Scores

ScottMaurer19
Member
Member
Posts: 592
Joined: January 5th, 2017, 9:39 am
Division: Grad
State: OH
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Scores

Post by ScottMaurer19 »

windu34 wrote:1: ~1720
2: ~1650
3-6: 1500+
7-10: 1350+
11-20: 950+

Idk how accurate that 11-20 prediction is though. Curious to see what you think Scott
Depending on how high Troy is scoring I'm thinking the following:
1: ~1700
2-3: ~1650
4-6: ~1550+
7-10: 1350+
11-20: 1050+
I may be a little optimistic on the scoring, but based on some of the scores I have seen at the state tournaments I would expect them to be around this level. The reason I'm hesitant to say 1720 because I don't expect too many perfect chemical timers (>2:40 would be my version of "perfect") and I don't think the target time will be the max of 120 seconds. That being said, IF teams manage to pull of a "perfect" or close to perfect chemical timer, and the target time is close to 120 sec, then I can see scores in the magnitude of 1780 being more than acheivable.

Here's the logic behind the 1780 score:
ASL, battery, all the actions, 30 min setup: 1200
Dimensions of ~20x15x15: 130
Target time of 120 sec: 240
Chemical timer 165 sec (minus 30 sec): 270
-1 point/sec over target time (60 sec): -60

Total: 1780 with max target time and "perfect" chemical timer

(second post was attempt to edit to make more readable)
Solon '19 Captain, CWRU '23
2017 (r/s/n):
Hydro: 3/5/18
Robot Arm: na/1/1
Rocks: 1/1/1

2018 (r/s/n):
Heli: 2/1/7 
Herp: 1/4/4
Mission: 1/1/6
Rocks: 1/1/1
Eco: 6/3/9

2019 (r/s/n):
Fossils: 1/1/1
GLM: 1/1/1
Herp: 1/1/5
Mission: 1/1/3
WS: 4/1/10

Top 3 Medals: 144
Golds: 80
User avatar
PM2017
Member
Member
Posts: 524
Joined: January 20th, 2017, 5:02 pm
Division: Grad
State: CA
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Scores

Post by PM2017 »

ScottMaurer19 wrote:
windu34 wrote:1: ~1720
2: ~1650
3-6: 1500+
7-10: 1350+
11-20: 950+

Idk how accurate that 11-20 prediction is though. Curious to see what you think Scott
Depending on how high Troy is scoring I'm thinking the following:
1: ~1700
2-3: ~1650
4-6: ~1550+
7-10: 1350+
11-20: 1050+
I may be a little optimistic on the scoring, but based on some of the scores I have seen at the state tournaments I would expect them to be around this level. The reason I'm hesitant to say 1720 because I don't expect too many perfect chemical timers (>2:40 would be my version of "perfect") and I don't think the target time will be the max of 120 seconds. That being said, IF teams manage to pull of a "perfect" or close to perfect chemical timer, and the target time is close to 120 sec, then I can see scores in the magnitude of 1780 being more than acheivable.

Here's the logic behind the 1780 score:
ASL, battery, all the actions, 30 min setup: 1200
Dimensions of ~20x15x15: 130
Target time of 120 sec: 240
Chemical timer 165 sec (minus 30 sec): 270
-1 point/sec over target time (60 sec): -60

Total: 1780 with max target time and "perfect" chemical timer

(second post was attempt to edit to make more readable)
I mean, Troy got third here at SoCal if that tells you anything.
West High '19
UC Berkeley '23

Go Bears!
ScottMaurer19
Member
Member
Posts: 592
Joined: January 5th, 2017, 9:39 am
Division: Grad
State: OH
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Scores

Post by ScottMaurer19 »

PM2017 wrote:
ScottMaurer19 wrote:
windu34 wrote:1: ~1720
2: ~1650
3-6: 1500+
7-10: 1350+
11-20: 950+

