The GDC inserted a clause that gives them the ability to modify climb points.
“As competition at the FIRST Championship is typically different from that during the competition season, FIRST may alter the value of CLIMBING at the FIRST Championship by up to ten (10) points per Level.”
I Personally really hope that they will increase the 30 point level to 40 points. This would make each progression 2x the level below. The problem is that so many people have become efficient at 10 point climbs the 30 point climb is not worth as much as it was earlier on.
10
20
40
This change would make the competition even more competitive at champs and make alliance selections more interesting as well. A good amount of 30 point climbers have already qualified for champs by winning regionals as 3rd pics. At the FIRST Championship alliance selection will be different as their are more teams and a large number of great teams. As the scoring stands right now I do not think that many 30 point climbers will be picked.
I am very interested what the FIRST community at large thinks. Perhaps I am really off base here or slightly biased because we have a robot capable of a 30 point hang.
I don’t think they will. The “ten-point clause” was new in the manual last year, and I think that it’s there just to give the GDC an option if the game turned out completely imbalanced.
If they do change it, that will anger a lot of people. In contrast to balancing last year, in order to do a 30 point climb, you have to fully design your robot around it. Last year, triple balancing was something doable even if your robot wasn’t designed to only triple balance.
The weird thing is, because robots have to be designed around the 30-pt climb to be able to accomplish the goal…gives more of a reason to make it worth more to do so. IMHO.
I guarantee you that if the 30 pt climb was worth more then 30pts more teams would have designed and built a robot to do the 30pt climb, however since the pts weren’t as high, less teams did so. It would be very upsetting to a lot of team if they were to change the amount of pts awarded to a level 3 climb.
There was a thread discussing this a couple of weeks ago, and the main issue with doing this is that all the design decisions of every team, regardless of whether they have a climber or not, were made fully taking into account the point values as they were at the start of the season. For this reason, any changes in the point structure would be unfair to the teams that took into account that point value and decided it wasn’t worth the cost.
As it turns out, a 30 point climb alone does not make a strong competitor. However, a 30 point climber with a 20 point dump makes a very strong one. 30-point-climbers should focus on improving their robots (20 lb allowance) rather than petition for more points. Teams that made a decision they now regret should own it, learn from it, and work to improve it.
On the contrary, floor loading is still very useful outside of autonomous. Heavy defense being played at midfield? Just pick up some discs around your pyramid for a cycle. There’s a good chance the defense will be baited to chase you, leaving mid-field open after the 4 discs are done.
Teams design their robot around the amount of points different actions give. This calculation should be based on numbers, so adding points to one action throws off the initial decisions that teams made, favoring roar that choose to go for the third level and hurting those that didn’t.
That being said, while the added points might forcer teams to make more “spectator-exciting” decisions, I don’t think they will change it. That clause is just in there so that if the GDC messes up big time, they can fix it.
Maybe some more experienced FIRST-ers could tell if they ever changed the point values mid season before.
The game is very well balanced already. Changing the point values at this point just rewards teams who made some design decisions over others, rather than fixing a broken game.
In 2011, the GDC had no option to change minibot point values after it became apparent that a 1st + 2nd place minibot basically resulted in an unbeatable alliance at the high level. That is why the rule to change end game points was added in 2012 and 2013. 30 point climbs do not unbalance the game in such a way. I would be very disappointed if the point levels changed.
I can see both sides of this issue, and I kind of favor changing to 40 points for the 3rd level climb. It’s difficult enough that it should be rewarded more.
What if they did something similar to last years game: The pyramid point values remained the same but during eliminations the 3rd level is raised slightly. I’ve noticed in eliminations (especially as it gets closer to the finals) 30pt climbing hasn’t been making as much as a difference as most would think. (Example: In CT, the winners would of won almost all their match without the 30 point climb made by 95) Also not as many climbers are being chosen for alliances than what people thought initially.
Just like in 2012, strategy changed when the bridge points were increased during eliminations. Robot shape and balancing abilities all of a sudden were more important. If this was done in 2013, climbing would be alot more important for those choosing alliances
*This is just my opinion, meaning some stuff may be wrong in your eyes
I can only see the GDC reducing points to balance the game (and there’s no need to do this at the moment). Increasing points would be disadvantageous for teams without practice robots or mock pyramids.
Disclaimer** I am fully okay with climbing to the top being worth 30 points**
The rule to change points seems to be wrong in every scenario I can think of. It seems everyone would be okay with climbing would be lowered if to fix a broken game but what does a broken game mean. Does it mean that climbing is stronger than shooting and so points should be lowered because climbers are too dominant. I think most can agree that shooting is far more stronger than climbing and so by using that same logic this is a broken game. All in all I would not like the points to change and hope the GDC won’t put this disclaimer in the rules from now on.
I think you misunderstand. I meant it as “another” meaning that you still lose some usability (picking up during “the storm”) even if you retain some. It’s not all or nothing but is definitely a hit. Just like increasing climb points would be.
I’d Agree if we were with the GDC back before Jan 5th (Well, earlier than that, but you get the point), and I do feel that 10 is so easy to get that 10 is a little gracious.
