Scoring For Your Opponents

[Karthik]

With the way that ranking points have been calculated since the 2000 season, it's always been more advantageous to allow your opponents to score more points. This a very neat part of FIRST. I have always been a fan of this rule, until this past weekend.

During matches where we had a big lead, our drivers were instructed to leave let our opponents get on their ramp, and play a minimal amount of defence. This was in hopes of gaining more ranking points. In certain matches, our opponents were not scoring many points, so we scored for them. As many as 30 points in one match. The result was a closer match, and more ranking points for both teams. Everyone should be happy? Right? Well, not exactly

I spoke with one of the teams who we played against and scored for. They were very insulted by us scoring for them, and said it was us rubbing salt in their wounds. I'd never considered this before. Our team discussed it that night, and we could see where our opponents were coming from. That being said, as long as the loser's score is part of the ranking system, we will continue to try maximize it.

I'm curious as to how others feel about this? Would you be insulted if your opponent scored for you during a blow out?

[Beth Sweet]

Like you said Karthik, as long as the losers score is part of your QP, that's fair strategy. That is part of your strategy. I'm sorry if they're insulted, but that is part of the game. If FIRST is going to design a game where their points count for you then it is your responsibility to score for them. That is part of trying to be successful.

[jgannon]

I've toyed with this idea in my head before. While I understand the reasoning behind giving teams their opponents' score, I think that scoring for the other team to increase your RP is in a way like showing off. I know that that's most certainly not the intent, but there is the implicit message that "we're beating you by so much that we can afford to score for you". To apply it to sports, it's almost like scoring a touchdown to put yourself ahead by 35, doing a touchdown dance, pulling a Sharpie out of your sock to sign the football, whatever. Then, on top of that, the referees give you another point as a reward for your celebration. I've been on both sides of lopsided FIRST matches enough times to think that I probably wouldn't take it all that hard, because it's part of the game. However, I'm quite sympathetic to those who see the implicit message as being not graciously professional.

[AmyPrib]

Simply put, it's a good strategy.

I would hope that a team doesn't expect me to abandon my strategy of scoring extra ranking points so that their feelings aren't hurt. That may sound harsh, but the point is, this has absolutely nothing to do with being flashy or rubbing salt in their wounds or showing off. It's their choice to see it that way. Anyone that knows the game, ranking system, and strategy should be able to see that it's a legit way to put yourself higher in the rankings and shouldn't be looked down upon. If I were the losing team, I would almost expect the opponent to be doing that. I'd just be annoyed at myself for not being able to out-score them, and would try my darndest to do better next time.

Teams need to do what they can to help themselves place well - if their desire is to place high and win... No, it's not all about winning, but pretty much everyone out there would like to win the event... There's usually a large group of top teams who all only lost 1 match, so they use your ranking score to place you. Scoring a few points for your opponent might just give you the advantage, but it can also help the losing team as well.

I hope people don't claim this to be un-GP. It's been discussed before, and I don't think it's un-GP.. it's strategy that one team may be able to use that another can't or chooses not to... but so be it.... do what you can to win your next match... all you can do is your best.

Good luck to everyone in the coming weeks!

[Travis Hoffman]

I'm curious as to how others feel about this? Would you be insulted if your opponent scored for you during a blow out?

Perhaps the expression of insult was simply a coverup for the true frustration a team had over their lunches just being handed to them by a superior opponent?

As long as FIRST bases RP's on losing alliance scores, scoring for the opposition during a sure win is simply smart play. Those who take offence (Canadian spelling) to this strategy do not understand the nature of the contest, nor do they understand that they themselves are receiving a RP boost through their opponents' actions.

[sanddrag]

There is no shame in playing the best match you can play. You are one of the few robots that can score so well that you can score for your opponents too. That is something to be proud of. And anyway, you are helping their rank too, so there is no harm done if you ask me.

[irishninja]

I can see why the opposing alliance would find it offensive and think it was rubbing salt in their wounds. It is like saying we're so good, not only are we going to win, I'm so sure i'm going to win, I'll help score for you, just to prove my goodness. At the same time it is a good strategy to finish the game, which is what I think comes out on top. If the other team was in your place the tables would be turned and they wouldn't care. However it is important to leave it on the field and not do it off. That would definaltey go against all gracious professionalism.

[KenWittlief]

as long as your robot is not doing any backwards over its head shots (hey, Im not even looking!) , or bouncing the ball between its wheels

or a spinning through the air back hook slam dunk, then no.. I dont think you are showing off :^)

If you pick up a dead robot and set it on its own ramp with your robot, just dont pat it on the head as you turn towords your own ramp!

(BTW - you can always plead "our driver was confused!")

[meaubry]

I believe Karthik said it as was stated to him - "insulted" which also could be interpreted as "embarrassed"?

I agree in part with what most have said, but I think the qualifying points emphasis has been set up to to try and eliminate the reason for a "blowout" in the first place. There once was a game that you were rewarded the most by just barely beating your opponent - the safety margin was very small. Since then, penalty values and high point value at the end (hanging, being on the ramp, getting home) created a big enough gap that you didn't want to risk losing by that slim of a margin.

If the qualifying points were not at risk, there would be more than one way to do that. But, sometimes in this game you have to be cautious especially if you don't know how far ahead you are (scoring system shut off) and don't want to risk losing a close game by penalities (which can add up quickly with the offsides rule, and the lower goal scoring infractions).

