complicated” scoring system
Posted by Chris on 04/10/2001 9:07 PM EST:

: I thought that this year’s competition had a decent scoring system. However, Dean seemed to think otherwise. What do other people think?

The scoring system was pretty straight forward. It was the lack of strategy by some (and I mean some) of our qualifying alliance partners that was frustrating!

Trying to get 10 additional points for the team was only a sham. Some teams were willing to sacrifice time multipliers for an attempt to get the 10% for themselves.

Great matches. Great robots (especially 71!)See you all next year.
-pete