Idk how accurate that 11-20 prediction is though. Curious to see what you think Scott
Depending on how high Troy is scoring I'm thinking the following:
1: ~1700
2-3: ~1650
4-6: ~1550+
7-10: 1350+
11-20: 1050+
I may be a little optimistic on the scoring, but based on some of the scores I have seen at the state tournaments I would expect them to be around this level. The reason I'm hesitant to say 1720 because I don't expect too many perfect chemical timers (>2:40 would be my version of "perfect") and I don't think the target time will be the max of 120 seconds. That being said, IF teams manage to pull of a "perfect" or close to perfect chemical timer, and the target time is close to 120 sec, then I can see scores in the magnitude of 1780 being more than acheivable.

Here's the logic behind the 1780 score:
ASL, battery, all the actions, 30 min setup: 1200
Dimensions of ~20x15x15: 130
Target time of 120 sec: 240
Chemical timer 165 sec (minus 30 sec): 270
-1 point/sec over target time (60 sec): -60

Total: 1780 with max target time and "perfect" chemical timer

(second post was attempt to edit to make more readable)
I mean, Troy got third here at SoCal if that tells you anything.
Any idea on raw score? To me this means that either Troy had an issue or they are still using their device from MIT. Or SoCal could just be super good at Mission :?:
Solon '19 Captain, CWRU '23
2017 (r/s/n):
Hydro: 3/5/18
Robot Arm: na/1/1
Rocks: 1/1/1

2018 (r/s/n):
Heli: 2/1/7 
Herp: 1/4/4
Mission: 1/1/6
Rocks: 1/1/1
Eco: 6/3/9

2019 (r/s/n):
Fossils: 1/1/1
GLM: 1/1/1
Herp: 1/1/5
Mission: 1/1/3
WS: 4/1/10

Top 3 Medals: 144
Golds: 80
marty3
Member
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: March 1st, 2011, 12:20 am
Division: Grad
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Scores

Post by marty3 »

ScottMaurer19 wrote: 1: ~1700
2-3: ~1650
4-6: ~1550+
7-10: 1350+
11-20: 1050+
I may be a little optimistic on the scoring, but based on some of the scores I have seen at the state tournaments I would expect them to be around this level.
I don't think that's too optimistic. I think what it comes down to is how well the competitive devices run on the day. I wouldn't be surprised if 5-10 teams shot for a >2:30 chemical timer and it just didn't work that time. If several teams have flawless runs though, I think the top scores might be a bit closer, ~20 pts.
Last edited by marty3 on May 5th, 2018, 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
windu34
Staff Emeritus
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 1383
Joined: April 19th, 2015, 6:37 pm
Division: Grad
State: FL
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Scores

Post by windu34 »

ScottMaurer19 wrote: Any idea on raw score? To me this means that either Troy had an issue or they are still using their device from MIT. Or SoCal could just be super good at Mission :?:
SoCal is a tech-hub. I posit one of the reasons Mira Loma and Troy and all of those schools are so strong is the number of kids that have parents in STEM fields is disproportionate to other areas.
Boca Raton Community High School Alumni
University of Florida Science Olympiad Co-Founder
Florida Science Olympiad Board of Directors
[email protected] || windu34's Userpage
marty3
Member
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: March 1st, 2011, 12:20 am
Division: Grad
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Scores

Post by marty3 »

ScottMaurer19 wrote:Or SoCal could just be super good at Mission :?:
Based on my own experience there, SoCal is pretty cutthroat in every event. It's all about just getting a medal.
User avatar
Unome
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4336
Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
Division: Grad
State: GA
Has thanked: 235 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Scores

Post by Unome »

windu34 wrote:
ScottMaurer19 wrote: Any idea on raw score? To me this means that either Troy had an issue or they are still using their device from MIT. Or SoCal could just be super good at Mission :?:
SoCal is a tech-hub. I posit one of the reasons Mira Loma and Troy and all of those schools are so strong is the number of kids that have parents in STEM fields is disproportionate to other areas.
I think it's likely a combination of a mess-up on Troy's part plus a few very good Mission teams.