I guess I can see how some teams could take it as a slap in the face - even though the justification is clearly to increase your (and their) qualifying points, very few will feel better knowing that the opponent was able to score more for them than they were.

Maybe, that is what FIRST should do - limit the amount the opposition can score for the other team, by the amount that team was able to score or themselves.

[Jon K.]

Last season RAGE used it as a legit strategy. While I can see it as insulting to some, the thing they have to remember is that it is helping thier team and alliance as well becuase of the ranking points.

[George A.]

At NJ team 25 did it quite often, due to the fact that they had to be loaded by HPs...so they would push balls through their opponents goal so they could get loaded up...basically sacrificing 1 point for the opprotunity to get 3. I'd take that trade any day of the week.

[Kate00]

I have pride. And to have another team not only blow me out, which I can accept, but to humiliate me by scoring for me, makes me lose respect for myself and my robot and alliance partners, that we're THAT bad. I have never been in the situation, but thinking about it, I can imagine how humiliated I would be if my alliance sucked badly enough that the other team had to score for it, showing that they noticed how bad we were and felt sorry enough to score for us.

To me, it would say that they didnt even have the respect to think that we could do it ourselves, that they couldnt respect our dignity, let us have respect for our effort, and them have respect for our effort.

I understand that it's part of the game, that it is in a team's best interests to do it. I would never be angry at a team that used this strategy, because it IS part of the game. I can respect that, and if it's part of their strategy, so be it. However, when the rule sets teams up to be humiliated, makes it so that their robot, that they worked on for 6 weeks and invested time and effort into cannot even have the dignity of losing respectfully, I don't much like the rule.

[sanddrag]

If somebody increased my score, even if they were only trying to help themselves, in this game, they would help me in the process. And I would thank them for that.

[Rick]

If any team would like to give out points, by all means go ahead.

Many teams have discussed this strategy and it is very controversal. I believe all teams should play thier game to the fullest. If you are beating an alliance with a comfortable margin, keep scoring and playing your game. The scouts are in the stands watching you at each competition. I would have doubts about any team that let up on the competiton. Every point that we score, has to first go through the machine that our team spent 6 weeks of hard work on.

One match many years ago during an offseason event, one of our partners yelled at the end of the match for our team to get in the other allinaces home zone. We ended up losing the match by a small margin and that created confusion and lack of trust for other teams.

My bottom line: Play your match, not your oppenents. Because when those penalties add up or the calculations are not right, you lose matches. If you are a great offensive machine, you will be picked by a high ranking team or rank high yourself.

[nehalita]

It's either getting more points for yourself or getting more for the opponent.
I figure if a team's going to get mad, they'd probably get mad either way (being beaten by a lot or having the score carried).

so do what you feel you feel you need to do. don't think too much about it.

[GaryVoshol]

There has to be a tie-breaker for teams with equal w/l/t records. FIRST has elected to set that up to be the losing team's score. This certainly can cause scoring for the opponents - as the triplets did this year. I recall seeing 67 pick up an opponent's tetra last year to score a row for them, for the same reason.

While it can be seen as insulting, it isn't meant to be so. The alternative is to have rankings based on your own scores - which would encourage running up the score. In my mind, that is more insulting. FIRST has created a solution to one problem that creates a lesser problem. It's a trade-off - you can't have everything perfect.

The fact that scoring for your opponent also increases their ranking makes this option better than the "running up the score" option, IMO.

Even more insulting would be to get ahead, then step back from your controls and stop playing. That's the "I can beat you with one hand tied behind my back" taunt.

[KenWittlief]

I have pride. .. to have another team ...humiliate me by scoring for me, makes me lose respect for myself and my robot and alliance partners,

...the rules make it so that your robot .. cannot even have the dignity of losing respectfully, I don't much like the rule.

This sounds a bit like some weird Klingon or gladiator form of pride, where a warrior would rather be put to death by an opponent that led away on their feet as a loser.

In engineering you cannot guarantee results, all you can do is guarantee your best effort will be applied to the project. I have been on projects that did not turn out well, I have been on projects that were cancelled. We still had end-of-project parties, and we still had the same level of pride in our work

because we did the best we could under the circumstances.

Besides, sometimes no matter how good you are someone else will one-up you and do better. Sometimes pride is great. Sometimes humility is called for. No one can humiliate you if you are already humble in the presence of greatness.

[Btower]

There has to be a tie-breaker for teams with equal w/l/t records. FIRST has elected to set that up to be the losing team's score. This certainly can cause scoring for the opponents - as the triplets did this year. I recall seeing 67 pick up an opponent's tetra last year to score a row for them, for the same reason.

The fact that scoring for your opponent also increases their ranking makes this option better than the "running up the score" option, IMO.

Even more insulting would be to get ahead, then step back from your controls and stop playing. That's the "I can beat you with one hand tied behind my back" taunt.

Actually, the ranking points are rather complex.

First is Qualifing Points (QP's)
Win - 2pt
Loss/DQ - 0pt
Tie - 1pt

In the event of a tie in QP's they use ranking points (RP's) which are awarded as follows:

Win - The lesser of Unpenalized Alliance Scores from either Alliance
Loss - Penalized score of losing alliance
Tie - Penalized score of own alliance.
DQ - zero

I just finished a backup scoring sheet in excel, what a pain.

