Throwing the game. [Archive]

defied

08-01-2015, 16:01

I'm looking at the rules and configuration of this game and am not seeing any reason why a robot on an alliance wouldn't be able to heavily sway the outcome (throw a game) of a round by "accidentally" knocking over stacks made by the other teammates of said alliance.

At the top of page 3:

Points for the Match are awarded based on the state of the scored objects at the end of the Match
(with the exception of Coopertition Points, which can be earned at any point during the Match).
Point values are shown in Table 1-2.

1) If the majority of score-able points are only counted at the end of the match and
2) If a robot is low enough in qualifying that they will not be immediately in the playoffs and
3) Knowing the alliances per match (Released in the AM of each day):

A team could effectively "buy in" to the Playoffs by making a deal with a high-scoring team on the other alliance during a match to throw a game reducing the points collected by another high level team that one would consider a threat.

For instance:

Red Alliance:
Teams A, B, C

Blue alliance:
Teams D, E, F

Blue team alliance member D is a shoe-in for Playoffs.

Red team alliance member A will be able to make the playoffs if they score so and so points in this round.

Red Team alliance member B may or may not be close to qualify, but won't make it no matter what the outcome score of this round would be.

One team contacts the other in discussion and reaches an agreement that if they prevent team A from succeeding to reach the required score to get them in to playoffs, Team D would select team B for qualifying.

This would prevent Team A from having the initial pick round, and would hope another qualified team would pick them.

G15 says in violation there will be a firm talking to, and potentially a yellow or red card if it happens again. As this tactic would be most effective towards the last qualifying rounds, it really doesn't matter.

G16 Violation sort of covers this, but 1) It's up to the head referee to determine disabling and 2) the damage would already be underway, so there would be a loss of points.

Effectively, this could be considered an "Accident", which would mean a team could get away with being non-GP without being accused of BEING non-GP.

D

nighterfighter

08-01-2015, 16:03

Sure they could. But this isn't really any different than previous years, where you had W-L-T, except now the math is a bit trickier, because all the ranking is based off of averages.

And even if you DO throw a match, are you going to completely trust that other team to pick you?

Instead of scheming to screw over your teammates, why don't we all just try and play our hardest and score as many points as we can?

Tungrus

08-01-2015, 16:06

Such teams will be barred from any FIRST events for ever!

.... if this was up to me.

defied

08-01-2015, 16:08

The blatantly obvious is to display GP. That's the point of this game.

That said, this is a conceivable "What if" scenario that should possibly be explored.

Ideally, this would allow for a change in the rulesets to cover this before entering the first competition.

D

Steven Smith

08-01-2015, 16:11

This isn't a unique situation where throwing a match could upset final rankings.

G15 says in violation there will be a firm talking to, and potentially a yellow or red card if it happens again. As this tactic would be most effective towards the last qualifying rounds, it really doesn't matter.

While yellow/red cards might technically only apply to that regional, the stigma of getting heavily penalized for actions that go against the spirit of the competition might stick with your team for awhile. FIRST teams have good memories.

I don't think you were suggesting your team might consider such a thing, and were just worried about others doing so. However, I personally would not be too anxious about this impacting your strategy or events you attend. Just focus on playing a clean game with a smart strategy, and these things tend to self-police.

defied

08-01-2015, 16:20

This isn't a unique situation where throwing a match could upset final rankings.

Exactly.

While yellow/red cards might technically only apply to that regional, the stigma of getting heavily penalized for actions that go against the spirit of the competition might stick with your team for awhile. FIRST teams have good memories.

Unless the team gets disqualified from any future FRC events, this wouldn't bother a team. Especially if they can claim it was all accidental.

I don't think you were suggesting your team might consider such a thing, and were just worried about others doing so.

This is more of a thought experiment and the questioning of the rules.
And no. Even if I were, this team I mentor for is comprised of amazingly caring students who actually wouldn't have (and wouldn't) even considered this.

However, I personally would not be too anxious about this impacting your strategy or events you attend. Just focus on playing a clean game with a smart strategy, and these things tend to self-police.

