We like to run three fields for competitions, 3:30 - 3:45 match cycle, and 8 rounds per team, or more. We have at least four referees as we do not break for lunch.
Definitely getting lots of matches helps.
Also, SG3 is probably more of a problem for teams all season long than ranking system.
That is kinda your fault for not reading the rulebook
You want to expand on this for those of us that have no idea what you are talking about?
What are you talking about ecstaticPilot.
Summary so you donāt have to go back and read the thread:
Twice??? I guess you didnāt learn the first time? Most people will stop breaking the rule after the first violationā¦
Allow me to clarify. The first disqualification was for touching the alliances platform multiple times in the last 30 seconds. This was at no fault of our own though because we had a very light bot and weāre pushed by the other team. The other dq was on our alliance partner and we had not control over it. Just a note, can everyone please quote the statement they are responding too do I can understand what they are talking about, Iāve had like 6 comments in this thread and canāt keep track of all of them.
Maybe you should have read SG3b more carefully and designed your robot and strategy with it in mind.
SG3 changed multiple times over the season, and enforcement of it also changed multiple times. For end-of-season & Worlds, yes - it is pretty clear (if unfortunate) how SG3 goes, but early season it definitely was not.
This. We (roboteers, mentors, GDC) have all lamented the changes this season. Itās easy for March Foster to glance back at September Foster and snicker at the ābadā choices made then.
I predict that the ārings under the platform is OKā rule will change, I saw robots that could move rings under the edge of the platform to stop adversarial alliances from climbing the platform.
To stray back onto the topic: Early season AWP was a great thing, mid season if you had a partner you could bling out to get 1/2 of the AWP task was a great thing, at the end of the year not getting a yellow mogo in 273 microseconds predicted a loss. I did see a resurgence of "Well thatās nice that you got that mogo and now we are going to RIP IT AWAY FROM YOU activity
Iām still mulling over the average win point showings this year with the advantage that the AWP gave you. I think showing the average under played how much advantage that was early season.
It will be interesting to watch the Worlds rankings as the days go by.
Helpfully, Iāve graphed it over time:
Events in China that posted scores to RobotEvents really emphasized AWP, especially early season. The competition over Christmas break demonstrates a bit of an outlier, but it was not very many matches. Overall, AWP success rate rarely cracked 10% over the whole season.
Individual teams did seem to prioritize it; Freedom Gladiators were successful with their AWP in 66% of their qualification matches, and Centrifuge out of Kansas hit it more than 80% of the time (with 34 qualification matches played).
On the other hand, entire regions seemed to forego AWP almost entirely.
Iām guessing that teams at Worldās that want to control their own destiny for Alliance selection will prioritize AWP, whether that means solo AWP or coordination with partners.
Thanks for the shoutout!
I completely agree with this statement. In think the top teams at worlds will be able to rush neutral goals and then be able to consistently complete the AWP task afterward. Maybe even solo the AWP after rushing a neutral goal.
My team didnāt make it to worlds but Iāll be interested to see the autonomous strategies there since we didnāt see much from the teams here in South Dakota.
So, I see that the ranking system could be āunfairā from a certain perspective, but I honestly think that the system should stay the way it is.
First of all, correct me if Iām wrong, but Iām pretty sure the schedule randomizes the teams into their matches.
Secondly, qualifications donāt really mean that much, other than for scouting and alliance selection, in my opinion. Iām sure that there are some people that would disagree with me, though. No offense to those who do, itās just my opinion.
Lastly, the actual tournament finalists and champions shine in the elimination matches.
Again, these are just my thoughts on the matter.
these are good points.
One thing that rankings does determine, is who gets to ask whom as alliance partner. Hence your points about scouting are critical. Indeed the scheduling software randomizes alliances during qualification rounds.
EPs can do their best to get more rounds in qualifying matches. Teams have their routes - win more than others (leave no doubt 1v2 or even, for conspiracy folks, 1 v3!. More importantly, do a lot of networking/scouting during event. Yes you can win all matches, but not sure your first choice for alliance partner will be willing if you have not made connections with other teams.
Actually qualifications matter a lot.
It will determine where you will be ranked and hence how much say you have in selecting your alliance for eliminations.
And for teams that are not seeded, the alliance selection is practically out of their hands, i.e. they canāt say no even if it is not their ideal alliance partner.
an extra way to get another wp for completing something during the match would be cool to reward teams for doing well or something impressive in quals (like rp in frc). like double parking in quals and getting rewarded for it with an extra wp would be sick.
Or maybe we should reward teams more for winning- for example, rewarding teams with 3WP for a win, making AWP matter slightly less.
Then what would you do in the case of a tie? Everybody gets 1 1/2 WP??
Why not? The number doesnāt have to be exact, and because WP is averaged on most tournament rankings as far as I know, this wouldnāt cause any major problems.
Also (and I know this isnāt soccer) but they use 3 points for winning, 1 point for a tie, 0 for a loss. Why canāt this work?
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
