View Full Version : <G14> during eliminations
Bob Steele
20-01-2009, 23:07
We recently submitted the following question to QA
Default G14 penalties
During elimination rounds, if an alliance has a penalty for scoring more than 2X the opposing team's score, will the penalty be 3 supercells or 1 supercell in the next match?
In regular team non-surrogate team play, each team would receive a 1 supercell penalty in the next match. This would seem to indicate that during the elimination rounds this would result in 3 supercells being lost in the subsequent elimination match. Can you please clarify how G14 will be used during the elimination rounds?
Thank you for your help
*********************************
GDC response:
Rule <G14> is applied in the same way during the Qualification Rounds and the Elimination Rounds.
*********************************
The way we read this...
If you had a terrific alliance and outscored your opponents in the first round of quarterfinals 3X You would lose ALL of your supercells... 2 per team X 3 teams in your alliance... for a total of 6 lost supercells (I didn't ask the question if this would carry over to the next match.
I can see an interesting strategy in which an alliance who has won the first match and seems to be losing the 2nd match dumps balls into its own alliance in order to gain the supercell advantage in the third match of the elimination.
I wonder how anyone is going to keep track of this during the qualifications...maybe they should have some kind of white flag they put on robots to identify them for future matches. A "2X" flag and a "3X flag" goes into your flag holder at the end of the match if you transgress.
Your have to "wear" this badge of "dishonor" until your next match...
Or maybe they should just put a big 2x or 3x on the forehead of the commanders for the teams that will have disobeyed the rule...
Vikesrock
20-01-2009, 23:09
I wonder how anyone is going to keep track of this during the qualifications...maybe they should have some kind of white flag they put on robots to identify them for future matches. A "2X" flag and a "3X flag" goes into your flag holder at the end of the match if you transgress.
Your have to "wear" this badge of "dishonor" until your next match...
Or maybe they should just put a big 2x or 3x on the forehead of the commanders for the teams that will have disobeyed the rule...
The GDC has already answered this question (I'll be honest I don't feel like looking up the quote). The field control system will be keeping track of <G14> penalties from match to match.
Ian Curtis
20-01-2009, 23:14
Or maybe they should just put a big 2x or 3x on the forehead of the commanders for the teams that will have disobeyed the rule...
Now that is a spectacular idea! I'm thinking some stickers or outrageous hats are in order. :cool:
But yes, the field will track the implications of <G14> as seen in this Q&A. (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11222)*
*Update #3 had not been published when I wrote the question.
I don't understand the big drama with <G14>, it seems to me like a rule people just aren't willing to give in that it's a rule.
Have you ever been the team that is brutally beaten by the #1 alliance? It's not the best feeling, getting completely wrecked in the QFs. It's a handicap that the GDC saw needed, trying to dodge this rule is completely un-GP in my eyes. If you're about to double their score, stop scoring? Or make yourself look good to the scouts and get a 2x or 3x G14 penalty. I think I'd be looking for a bunch of G14s in my alliance partner pick.
I think people are over reacting to G14, and just move on.
My two cents
Ian Curtis
20-01-2009, 23:38
I think people are over reacting to G14, and just move on.
I think there a lot of people who'd agree with you on that. That said, for people who build a new robot and play an entirely new game year after year, we're incredibly resistant to change. Who'da thunk?
Have you ever been the team that is brutally beaten by the #1 alliance? It's not the best feeling, getting completely wrecked in the QFs. It's a handicap that the GDC saw needed, trying to dodge this rule is completely un-GP in my eyes.
That's not quite true. Dave has said that <G14> does not exist to level the playing field. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=795184&postcount=49) I don't think anyone's trying to dodge <G14>. Some people are actively campaigning against it, while others are content to sit back and watch the show.
I can see an interesting strategy in which an alliance who has won the first match and seems to be losing the 2nd match dumps balls into its own alliance in order to gain the supercell advantage in the third match of the elimination.
I've seen this said all over the place, something like this just doesn't seem morally right to me
Mr. Freeman
20-01-2009, 23:58
Have you ever been the team that is brutally beaten by the #1 alliance? It's not the best feeling, getting completely wrecked in the QFs.
Yes I have. No, it's not the best feeling, but a worse one would be for the other team to stop scoring because they're so far ahead of us. Even worse than having the other team stop scoring or being beaten would be for the other team to score for us because they're so far ahead.
Being beaten by the best is one thing, do do so poorly that the other team has to stop competing (or score for you), is another.
I wonder how anyone is going to keep track of this during the qualifications...maybe they should have some kind of white flag they put on robots to identify them for future matches. A "2X" flag and a "3X flag" goes into your flag holder at the end of the match if you transgress.