Personally, I appreciate your outlook. As much as I would prefer everyone have that same optimistic view, in my career, I'm trained to think otherwise. 0[

D

dellagd

08-01-2015, 16:20

A team could effectively "buy in" to the Playoffs by making a deal with a high-scoring team on the other alliance during a match to throw a game reducing the points collected by another high level team that one would consider a threat.

No high-ranking team that has any chance of doing well in the playoffs would accept this. They're going to pick whatever robots will help them score the most points (or stop their opponents from scoring the most). They do this through great scouting, good strategy, and a good robot. And playing clean.

And if some team picking in the top 8 would go for this, it's not like you're not going anywhere with them anyway, so I wouldn't even bother.

MrJohnston

08-01-2015, 16:30

Don't get me wrong: My team is going to try really hard to win. We are competitive....

HOWEVER, "winning" is neither the focus nor the ultimate goal of FIRST. FIRST is all about Grace and Professionalism. At the same time, the competition cannot be removed. Our society and economy is built around competition. FIRST attempts to address: How can we be competitive with one another, yet retain our Grace and Professionalism?

Sometimes I wonder if these loopholes in our games are left somewhat intentionally to give our teams - under the guidance of mentors - an opportunity to demonstrate such Gracious Professionalism, despite the temptation to clearly violate GP and "win."

So... I would hope that our community as a whole would reject this potential temptation as a "cheap" way to game the system for a silly trophy. I felt the same way about the Noodle Agreement.

techhelpbb

08-01-2015, 16:34

How big would the robot have to be to throw the entire game?
It fills the back of large truck ;)

Kidding...obviously,

If your team makes a habbit out of tossing your alliance mates under the bus (or bus sized robot) I would expect that it will come back to haunt your team later.

Rick

08-01-2015, 16:41

..."accidentally" knocking over stacks made by the other teammates of said alliance...

Sounds like you would "accidently" be removed from pick lists by doing something like this.

defied

08-01-2015, 16:44

Sometimes I wonder if these loopholes in our games are left somewhat intentionally to give our teams - under the guidance of mentors - an opportunity to demonstrate such Gracious Professionalism, despite the temptation to clearly violate GP and "win."

This. I like this.

So... I would hope that our community as a whole would reject this potential temptation as a "cheap" way to game the system for a silly trophy. I felt the same way about the Noodle Agreement.

I would hope so as well.
The noodle agreement is getting a rule made to prevent this from happening, which brings me to the point of my post: Should there be a rule made/altered to ensure this can't happen?

On a positive note, I'm loving that the responses tend to lean towards the optimistic side. That gives me good feelings for this season.

D

MooreteP

08-01-2015, 17:02

Nyxyxylyth

08-01-2015, 17:23

Should there be a rule made/altered to ensure this can't happen?
What would that rule be? Anybody who just starts blatantly knocking over stacks is already in danger of getting a red card.

The great peril of this game is that one little mistake can lose the match. If you haven't tried it already, knock over a six tote stack with a can on it, and watch in horror how far the can goes. At some point, we'll see a can fly over the step (adding a six point foul to the already grievous injury), and I'll bet the other alliance will even use it to score.

Who could tell whether a quarter spin in the wrong direction that knocks over a stack is an accident, or on purpose? Accidents are going to happen, and we've all got to keep graciously, professionally cool.

defied

08-01-2015, 17:49

What would that rule be? Anybody who just starts blatantly knocking over stacks is already in danger of getting a red card.

Who could tell whether a quarter spin in the wrong direction that knocks over a stack is an accident, or on purpose? Accidents are going to happen, and we've all got to keep graciously, professionally cool.

That's one of my points. That makes it exploitable. "I don't know, I think the drivetrain went out", or an excuse of that nature, makes it an accident.

This wouldn't be a tactic a team would take willy nilly. This is something that would be likely to happen towards the end of the qualifying rounds.

So, effectively, not counting the grey stacks until after the match has ended could be the root of the issue.