Besides Troy, SoCal probably isn't that much of an anomaly wrt competitiveness. The perennial 2nd-5th-ish teams are pretty good, but probably wouldn't be too out of place in, say, Michigan. They're probably all good enough to get top 20 at Nationals, but probably not top 10. As for the NorCal 2nd-4th, I'd rather wait and see how Mira Loma does at Nationals this year before commenting on that.
Userpage

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.
ScottMaurer19
Member
Member
Posts: 592
Joined: January 5th, 2017, 9:39 am
Division: Grad
State: OH
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Scores

Post by ScottMaurer19 »

marty3 wrote:
ScottMaurer19 wrote:Or SoCal could just be super good at Mission :?:
Based on my own experience there, SoCal is pretty cutthroat in every event. It's all about just getting a medal.
windu34 wrote:
ScottMaurer19 wrote: Any idea on raw score? To me this means that either Troy had an issue or they are still using their device from MIT. Or SoCal could just be super good at Mission :?:
SoCal is a tech-hub. I posit one of the reasons Mira Loma and Troy and all of those schools are so strong is the number of kids that have parents in STEM fields is disproportionate to other areas.
Both of these make sense. Tbh I'm not sure if Troy is one of the best in mission as I was just basing this off of the fact they beat my device (score of 1268 plus or minus 2 points) at MIT earlier this season. For all I know their device had 1300 points and they haven't changed a thing and another team I haven't competed against has a mission consistently scoring in the high 1700s or even low 1800s.
Solon '19 Captain, CWRU '23
2017 (r/s/n):
Hydro: 3/5/18
Robot Arm: na/1/1
Rocks: 1/1/1

2018 (r/s/n):
Heli: 2/1/7 
Herp: 1/4/4
Mission: 1/1/6
Rocks: 1/1/1
Eco: 6/3/9

2019 (r/s/n):
Fossils: 1/1/1
GLM: 1/1/1
Herp: 1/1/5
Mission: 1/1/3
WS: 4/1/10

Top 3 Medals: 144
Golds: 80
User avatar
PM2017
Member
Member
Posts: 524
Joined: January 20th, 2017, 5:02 pm
Division: Grad
State: CA
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Scores

Post by PM2017 »

windu34 wrote:1: ~1720
2: ~1650
3-6: 1500+
7-10: 1350+
11-20: 950+

Idk how accurate that 11-20 prediction is though. Curious to see what you think Scott
I've made a really sketchy one in less than a week that scored around 800 back in January, so I would be shocked to see scores that low doing so well. (The bonuses are huge in lower level scores.)
West High '19
UC Berkeley '23

Go Bears!
ScottMaurer19
Member
Member
Posts: 592
Joined: January 5th, 2017, 9:39 am
Division: Grad
State: OH
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Scores

Post by ScottMaurer19 »

PM2017 wrote:
windu34 wrote:1: ~1720
2: ~1650
3-6: 1500+
7-10: 1350+
11-20: 950+

Idk how accurate that 11-20 prediction is though. Curious to see what you think Scott
I've made a really sketchy one in less than a week that scored around 800 back in January, so I would be shocked to see scores that low doing so well. (The bonuses are huge in lower level scores.)
We built one day of competition when a competitor had to stay home back in January with starting action, lever action, then final action using earbuds. Needless to say we were all surprised when it placed
Solon '19 Captain, CWRU '23
2017 (r/s/n):
Hydro: 3/5/18
Robot Arm: na/1/1
Rocks: 1/1/1

2018 (r/s/n):
Heli: 2/1/7 
Herp: 1/4/4
Mission: 1/1/6
Rocks: 1/1/1
Eco: 6/3/9

2019 (r/s/n):
Fossils: 1/1/1
GLM: 1/1/1
Herp: 1/1/5
Mission: 1/1/3
WS: 4/1/10

Top 3 Medals: 144
Golds: 80
Locked

Return to “Mission Possible C”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests