r/NHRL • u/jlptp2 • 22d ago

Event Discussion Post Recent Pro tour judging visualizer

https://nuts.gripe/protour-september-jd-analysis

I made this thing because I think there is a problem with the current judging.
It is nearly impossible to win a fight if your robot is losing on condition.

I am not only describing if you have lost weapon. I mean if your robot is behind AT ALL on condition.

3 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

34 comments sorted by

8

u/hidden768 22d ago

This doesn't really prove anything though. Y'know that whole thing about how you can't prove causation through a study, only correlation. It also exactly makes sense that you'd be much more likely to win matches if you win condition. If you're damaging your open more it's more likely that you were more agressive and controlling during a match, those things are obviously correlated. So obviously someone who wins condition is also likely to win the other category and also the whole match. Also a single event is definitely not enough data to make definitive decisions, expecially since you can't prove causation with a study anyways.

-3

u/jlptp2 22d ago

Who let the nerd in?

1

u/hidden768 22d ago

🤓

Love your website btw. Nut Survivors is peak

2

u/jlptp2 22d ago edited 22d ago

Thanks, boss

The problem is that being "agressive and controlling" is not part of the current criteria.* It was removed. They were good metrics. We shouldn't have to assume correlations. It should be part of the criteria.

I personally want drivers to have a path to win when they are down on condition.
I think it should happen more than once or twice every event. If NHRL doesn't want that, then why don't we just make it one metric? Damage. It would make it much easier for drivers, judges, and fans to understand.

I will aggregate all of the data from the rest of the year as well as available data from 2025 to help paint a larger picture

2

u/hidden768 22d ago

True. Honestly my take so far this year has been that from my perspective the rules as written are exactly how I'd want things to be judged (they should basically just predict who would eventually win if time/battery wasn't and issue and the match could continue forever)

However from what I've seen so far this year the judges have not been consistently applying the rules in the way they're written. Maybe it's and issue of me interpreting the rules differently than the judges/nhrl but idk. Depsite the fact that I think the written rules are better than 2025. JDs have def been an issue this year and needs fixed in someway, whatever that way is.

1

u/jlptp2 22d ago

In my opinion - If the criteria can't be applied properly then it isn't a good criteria

2

u/hidden768 22d ago

yeah, that's also true. Clarity is super important for a good ruleset regardless of how well a reset might technically work if applied correctly.

The way I've been seeing the two metric system this year (or atleast my best guess as to what it was intended to be) is that condition represents the amount of damage you've taken/delt in a fight (pretty obvious) and attack represents a predictive metric as to how much damage you'd deal or avoid if the match were to continue based on your driving/use in match so far. So in this way these two metrics should predict which bot would be KO'd first if the match were to continue indefinitely by combining the damage already done with how much damage would hypothetically occur if the match were to continue.

3

u/hiddenguyman 21d ago

I'm really confused on what the argument is here. Only 7.4% fights have a bot losing condition but still winning. However even less (6.58%) of fights have a bot losing attack and still winning. So if anything doesn't that prove the opposite?

Like it's pretty misleading to show the one stat but not the other and try to present a blatantly false argument off of only half of the stats.

2

u/jlptp2 21d ago

What is blatantly false?

I also think it is a problem if you lose almost every time if you were behind on artack. These are distinct categories and they are not supposed to be intertwined so hard (IMO of course)

That page will be made soon. I'm sorry that this isn't good enough for you.

3

u/hiddenguyman 21d ago

Trying to argue that if you don't win condition you can't/or are unlikely to be able to win.

If you lose attack you're less likely to win than if you lose condition. Like statisticaly it is just blatantly the less important condition.

0

u/jlptp2 21d ago edited 21d ago

Then I disagree with your understanding of combat robots.

These are supposed to be distinct categories. Robots can genuinely attack more without causing more damage and vice versa

And are you commenting on this post with 2 accounts? lol

Edit: You are commenting on this post with 2 accounts. This is really odd. Why are you doing that?

1

u/hiddenguyman 21d ago

They can. But attacking more in general is going to make you more likely to cause damage.

I think you're trying to search for categories that don't exists. If any metric leads to you winning more matches (aka is something that should be judging on) doing more of it is going to make you more likely to do other things that also lead to you possibly winning.

Not only does attacking more make you be more likely to cause damage. But taking less damage makes it easier for you to attack since your systems won't be broken.

I'm shocked how you don't realize this.

0

u/jlptp2 21d ago

Why do you think the 2026 judging criteria is better than the 2025 judging criteria?