D

Jared Russell

08-01-2015, 17:51

It's not like it hasn't happened in the past.

I think this is the 2010 Breakaway match that was "thrown" for seeding advantage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9EGAPBwgFU&spfreload=10

In this game, your opponents score contributed to your ranking.

There is a big difference between a whole alliance deciding to score for your opponent in a game that rewards all 6 teams for such an action, and one team going rogue to sabotage another as is being discussed here.

bobjones227

08-01-2015, 18:15

So, if a team that was on the edge of being a picking team were to receive this offer, would they accept it? Hopefully not. That would violate the code of GP and even then, if the opposing team made the picking, they would most likely choose the robots that fit their strategy best.

Marc S.

08-01-2015, 18:24

In 2012 a team that was partnered with 1717 at the Central Valley regional caused over 40 pts in penalties which caused them to barely lose the match (1717's only loss at that event). Whether it was intentional or not they were ("accidentally") not picked.

There have been times where teams were accused of doing similar actions, 217 on newton 2013, 973 at cvr 2014, etc. where the team actually had success in elims and it caused many to complain publicly.

In those instances no foul play was ever proven. In your scenario, foul play would be obvious and the outcry would be even greater. You may win that event but teams (and volunteers) will remember it and come to dislike you.

defied

08-01-2015, 18:41

In your scenario, foul play would be obvious and the outcry would be even greater.

Will it, though? There is of course the obvious "Let's knock these crates over" maneuver when one would just slam in to the crates with intent.

But then there is also what was mentioned earlier; where someone would get close and perhaps sideswipe it. Or the team would say their robot went straight and became unresponsive for a moment (Which is known to happen [many times last season] and the robots were rarely disabled) but afterwards they regained control (just to lose it again?).

A lot of this can be explained away as accidental, and shoot, could very well BE accidental.

So, if one could create stacks and have the points awarded upon completion of said stack and not end of game, wouldn't that be partially effective? Of course that would then open up the possibility that someone could build a stack, score, destroy the stack and rebuild it, mobius strip.

D

bobjones227

08-01-2015, 18:49

So, if one could create stacks and have the points awarded upon completion of said stack and not end of game, wouldn't that be partially effective? Of course that would then open up the possibility that someone could build a stack, score, destroy the stack and rebuild it, mobius strip.

D

Wouldn't a top ranked team in a regional or at world's want a teammate who is always effective at what they do, instead of being just partially effective?

Taylor

08-01-2015, 18:53

To its core, FIRST Robotics is founded on the Honor System. How do I know teams stop work on February 17th, that their systems were not built before January 3rd, that their robot truly is under budget restrictions, etc? I don't.
But I have faith in them, as they do with us.
I have an inherent trust in every team attending FIRST events, as I presume they would have for me.
Suggesting such a maneuver would be a betrayal of that trust.
If we were in Team B's position, I wouldn't trust Team D to follow through on their end of the bargain. If they're playing dirty pool with Team A, who's to say they wouldn't do the same with us?

Thromgord

08-01-2015, 18:54

There's a point that I think that a lot of people are missing: even if knocking over a set of totes could improve your ranking, it still means that you have to deal with other teams at the competition.

Personally, I think I can speak for my team when I say that we wouldn't join an alliance that achieved its position by underhanded means, even if it was our only chance at getting to Nationals. I wonder what would happen if nobody accepted an alliance with the dirty (mumble-mumble) teams... is there a rule for this?

defied

08-01-2015, 19:04

Personally, I think I can speak for my team when I say that we wouldn't join an alliance that achieved its position by underhanded means, even if it was our only chance at getting to Nationals. I wonder what would happen if nobody accepted an alliance with the dirty (mumble-mumble) teams... is there a rule for this?

I'm happy to see that most of the responses here lean in that same direction. It shows that the general attitude about gameplay is to be honorable, fair and positive.

It would be interesting to see if a team were considered so non-GP that noone would accept an alliance with them and what would happen.

D

EricH

08-01-2015, 19:42

I wonder what would happen if nobody accepted an alliance with the dirty (mumble-mumble) teams... is there a rule for this?

There is not such a rule. I would also note that it would be EXTREMELY unlikely for nobody to accept their alliance. HQ would almost certainly become involved at some point.

And here's why. Any team that is not in the top 8 is in an "accept or don't play" situation on Saturday, thus is almost guaranteed to accept any offer they receive. At a small (30-odd team) event, where a large percentage of teams will be playing on Saturday afternoon, there's a slight chance that enough teams decline for there to be not enough teams available to fill out the alliances, which will (being the first time this has happened) result in a call to HQ to figure out what to do. At a large event (50-60+ teams), not a chance unless the team's action is EXTREMELY egregious. And in that last case, there's a significant chance that they had to talk to the Head Referee or the Regional Director at least once about "being civil" among other things.

*Rachelle*

08-01-2015, 20:54

Fortunately I don't think this scenario is likely to happen with us defied. Being that we are in districts, we have to earn our way into regionals.

In case you haven't seen this already a recent blog post (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-changes-to-district-points-2015) said that teams will want to focus on ranking well. I think this will stop even potential un-GP teams from "throwing" matches. The only thing would be if they are picked by an alliance that makes it to finals I suppose.

There are also some other interesting tidbits about rankings in the post. Good luck, we'll see you at Shorewood.

IronicDeadBird

08-01-2015, 21:22

So lets say this strategy is used...
How do you win with it? You have just given us a strategy where you got yourself into a position where you advance, but this strategy in the long run doesn't work because you can't actually win the game with it. If a team that throws is up against a team that can compete then the team that competes wins. (Assuming that you are throwing because you can't win a conventional match)

asid61

08-01-2015, 22:18

If you aimed to broker a deal with a high-seeding team to do this, I would think it unlikely to be succed. High-seeding teams are often supplemented by several presumably moral adults, and it would be a matter of bad GP to participate in such a strategy.
I could not, for example, see the Cheezy Poofs doing this due to their high standing and number of moral adults.

Abhishek R

09-01-2015, 00:38

This applied to pretty much any other year as well, but personally, if my team found out a team was throwing matches, we would 100% blacklist them immediately. There are several categories under which it is very difficult to work with a team, and this would definitely make me question how willing I would be to work with them in an eliminations bracket. I would assume this is true for many other teams, considering that throwing matches has a very negative connotation to it.

We've had several opportunities this past season alone where it would possibly have been beneficial for ourselves to lose some matches, but we always, and I repeat, always, try our hardest to win every - single - match; both for our own moral uprightness and for the sake of our alliance partners.

This year is not really any different from other years except maybe 2010. You're making an effort to manipulate the standings in some way other than the intent of the alliance and FIRST in general, and should be treated as such.

*When I say "you," I don't mean the OP, I'm just referring to the hypothetical team in question.

techhelpbb

09-01-2015, 07:06

Or the team would say their robot went straight and became unresponsive for a moment (Which is known to happen [many times last season] and the robots were rarely disabled) but afterwards they regained control (just to lose it again?).

The RoboRio will hopefully reduce at least some of the underlying cause of issues like this.
Seeing as turning your robot into an obstacle on this field without warning could cause your alliance issues I would hope that the RoboRio's ability to recover from low battery voltage situations will at least put robots a little more in control.

I watched Team 11's robot run around a competition field dropping FMS packets left and right and still remain drivable using the beta RoboRio. They did nothing to gain that capability in their code in fact the code in the robot at the time was allowing the drivetrain to place heavy drain on the battery. Had that robot had a cRIO it would have had a radio reset that would have made it stop.

RunawayEngineer

09-01-2015, 07:38

ScottOliveira

09-01-2015, 09:03

It's strange that this would be a topic this year. The lack of Win/Loss/Tie system makes this year the one with the lowest incentive for sabotage in qualifications.
Individual teams have way less influence on each other's rankings than in previous years. Last year - a couple points swung in a single match determined the top seedings. This year - a couple points in a single match is almost meaningless because it is averaged out over all of them.
A scenario like described could exist between 2 close rival teams - but the same incentive has been in almost every regional previously, with teams having more influence to act on it.
Resilience to this particular brand of politics is one of the things that I like about this new structure.

