A Tie in 15 second Autonomous Should Award Each Alliance 2 AP


#21

For me it would depend on whether the robots scored points.

If both sides scored points and they tied, I think they should each be given 1 AP.

This would give teams who take the time to write a working autonomous program an advantage over those who don't, but since it's worth only 1/3rd of an autonomous win, teams would still have an incentive to improve their scores and actually win autonomous.

(Plus winning autonomous already makes you more likely to win the match, and gives you 4 more SP's if you lose.)


#23

just throwin’ it out there. but what if AP was awarded for how many points each team had at the end of auton?


#24

I like this idea, but it would cause a lot of delays because the referees would need to calculate the exact score, instead of just seeing who had more points.


#25

Don’t events nowadays have the mobile scoring thing through TM? Getting the scores from auton should be pretty trivial I’d think…


#26

Inputting everything into TM Mobile takes time, and those responsible for doing so may be scoring a match on another field instead of watching autonomous, depending on the structure of the event.

And there are still tons of events that barely have 1 computer for all things TM, let alone a wireless network and tablets.


#27

If you want to get get the 4 AP points, write an autonomous that scores more points than your opponent. To be honest, the autonomous bonus itself could just be 1 point as the tie breaker really just breaks the tie in win points to the team whose alliance has won autonomous more often. An event with 8 qualification rounds would give 32 AP to a team whose alliance won autonomous all 8 times and 28 AP to a team that won 7 times. That could just as easily be 8 AP vs 7 AP. The choosing of the number of points allotted to the autonomous bonus is based on the value that winning autonomous has from the standpoint of the game. Other years, the autonomous bonus has had different values depending on the amount of scoring in the game. In my opinion, the AP tiebreaker really just boils down to which team has won autonomous more times than another team. I do not agree autonomous should be treated the same as WP. If you tie in autonomous, you didn’t win autonomous. Receiving 1 point for each team in an autonomous tie has no effect on the winner of a match as it is just a wash. To me, this is just complicating a relatively elegant solution with little to no real benefit. And using APs as the first tie-breaker is far superior to using SPs as far as I am concerned.


#28

If neither team has any autonomous or have autonomous that doesn’t score, they should receive 0 points. If teams tie in auton, they should receive 2 AP. Obviously, if a team wins, they get all 4 AP.


#29

I think there’s a misconception. The 4 points is referring to the actual score given by the match. If there’s a tie, it won’t affect anything if both teams are given the same point boost. (Except SP’s, but thet’s a whole different story.)

The discussion here is about the APs in terms of ranking.


#30

If a team gets no AP’s then that could hold them down in the rankings. If a team receives a tie in auton, they should get at least some points


#31

AP for ranking is the same as the bonus that counts for a match. That is without a doubt done on purpose. Don’t underestimate the need for simplicity. If teams received 1 or 2 ranking APs in the event of a tie, they would also need to receive the same corresponding points in the match.

This is why APs aren’t 1 point each win for rankings. If the numbers were different then the EP at every event would spend 25% of their day explaining to teams why the numbers are different than what the team expected.


#32

Actually, I think that the AP Ranking should be 1 point for winning autonomous and 0 points for not winning autonomous. Teams would still get the 4 points in their match score. As it is, APs are just a counter for the number of times a team has won autonomous. It just happens to be 4 points per win, because that is the value that the teams gain in their match score. I don’t agree that EP would have to explain much at all, if AP were 1 point for a win in the rankings as it would just count the number of autonomous wins. Actually, I think that is easier for teams and spectators to understand. If a team has 6 AP, then they won autonomous 6 times. Not much simpler than that. Now if the win autonomous 6 times they have 24 APs. Although to a competitor that may make sense, it is far from intuitive from a spectator standpoint. I don;t think 1 AP for an autonomous win as far as rankings go is a difficult idea at all. I spend a fair amount of time explaining the current APs to spectators.


#33

I wish somehow the autonomous points could reflect what actually happened better. For instance, if all 4 robots have high scoring autons & one group wins by 1 point vs if 3 of 4 robots don’t move and 1 robot hits a low flag (also winning by 1 point). I know it’s not likely to ever be the case since it would require much more monitoring and revisions to the current system, but it’s so frustrating that the auton “losing” teams of the first group get 0 (who may have had a large point score each) but the auton “winning” teams of the second group get full points (when 1 of those robots may not have even moved and the other may have barely moved).


#34

I still think a 2 and 2 tie is in order if both alliances score points and tie. That’ll help reflect what happened better. But the point skewing depending on variation wouldn’t do much good, and would create a lot of confusion to both refs and competitors.


#35

The fairest solution would be to award the auton points (4 in this case) to the match points of the alliance that wins auton but give each alliance their actual auton score for the AP.

It would be easy for EPs that use scoring tablets but more challenging for those that use paper.


#36

If none of the robots move in autonomous and they tie, they both get 0 APS. But if none of the robots move in driver control and they tie, they both get 1 WP. Regardless of which way is more fair, it doesn’t make sense to have them be different. It just makes it more confusing for the audience and the competitors.

Personally, I like the idea of a tie awarding each team 2 auton points. But I totally get why people wouldn’t, and it ultimately just comes down to personal preference.

Of course with flexible qualification matches, this problem wouldn’t exist because APs would become the 2nd level tie breaker and would be way less important, but that’s another rant for another thread :stuck_out_tongue:


#37

Lets motivate programming. 1 point for auton win, -1 if neither team on an alliance moves!


#38

Let’s also not completely discourage new teams.


#39

So its clear, I was joking.


#40

Red team robot 1 has an autonomous, and they flip a cap, but then accidentally flip it right back, resulting in a tie, even though the other three robots didn’t move. How would points be distributed?


#41

It would not necessarily be easy for those using tablets either. In a lot of cases, the autonomous winner is decided by a mental count by the referees and not officially entered on the tablet. Particularly if the autonomous winner is fairly obvious, This would slow down the process.