[Travis Hoffman]

One match many years ago during an offseason event, one of our partners yelled at the end of the match for our team to get in the other allinaces home zone. We ended up losing the match by a small margin and that created confusion and lack of trust for other teams.



This brings up a good point - MAKE SURE you are comfortably ahead before you start scoring for the opposition, especially this season. We obviously cannot always rely upon real time scoring to give us any true indication of how the match stands. To avoid any potential heartache/devastation/what have you out of your alliance should you score TOO MANY points for the opposition, make sure the scoring gap is wide enough to proceed, and don't get TOO greedy.

If this strategy backfires on any alliance that attempts it, they will have no one to blame but themselves. Be smart - know the risks before proceeding.

[Kate00]

This sounds a bit like some weird Klingon or gladiator form of pride, where a warrior would rather be put to death by an opponent that led away on their feet as a loser.

In engineering you cannot guarantee results, all you can do is guarantee your best effort will be applied to the project. I have been on projects that did not turn out well, I have been on projects that were cancelled. We still had end-of-project parties, and we still had the same level of pride in our work

because we did the best we could under the circumstances.

Besides, sometimes no matter how good you are someone else will one-up you and do better. Sometimes pride is great. Sometimes humility is called for. No one can humiliate you if you are already humble in the presence of greatness.

First off, I'm not a klingon or a gladiator. I'd like to hope I'm better looking then that. I may have too much pride in my robot, or just too much pride overall, I will admit that. I also have no problem in being blown-out, one-upped if my alliance/robot deserves it. I do have a problem with when they not only one-up me and do better, but also show that they recognized just how much better they are, and instead of holding back, score for me.

FIRST is not just engineering. FIRST is a sport, in which opposing teams play against each other. In hockey, in baseball, in soccer, opposing teams would never score for you, not only because they are competitive, but because they have respect for your effort.

I'm not saying that this is what would be going through the opposing team's minds when they score for you, but it's what some people will get out of it.

There is a fine line between humility and humiliation, and for some, who certainly have humility, this may cross that line.

[KenWittlief]

I do have a problem with when they not only one-up me and do better, but also show that they recognized just how much better they are, and instead of holding back, score for me.


but with the points system in this game they are not scoring for you, they are raising the score (points) that THEY will get.

If the other team did not get your points at the end of the match they dump points into your goal, then that would be weird (when they could dump them in their own goal instead).

How about the flip side of this, when a team knows they are going to lose, so they stop playing, knowing their low score will hurt the team that is beating them?

BTW, I was wondering - if you hold the reset button on the OI down, do the lights on the robot go off? Would it be possible for a robot to 'play dead' by doing this, and then come back to life, to win a close match?

[Kate00]

but with the points system in this game they are not scoring for you, they are raising the score (points) that THEY will get.

If the other team did not get your points at the end of the match then dumping points into your score would be weird (when they could dump them in their own goal instead).

I definitely see your point. Yes, they are technically scoring points for themselves, but it is still demoralising when they send a barrage of poofballs towards your goal, on the scoreboard, giving you points. Ranking points are not displayed for everyone to cheer at - the game points are. When your alliance was so outplayed that the other team scored 30 points FOR you, you can no longer take credit for the score that is up there.

How about the flip side of this, when a team knows they are going to lose, so they stop playing, knowing their low score will hurt the team that is beating them?
If an alliance stops playing, knowing that the other team will be hurt by it, then they have already lowered the level of competition, and, as far as I am concerned, asked for their goal to be scored on. If they do not compete to the best of their abilities, to intentionally hurt the other team, they do not deserve to have pride.

[irishninja]

If the opposing alliance is scoring for you, just double your efforts and try to score even more. I'm sure that there are games in which one team, thinking they were ahead more than they were, scored for the other team and ended up giving them the game.

[Elgin Clock]

Try to keep track of what they actually have, because if you don't.. Hey guess what, you could score posints for them and make them win!!!

HA HA HA!! That would be great.

To each strategy their are plusses and minuses, and this is a risk you will have to take on.

[65_Xero_Huskie]

i seen when you guys did that, i was surprised that you actually had that planned, i was thinking " no way, thats the first time i seen that this year "

[Chrisms]

Personally i think it's unfair.

the whole idea behind the ranking system factoring in how much or how little you won by is so that if you get matched with a awesome alliance, and the other alliance isn't as great, you don't get a giant boost in your rank for winning an easy match.

I think boosting your rank like this is very unfair. Is it legitimate? sure. But fair? no. That's not fair to the team's who truly WORKED to just pull out of a match and win by a single point.

My two cents, like it or not, it's my opinion.

-Chrisms

[the_short1]

I think that scoring for your opponent is a good strategy to get higher in the leaderboard, but the whole purpose of having the loosing team score is this:

If an great alliance, lets say (1114,1503, 67), against 3 bots that dont score
score is: 80:7
you dont get awarded a good RP because it was oviously not a challenge.

ok .. this time you score some for the other team.
the score is 80:55
do you deserve the better ranking for winning against really bad teams?

NO! .. the purpose of using the loosing teams score, is to rank alliances higher if they beat a EVENLY matched team in a match, so your spoofing RP to make it seem like every match you played was a HARD game. If you can barely beat an great alliance, you deserve RP more then being the amazing alliance and beating a lower calliber team and spoofing RP.

PS: i dont have anything against 1114, 1503, or 67, i just used them as an example since they won GLR, and they are a great alliance! congrats to them at that!
thats my two $0.02 -kevin

[Imajie]

I think that scoring for your opponent is a good strategy to get higher in the leaderboard, but the whole purpose of having the loosing team score is this:

If an great alliance, lets say (1114,1503, 67), against 3 bots that dont score
score is: 80:7
you dont get awarded a good RP because it was oviously not a challenge.

ok .. this time you score some for the other team.
the score is 80:55
do you deserve the better ranking for winning against really bad teams?

NO! .. the purpose of using the loosing teams score, is to rank alliances higher if they beat a EVENLY matched team in a match, so your spoofing RP to make it seem like every match you played was a HARD game. If you can barely beat an great alliance, you deserve RP more then being the amazing alliance and beating a lower calliber team and spoofing RP.

PS: i dont have anything against 1114, 1503, or 67, i just used them as an example since they won GLR, and they are a great alliance! congrats to them at that!
thats my two $0.02 -kevin
I agree, I think that teams should worry about their own score and if they are winning not how many RPs they will get out of the match.

I think that any team that feels the need to cheat the system to get a better ranking has let winning become to important to them.

[KenWittlief]

My psychic powers must be a little off today

I thought the idea behind giving the winning team the losing teams score was so that super alliances dont completely shut out a weak alliance.

If you got your own score, then you could - you could have 200 to 0 matches.

I would think that evenly matched alliances would see matches end up in low scores for both sides because the great offense was matched by great defense - thats what I saw in the finals, teams were winning with low scores by one or two points.

Now that I think about it somemore, I think the idea behind giving the winning team the losing teams score is this: The winning team gets the losing teams score! <= That is the game - play to win: the match, the best seed, the finals.

[Koko Ed]

I remember in 2003 when QP was such a roblem teams started brokering deals to keep their stacks intact so both alliances would score hefty QP points win or lose. THe debate split FIRST right down the middle.
Some saw it as a great strategy and others saw it as corrupting the ideals of competition. It gets real funny when you start thinking about QP points as much (if not more) tha the win, which is probably why FIRST started going with the W/L record over just QP points so it wouldn't be as much an issue.
I'm not all that fond of the QP points but they are a part of the FIRST landscape so we live with them. If you choose to focus on them just understand the risk and be rprepared to take the consequences if they backfire.

[Jack Jones]

I'm curious as to how others feel about this? Would you be insulted if your opponent scored for you during a blow out?

Of course not! It's all in the spirit of Cooperatition. The way the hen cooperates with the fox by being tasty.

[Bharat Nain]

As long as the rules are like they are, people have to accept it and live with it. Unless it was intentionally rubbed in their face that their robot is not good enough and you are going to show them how it's played, there is no reason to be insulted or embarrassed. They just had the chance to play against a greater robot and it should be fun. The competition is not about getting embarrassed or insulted, it is about having fun and that's what everyone should do. Now go have fun!

[Corey Balint]

At NJ team 25 did it quite often, due to the fact that they had to be loaded by HPs...so they would push balls through their opponents goal so they could get loaded up...basically sacrificing 1 point for the opprotunity to get 3. I'd take that trade any day of the week.
Yeah we did that numerous times. We also scored in their center goal, and had a whole alliance go on their ramp.
As long as there is no rule against it...i am completely fine with any team doing this. Heck if we were getting pulverized in a match, and the other team started scoring on our own goals, no way would i get in their way of scoring or be insulted. As said before, its more of an embarassment with how your own team performs, not that the other team is doing something wrong.
Besides, the other team could always miscalculate and put you over for the win... ;)
In the match that we put up 137 points, we actually scored about 15 points for the other alliance.

[Andrew Blair]

Surprisingly, I've never seen this strategy used on our own alliance before (Lucky?), though we have used it many times. I can see both sides of the argument, though it is beneficial to both teams. I may put a loss in, but with enough ranking points, I will seat higher than others in my win category. Its a very effective qualifying strategy.

*A story about scoring too many points for your opponents: At championships, 2003, 306 decided to get greedy. They scored up both sides as high as possible, intending to pull a win by a couple of points. However, by some cruel hand of fate, somebody miscounted, and though we scored the highest match in our championship division that match, we lost, and somehow by that, we stopped moving on, even with a robot that could've made it all the way. So just remember, play whatever strategy you want, but don't get greedy!

[Starke]

this system of scoring is very interesting to FIRST. Besides seeing teams letting their opponents score more points, I have also witnessed losing alliances give up points. For example, at the Finger Lakes Regional there were a couple of times that losing alliance robots jumped off the ramp at the last second to not give the winning alliance more points.

[Lil' Lavery]

First off, 116 has a long and storied history of high scoring matching. In just the last 2 years (and only counting our first competition this year) we have had 4 "high scoring" matches, won 2, lost 2.
2005 Chesepeake: 120-0, 0 side
2006 VCU: 86-34, 34 side
2006 VCU: 99-24, 99 side
2006 VCU: 76-18? (cant remember)-76 side

I wish that the opponents had scored some points for us, and I highly regret not scoring some for them.

The thought that opponents are scoring for you to "rub salt in your wounds" is looking at it the wrong way. It's not a matter of insulting pride, it's a matter of placement (for both you and them), and in truth, gracious professionalism. Consider for a moment the alternatives. If this thread doesn't exist about The Triplets scoring for the opponents, instead it would be a thread complaining about why the triplets beat them 300-10. "Why not simply stop at 100 and gather up all the balls so you can win decently, and have no chance at losing at all because you are denying us any points? Instead you went and tormented our loss even further by running the score up!"
Let's look at the previously mentioned sports analogies. Sure, they don't score for the opponent, but niether do they run up the score, and when they do, they are critisized (especially in college athletics). And if scoring for the opponent somehow benefitted them, I'm sure they would score for them.
I beleive this rule exists for a few reasons. To eliminate, or at least reduce, blowout matches; and to promote cooperation without reducing competition (thus the W/L being the first ranking determination) between opponents.
It is not only beneficial to raise your RP by scoring for the opponent, it is in favor of GP. You're not blowing them out, which IMHO is just as insulting as scoring for them -if not more- and you're helping raise their rank as well.
As mentioned many times during kickoff events, the message FIRST is trying to convey by using this rule is that "Your opponent today, may be your ally tomorrow". Therefore, you should aid them whenever possible (though obv not hurting yourself).

[LPaton716]

Ranking points help you and your opponent do well. After all you might be with one of the teams in your next match. It's all part of strategy.

Speaking of strategy...if there is an alliance with robots that cannot handle(pick up) balls well it would be a good idea to put balls in their opponents goals when you are on offense. That way your opponent can't possibly score those balls and now your human players have control of them. You can then throw them to your side of the field or save them to fill up a robot.

It's a rather back wards strategy but it might work really well if your shooter mechanisms weren't working that match or you could only push balls.

[Lil' Lavery]

Speaking of strategy...if there is an alliance with robots that cannot handle(pick up) balls well it would be a good idea to put balls in their opponents goals when you are on offense. That way your opponent can't possibly score those balls and now your human players have control of them. You can then throw them to your side of the field or save them to fill up a robot.

It's a rather back wards strategy but it might work really well if your shooter mechanisms weren't working that match or you could only push balls.
Nothing backwards about it, and I've already seen teams do it. It is actually quite an effective way to load up "top loaders".

[JAlpert]

1) Sports analogies do not apply here. There isn't a single major sport (involving a ball, at least) in which your playoff seeding is entirely based on your opponent's score. This is because win/loss records usually suffice (i.e. there is no incentive for a basketball team to blow the other team out, because all that matters is the win). FIRST plays few games with many teams, resulting inevitably in lots of W/L ties. Thus, in FIRST, the tiebreaker is a key strategic element, where in most major sports, nobody cares about this rare event.

2) Every team is at this competition to win. Period. Teams do what they have to do to win. If it is possible, within the confines of match play, to advance your position by scoring for your opponent, it would be a brutal mistake not to do so. The system is there for you to use.

3) This topic comes up every year. In 2003, elimination rounds were set up such that the alliance with the highest point total at the end of two rounds won. The points an alliance received were a multiple of the loser's score (I believe the multiple was 1 for the loser, and 2 for the winner). The dominant strategy was to win the first round no matter what, collecting 2x your opponent's score, and then lose the second round as badly as possible. If you lost with a score of zero, you were in the best position possible, because neither alliance received any points in the second round, and your alliance won by default (because you won the first round). It was a terribly broken scoring system, but the teams that won used what they were given to the best of their ability. Teams complained it was "unsportsmanlike" to lose intentionally. Teams said FIRST didn't intend the game to be played that way. But the fact of the matter is, whether FIRST intended the game to be played in that manner or not, they set the game up that way. De-scoring that second match wasn't losing. It was winning within in the confines of the system. Just like scoring in your opponents goal isn't showing off. It's advancing your position (winning) in the confines of the system. And that is all that matters when you're out there playing a match.

Jeff

[BobC]

this system of scoring is very interesting to FIRST. Besides seeing teams letting their opponents score more points, I have also witnessed losing alliances give up points. For example, at the Finger Lakes Regional there were a couple of times that losing alliance robots jumped off the ramp at the last second to not give the winning alliance more points.

Thats not very nice. It could also hurt you even though you lose it will also lower your average points. Just think you tied for eight in wins but are ninth because of your QP's and then you do not get picked.

[Bill Moore]

PreNote: This is not directed toward any of the triplets, but is made as a general statement.

Two points of truth keep getting repeated in this thread:

1) Scoring points for your opponent is a good strategy when you will win by a blowout, and
2) It is embarrassing to have an opponent so self-assured of victory that they begin to score for you.

My question would be "Why did the other alliance not have the ability to score many points?" Was their robot not working correctly? And, did you do anything to help them get it working properly?

If a team is struggling to get their drive system to do more than run in circles, and you are sitting in your pit polishing the chassis of your bot, then you don't "get it".

The FIRST competition isn't just about beating your opponents at YOUR best, but it is also about beating your opponents at THEIR best. If you have made no move to help them fix their robot, when you have had ample time to do so, it isn't the lowly scoring alliance that should be embarrassed for their play, it is the dominating team that should be embarassed for their unwillingness to help fellow competitors.

[GaryVoshol]

The FIRST competition isn't just about beating your opponents at YOUR best, but it is also about beating your opponents at THEIR best. If you have made no move to help them fix their robot, when you have had ample time to do so, it isn't the lowly scoring alliance that should be embarrassed for their play, it is the dominating team that should be embarassed for their unwillingness to help fellow competitors.Repped.