I would strongly disagree, if anything I would believe sabotage would be far easier this year than previously (not that I advocate that strategy). While points are averaged, it is very easy to knock over a few 3-4 tote + container stacks and take out a hundred points or more (easily potentially dropping their average score by 10% or more if you are looking to effect a dramatic change). And the larger number of discrete ranking levels means it can be easier to knock a (perhaps threatening) team down (possibly out of a captainship) while maintaining your own position.

JesseK

09-01-2015, 09:27

Maybe my hand slips and hits the offending bot's E-stop. Maybe.

wilsonmw04

09-01-2015, 09:37

Maybe my hand slips and hits the offending bot's E-stop. Maybe.

:-) I know I can be clumsy that way.

Taylor

09-01-2015, 09:48

Maybe my hand slips and hits the offending bot's E-stop. Maybe.

:-) I know I can be clumsy that way.

I almost made a comment about how coaches are not allowed to touch the controls. However, after searching the manual, I cannot find a 2015 rule that says so.

Slap away!

Logan Byers

09-01-2015, 09:51

Taylor

09-01-2015, 09:54

That's what I get for just searching "coach"

JesseK

09-01-2015, 09:58

Does E-stop count as robot operation? The point of E-stop is quite the opposite.

I know one year at a Regional driver's meeting someone asked if the coach could hit E-stop, and the reply was 'yes'. I don't know if that was explicitly stated in the rules or in a Q&A that year, however.

wilsonmw04

09-01-2015, 09:58

Sorry Taylor, coaches still should not touch controls.

"G32: During a MATCH, the ROBOT shall be operated solely by the DRIVERS and/or HUMAN PLAYERS of that Team.
VIOLATION: Offending ROBOT will be DISABLED."

I would think that the E-stop is not controlling the robot. It just shuts it off. Rule layering, maybe? NAW!! I just tripped...

RallyJeff

09-01-2015, 10:03

G15 says in violation there will be a firm talking to, and potentially a yellow or red card if it happens again. As this tactic would be most effective towards the last qualifying rounds, it really doesn't matter.

That's not correct. The penalties specified for violating G15 include a potential red or yellow card for repeated or egregious violations. Without speaking to the specific scenario you described, a violation of G15 that was bad enough could result in a red card on the first offense. Also, 5.5.4 allows the head ref to issue red or yellow cards for egregious actions that violate the mission of FIRST but aren't captured in other rules.

Whippet

09-01-2015, 10:10

That's funny, I can't find any specific rules governing the use of the E-Stop button this year. Maybe they intended the button to be usable by anyone who thought ROBOT operation to be unsafe this year.

The_ShamWOW88

09-01-2015, 11:32

What happened to just competing to the best of your abilities and trying to score as much as possible?

Why can't Team B show why they're a good robot by scoring as much as possible?

If Team A is good, why wouldn't B want to show them why they're a good alliance partner, possibly hoping for a pick in alliance selections?

RunawayEngineer

09-01-2015, 12:10

I would strongly disagree, if anything I would believe sabotage would be far easier this year than previously (not that I advocate that strategy). While points are averaged, it is very easy to knock over a few 3-4 tote + container stacks and take out a hundred points or more (easily potentially dropping their average score by 10% or more if you are looking to effect a dramatic change). And the larger number of discrete ranking levels means it can be easier to knock a (perhaps threatening) team down (possibly out of a captainship) while maintaining your own position.

If you wanted to sabotage an alliance partner without incurring penalties:
Before, you could sit on the field and likely determine a loss for your alliance, strongly affecting the ranking of your partners. If necessary, you had plenty of options to actively sabotage to ensure that your opponent's score is 1 point higher.
This year, you have no choice but to actively sabotage to significantly reduce your alliance's score, which only affects ranking in the case that your alliance partner is being closely followed by the next highest.
There's nothing that makes this year more susceptible to sabotage, only less.