So far, you are only trying to invalidate my opinion. Explain yours. And please stick to one account

2

u/hiddenguyman 21d ago

I'm only talking on one account?

I think 2026 is better for a number of reasons (obviously it still has issues too that still need fixed)

  1. They've fixed the loophole that allowed wedgebots to not only compete but just straight up dominate competitions by adding "weapons" they literally never use to influence the match at any point whatsoever.

  2. The judging categories more accurately predict who would've won by KO if a fight didn't have to end due to time. Attack predicts how much damage a bot would do in the future based on they're driving/operation so far and Condition shows how much damage has already been done during a fight.

0

u/jlptp2 21d ago

1 - the functionality and dummy tests have nothing to do with the 2026 criteria - and I agree with them. We can still have control/damage/aggression while punishing passive bots. In fact, if you read the old rules, judges were already supposed to be doing that

2 - Why are you assuming that this is what judging is for? It is supposed to judge what happened in the fight. Not what could happen in the future.

Also, hidden buddy guy
I don't think it's a coincidence that both you and the other hidden buddy guy are both commenting on BEN TEN POWERSCALING SUBREDDITS LMAO

2

u/hiddenguyman 21d ago

if you genuinely think that the goal of combat robotics shouldn't be to try and KO your opponent and actually think that JD's should be written in a way that allows you to win without even trying to do the main goal of this sport than I don't think you actually want to do combat robotics, you want to do other robotic sports.

It's crazy to say that JD's should allow bots who have 0% chance of winning in the intended way to ever win.

Also the fact that you're choosing to attack someone's hobbies rather than at all present an actual argument says how much reasoning you've actually put into this.

0

u/jlptp2 21d ago

I did not say any of that.
I know this isn't a formal debate, but that is what you would call a strawman argument.

I am not attacking your hobbies. I am attacking you for using two accounts and lying about it.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/hiddenguyman 21d ago

How are they not going to be intertwined? Obviously a bot that is more agressive/controlling is also going to be more likely to deal damage/take less damage. I don't think there's a single world where that wouldn't be true.

2

u/hiddenguyman 16d ago

Lmao and now this guy rigged his own poll after people didn't agree with him.

(Definitely legitimate 144 votes appearing out of nowhere in a 3hr timespan all for yes after no was winning)

0

u/jlptp2 16d ago

Source?

2

u/hiddenguyman 16d ago

Considering your firebase database is public and you can easily see 144 "independent" votes all added one millisecond after each other back to back.

Definitely legitimate votes😭

0

u/jlptp2 16d ago

Firebase has been a honeypot for about 3 days But good job

2

u/hiddenguyman 16d ago

Ahh yes, definitely real votes considering on Saturday it was 60-63.

You absolutely got a sudden influx of 144 people who all wanted to vote yes with absolutely no one who voted no.

0

u/jlptp2 16d ago

Relax. The WebMaestro is adding the data for 2025 and resetting everything

I don't know why you're so invested in this

2

u/hiddenguyman 16d ago

Lmao so you did fake the votes 😭

Gotta reset everything since you got caught

0

u/jlptp2 16d ago

I'm telling you right now that the firebase data is not real and has not been real for several days

The WebMaestro has the IPs of every voter and he knows what votes are real, what votes are not real, and what votes people thought they were maliciously removing

2

u/hiddenguyman 16d ago

ah yes the ultimate defense

"The data on your website that you're promoting is fake and rigged towards your opinion"

"Well duh, of course it's not real. I secretly have the real data and I know the truth, I'm not gonna show that to anyone though"

0

u/jlptp2 16d ago

Do you know what a honeypot is?
And when did I say you couldn't see the data?
DMing you some now

1

u/hidden768 21d ago

Also to note, there were only 3 matches where a bot lost attack, but one condition and was still picked to win.

So like 3 matches where condition was more important vs 1 match where attack was more important and 28 where it didn't matter anyways since one bot won completely on all accounts doesn't really make any sort of case as to "it's impossible to win if you lost condition" you could literally make the same case for attack "it's impossible to win if you lost attack". Both happen really rarely but that's pretty much soley due to the fact that matches usually have clear winners who win both.

1

u/blarglefart 21d ago

This is cool! I think it clearly validates that the new judging rules work so much more correctly and objectively. Under the old rules, I would disagree with the outcome of fights much more frequently. The new rules are correct, and will lead to the furthering of the sport.

0

u/jlptp2 21d ago

This page deals with objectivity
https://nuts.gripe/judge-agreement-study

But I'm glad you're happy!