You just have to be sure your offer to help is made graciously and professionally. That's a careful balancing act as well.

[Beth Sweet]

My question would be "Why did the other alliance not have the ability to score many points?" Was their robot not working correctly? And, did you do anything to help them get it working properly?

If a team is struggling to get their drive system to do more than run in circles, and you are sitting in your pit polishing the chassis of your bot, then you don't "get it".




In many of the matches that I've seen, it's not that the robots weren't working properly. A few times, the robots tipped, making scoring very difficult without very original strategies. Other times, the machines had basic design flaws which made it difficult for them to do things quickly (I remember last year, we scored maybe 1-2 tetras per match, if that).

To the credit of the Triplets (or at least 1114), I was in 1114's pit's a bit at GLR and whenever anyone asked for anything, they were eager to help. Yes, they were sitting down, but they are probably one of the classiest teams that I've seen based on their actions.

[KenWittlief]

this system of scoring is very interesting to FIRST. Besides seeing teams letting their opponents score more points, I have also witnessed losing alliances give up points. For example, at the Finger Lakes Regional there were a couple of times that losing alliance robots jumped off the ramp at the last second to not give the winning alliance more points.

You saw a robot jump off its ramp at the end of a match, OK

but how can you possibly know why that happened, unless the driver told you the reason after the match?

There seems to be a lot of mind-readers on CD this year. Reporting events you witnessed is good information.

Conjecture on what was going on in someone else's mind is not good.

As Sargent Friday would say, "just give us the facts!"

[Starke]

You saw a robot jump off its ramp at the end of a match, OK

but how can you possibly know why that happened, unless the driver told you the reason after the match?

There seems to be a lot of mind-readers on CD this year. Reporting events you witnessed is good information.

Conjecture on what was going on in someone else's mind is not good.

As Sargent Friday would say, "just give us the facts!"

i agree with you 100%. only say something if you know it for a fact. this is why i actually went and researched what i said about the robot getting off the ramp at the last second for myself. it turned out to be true that they did get off of the ramp on purpose on the end of the match to give the winning alliance less points.

[JoeCallahan]

The scoring system has never made any real sense to me... unless you plan to put every team up against every combination of teams with every combination of alliance partners, you're going to get inaccurate results.

Some good team could go up against the best combinations of alliance partners and never win and not get many points, while some less-than- average robot who was up against the easiest teams could end up in the top eight.

I recall at the NJ regional, spike (293) had a great bot who, given the oppertunity, could score a ridiculous amount of points. I also recall after three or four matches they were in about 46th place.

We could also have a really really good team go up against a bunch of really really bad teams, or in one case score a ridiculous *cough 137* amount of points, but because their opponents only got 10 points they would not move up, but down in the rankings because other matches were much closer.

I understand FIRST's logic, that you should only award points based on how hard the match was, but how hard the match was can not be measured in points. If they want to do that they need to create a major league and a minor league. All good bots to the left, all bad bots to the right (which obviously they won't do.)

In the game this year the amount of points scored is based heavily on how hard you get hit by other bots, and it seems the bots who were best at hitting people were also the ones who couldn't really score any points. If there was a bot that was just a drive train with some strong motors and great turning/speed that just smacked 25 around, they wouldn't have had near as many points at the NJ regional. But just because your opponent didn't manage to get any points doesn't mean the match wasn't hard. Dodging three tank bots just to get a few points in the top goal is no easy task for any bot.

It seems they were trying to fix the 'easy matches shouldn't be rewarded' part and by doing so they created many more problems than they had. This isn't like a sporting event, major league and minor league teams don't play against eachother and thus how many points they score and how many points they PREVENT their opponents from scoring measures how good they are.

Having to score for your opponents to get your rightly deserved points is ridiculous in the first place.

I think if you're insulted by the other team scoring for you, you probably should take a look at the scoring system and you'll understand. If I do badly enough in a match that they have to score on themselves to get a good ranking, be my guest. I'd do it in their position.

It sort of makes me wish we had just put 25 on the offense in that match and used both 486 and our alliance partner to score on our own goal near the end so that we got a good ranking, but then again 25 didn't score all 137 points :rolleyes:

There were a lot of good teams at NJ that were not ranked well... but they got picked as alliance partners, so I suppose we can say scouting to the rescue :P

[BobC]

The scoring system has never made any real sense to me... unless you plan to put every team up against every combination of teams with every combination of alliance partners, you're going to get inaccurate results.

Some good team could go up against the best combinations of alliance partners and never win and not get many points, while some less-than- average robot who was up against the easiest teams could end up in the top eight.

I recall at the NJ regional, spike (293) had a great bot who, given the oppertunity, could score a ridiculous amount of points. I also recall after three or four matches they were in about 46th place.

We could also have a really really good team go up against a bunch of really really bad teams, or in one case score a ridiculous *cough 137* amount of points, but because their opponents only got 10 points they would not move up, but down in the rankings because other matches were much closer.

I understand FIRST's logic, that you should only award points based on how hard the match was, but how hard the match was can not be measured in points. If they want to do that they need to create a major league and a minor league. All good bots to the left, all bad bots to the right (which obviously they won't do.)

In the game this year the amount of points scored is based heavily on how hard you get hit by other bots, and it seems the bots who were best at hitting people were also the ones who couldn't really score any points. If there was a bot that was just a drive train with some strong motors and great turning/speed that just smacked 25 around, they wouldn't have had near as many points at the NJ regional. But just because your opponent didn't manage to get any points doesn't mean the match wasn't hard. Dodging three tank bots just to get a few points in the top goal is no easy task for any bot.

It seems they were trying to fix the 'easy matches shouldn't be rewarded' part and by doing so they created many more problems than they had. This isn't like a sporting event, major league and minor league teams don't play against eachother and thus how many points they score and how many points they PREVENT their opponents from scoring measures how good they are.

Having to score for your opponents to get your rightly deserved points is ridiculous in the first place.

I think if you're insulted by the other team scoring for you, you probably should take a look at the scoring system and you'll understand. If I do badly enough in a match that they have to score on themselves to get a good ranking, be my guest. I'd do it in their position.

It sort of makes me wish we had just put 25 on the offense in that match and used both 486 and our alliance partner to score on our own goal near the end so that we got a good ranking, but then again 25 didn't score all 137 points :rolleyes:

There were a lot of good teams at NJ that were not ranked well... but they got picked as alliance partners, so I suppose we can say scouting to the rescue :P

Last year in Atlanta we were able to stack tetras 6 or 7 high almost every round. Which was very good, we could cap the center goal easily. At the end of day one we were dead last and no wins if I remember right.

[Lil' Lavery]

Challenging the ranking system is not going to really help. The RP system exists for more than just strength of schedule, as I have already pointed out in previous posts in this thread. The symbolism behind it is what is truly important.

[Hutch]

It's not gracious. It's not professional. It's just plain insulting and rude.

If you're so bent on winning that you do that, then FIRST is not for you.

[Joel J]

not so long ago teams would get some multiple of the loser's score, if they won. This "tweaking" of points that we are seeing at some competitions is like a remnant of that frame of mind.

[Bill Moore]

not so long ago teams would get some multiple of the loser's score, if they won. This "tweaking" of points that we are seeing at some competitions is like a remnant of that frame of mind.
Since I wasn't in FIRST before 2001, I can't speak for earlier years, but in 2002 you received some form of the losers score. That is the first year I remember watching teams "descore" to cause their opponents to have fewer "ranking points". The 2002 game had "tethers" back to the end zone for additional points, and robots that obviously had lost would drive out of the end zone so they wouldn't count for bonus points. It wasn't frequent, but it did happen occasionally.

[Jack Jones]

It's not gracious. It's not professional. It's just plain insulting and rude.

If you're so bent on winning that you do that, then FIRST is not for you.

Please excuse me, but maybe FIRST is not for people who think that FIRST is not for someone else.

[meaubry]

The only reason that this issue even matters is because of tie breakers in seeding. Teams with the same number of wins are then ranked by the points derived by the formula that promotes scoring for the opponent, once the win/loss has been determined.
Which is often by the end of the auton period or the end of the next period - leaving the final period when everyone can score to decide what they will do.
I don't advocate scoring for the opponent - because I think thats demeaning and not worth upsetting the opponents feelings, but I do realize and understand why others may feel differently about this - and that is their choice.
What could have been done to eliminate this entire issue, is when they decided to go back to seeding using this method (it wasn't always like this), they could have used a formula that didn't encourage this kind of behaviour.
The problem with that is, there are times when point differential isn't the issue - its more a problem of what attributes the alliance has, and the number of robots that are working and play in the match.
On top of the problem with unbalanced alliances, often their are 3 team alliances, where 1 or 2 teams can carry the 3rd team to victory regardless of the score for either team. Scoring teams provide the next level of seeding for everyone in the alliance - even if some of them cannot score at all. This doesn't seem like a good way to determine which teams should be seeded above others - to me. Teams playing great defense don't get extra points for the team, but they do keep the score down (which is opposite of what the next level of seeding is based on). Something is wrong with this concept.
Using score differential as the next level tie breaker in seeding implies that the teams CAN score, but often that is NOT the case. 3 Defensive teams can win matches by outnumbering the scoring teams that have little or no help - 7 to 9, 8 to 10, whatever. Low scores with little point differential. The teams playing defense cannot afford to let the other team score for them and as the match progresses the teams are too busy trying to get enough of their own points, let alone worry about scoring for the other team.
I think if you are going to use the points for wins method to determine seeding, the second tier for ranking is going to be very difficult to determine and make it so everyone is going to be happy - perhaps just draw straws at the time of the alliance selection process would suffice and drop the formula scoring differential altogether as the tie breaker. All teams with 0 losses draw straws to determine which is higher ranked for alliance selection, then those with 1 loss, and on and on until the top 12 are determined - after all, beyond the top 12 seeding doesn't much matter.

[Bill Moore]

Please excuse me, but maybe FIRST is not for people who think that FIRST is not for someone else.
Isn't this statement a Catch-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22) ? :confused:

[Jack Jones]

Isn't this statement a Catch-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22) ? :confused:

No - it's oxymoronic, which is what the "Excuse me" was about. ;)

[the_short1]

The only reason that this issue even matters is because of tie breakers in seeding. .....

[Claps] That is realy well put, although another way to fix would be to make it against the rules to score for your opponent, it woulnt fix everything, but would fix a lot i think.

BUt past the 12 seed is STILL important for some teams, if your 13/68 seed it feels beter then having (no rank) ... or having a 7way tie for 3-3-2 record is rediculous.

-kevin

[Zoheb N]

well this has not really been an issue for our team at Lone Star because the random alliances are pretty balanced out so almost every match the score is close, but like usual there are matches were an alliance just blows away the opposing alliance. i think our team has just gotten to the conclusion not to worry about it and just win.

[Jaine Perotti]

I think boosting your rank like this is very unfair. Is it legitimate? sure. But fair? no. I honestly can't see why scoring for the other alliance can be interpreted as unfair. Scoring for your alliance partners has several benefits for both teams involved:

1) The winner of the match gets their ranking points increased.
2) The loser of the match gets their ranking points increased.

The way I see it, there is nothing un-GP about helping to raise the ranking points of the losing team. I think this shows a great deal more sportsmanship than if you were to completely shut down the opposing alliance.

That's not fair to the team's who truly WORKED to just pull out of a match and win by a single point. Saying that this is not fair to the teams who "worked" to win a match does not make sense to me. It takes just as much "work" to score for your opponent as it does to score for yourself. Scoring for your opponent shows that you are competent strategists who have "worked" very hard to come up with a good game plan. Claiming that teams who score for their opponent don't "work as hard" as other teams, AND using this as further justification for the "unfairness" of scoring for the opponent - simply does not make much sense to me.

I believe that this is a legitimate game strategy. My team did this several times at the UTC New England Regional. No one approached us afterwards saying that this offended them.

It's not gracious. It's not professional. It's just plain insulting and rude.

If you're so bent on winning that you do that, then FIRST is not for you.
How does scoring for your opponent mean that you are "bent on winning"? If a team were so crudely "bent on winning", then I think they would be trying to completely shut down the opponsing the alliance, rather than help them by increasing their ranking points.

Far too often, people take occurrences on the playing field in much too personal a manner. In my team's case (and in many others), scoring for our opponent was never done to make them feel bad about their team's performance. The only reason we did this was to increase our ranking points. I don't see any legitimate reason for teams to see this as unfair - the only thing it does to them is increase their own ranking points.

If this happens to your team, don't take it so personally. It does not mean that your alliance parters think your robot is trash. You could have done poorly because you were having problems with your robot, or were placed on a not-so-hot alliance. Be glad that your opponents had the forethought and professionalism to make the loss not as hard on both your and their ranking points.

-- Jaine

[Justin]

Since you asked...

I think that the best possible thing for this years game would be to go back to seeding rounds and a double elimination tournament style of play. Why you ask? Simple it makes things more exciting by a factor of about 10. Think about this year's game (or any recent FIRST game post-2001) what is the most exciting part? The finals. Why? Because teams play each match like it is their last they put more on the line which makes things a lot more exciting. I would love to see a competition use this double elimination tournament style for this years game...hrm now if only I could find an off season competition. O:-) I know that FIRST couldn't go back to this full time because teams rightfully so have grown used to playing 8 matches a regional and I think this was a positive change. If you run into me at a competition someday I will give you my thoughts on "copertition."

Justin

[JoeCallahan]

No - it's oxymoronic, which is what the "Excuse me" was about. ;)

Actually it's not oxymoronic because it does not contradict itself in itself, it's more hypocritical than anything else. Saying that "Stupid people call people stupid" doesn't mean that stupid people both do and don't call stupid people stupid, it only means that you believe you, yourself, are stupid.

[sw293]

At Annapolis, team 293 got on the opponents' platform in our last elimination match in order to boost our ranking points. A robot on the other alliance helped push us up the ramp.

[shamuwong]

We didn't score for our opponents at GLR, and although we went undefeated, we were still the #2 seed as 1114 or 1503 (they look the same, ok?) went undefeated and scored for their opponents, raising their QP.

When we went to Detroit, we made sure that that never happened again. Having 1st pick of all the robots gives you a huge advantage.

I think this goes back to what Dean Kamen was saying last year in his speech at Nationals. While the world is getting more competitive, we can't just sit back and say "that's not fair" or say it shouldn't be that way. Things are as they are. People will always find new ways to give themselves an advantage. Sitting around and complaining about it won't get you anywhere. Competing with your opponents and doing better than them will.

[GaryVoshol]

I was looking through the rules, and found this:
8.3.7 Qualification Ranking
All teams in attendance will be ranked during the Qualification Rounds. If the number of teams in attendance is 'n', they will be ranked '1' through 'n', with '1' being the highest ranked team and 'n' being the lowest ranked
team.
The Scoring System will use the following Ranking Method:
• Teams will be broken into Tiers based on their Qualifying Score. A Tier is made up of all teams with the same Qualifying Score.
• Within each Tier, teams will be sorted by their Ranking Score. Note: Because your Ranking Score is derived directly from the Match Scores of the losing alliances in the matches you play, it is in your best interest to support your opponents and win by helping each alliance score as many points as possible.
• If any teams within a Tier have the same Ranking Score, they will then be sorted by their Highest Match Score.
• If any teams within a Tier have the same Ranking Score and the same Highest Match Score, then the Scoring System will sort those teams based on a random electronic coin toss.The Note: that I bolded is italicized in the document.

It is apparent that FIRST and the GDC want teams to increase scores. The only question is what they mean by "helping each alliance score as many points as possible." Does that mean actively score for the opposing alliance, or back off to let them score? Does it matter?