Your have to "wear" this badge of "dishonor" until your next match...That'll be hard... though I guess each trailer can last several matches. Tracking which team is in which pole will be hard, though.
All right, own up: who's built a flag holder already when it's not required?
OK, I'll settle for the sticker...
Bob Steele
21-01-2009, 01:09
I don't understand the big drama with <G14>, it seems to me like a rule people just aren't willing to give in that it's a rule.
I think I'd be looking for a bunch of G14s in my alliance partner pick.
I think people are over reacting to G14, and just move on.
My two cents
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. My questions in regard to G14 are not meant to be contrary to it. I just want to understand it as I understand any rule. With understanding of the way the rule will be used comes the ability to make a strategy to play the game.
In years past we have never had a penalty that would affect a different game than the one in which it occurred. This is new and I asked the GDC to determine how it would play out in eliminations.
I am not sure if it has occurred to many teams that you get a triple hit in eliminations from the rule. Alliances need to plan for this contingency.
As far as any action on the field being "morally" wrong... I believe that on the field you play by the rules... someone else has set those rules... and I don't think that we need to be mixing up the GDC with any "higher" power.
FIRST competition is about doing your best to succeed in the game. The only thing that most people don't see is that the "game" is the game of LIFE and not the robot game.
In the robot game you need to be cognizant of all the rules and how they play out. Strategies are just as important as that great "shooter" mechanism or that fantastic crab drive. Those are tributes to a fine team and a fine group of mentors working together to show students how real life works. Making strategies and working with other teams in Alliances is also a great exercise that speaks to us directly about what life is going to be.
All the pieces fit together so that students (and mentors) learn more about themselves so they can play the real game better...
I hope everyone learns a great deal from G14...
and from everything else they do in FIRST.... It is really all about the learning.... and the relationships we build with students and mentors...
Good luck in your build, your season and your life!!!
i still do not see why you would not ignore g14 and blow out the other allaince in qualification matches, in order to get a higher ranking.
Alan Anderson
21-01-2009, 01:42
<G14> does not mention penalties. I wish people would stop referring to it as a "penalty rule".
I would call its provisions a "handicap", but it's not a penalty. I wouldn't even consider it a punishment. It seems to me like a reasonable experiment this year to try to help make the rankings better reflect the actual "consistent goodness factor" of a team and its robot. If you're really so good as to regularly outscore a competitive opponent by a factor of three, I don't think the loss of a couple of twenty-point bonus opportunities should upset you all that much.
I've seen this said all over the place, something like this just doesn't seem morally right to me
Depends on your details within set of morals.
Point shaving is not morally right either, but this rule is essentially enforcing that.
Asking your students to not do their best might be considered morally wrong too, but you have said instead that is noble.
Should the #8 alliance have an equal shot as the #1 alliance? There is already a serpentine draft, now G14. Maybe the #1 alliance should have to wait 60 seconds before it is their turn to play.
========================================
All that being said, it is a rule and we should follow it. Some will use it as a strategy though. Many of the teams complaining the loudest remeber the 2002 game where you could nullify another teams victory by shaving points on your side (QPs were 3x the loosers score for the winners, and the loosers score for the loosers thus if the looser scored 0 it was like the match never happened).
If your alliance is capable of pounding the opposing alliance into mush the previous match what does it matter if they have supercells if you can so readily outscore them with ease? They'll probably just probably be more inclined to score evenn more points so the supercells won't be a factor. I think the supercell is this year's stack. A major game component that'll end up not being as big a factor as it was first thought out to be.
Enforcing <G14> during eliminations makes sense to me, kind of. Carrying <G14> over from the last qualifying match to elims doesn't at all. I can imagine that bubble teams (as in, teams you'd expect to be picked toward the end of the second round) being burned by playing their last qualifying match with a team that's too good to care about <G14>. Ed is right that super cells will probably not make as big of a difference as some are expecting, but all other things being equal, I'm going to pick the team that's bringing all their cells to our alliance.
GaryVoshol
21-01-2009, 08:12
//snip// If you had a terrific alliance and outscored your opponents in the first round of quarterfinals 3X You would lose ALL of your supercells... 2 per team X 3 teams in your alliance... for a total of 6 lost supercells (I didn't ask the question if this would carry over to the next match.Well, almost. Your alliance only has 4 Super Cells; you lose all of those. You also lose two of your 4 Empty Cells.
I can see an interesting strategy in which an alliance who has won the first match and seems to be losing the 2nd match dumps balls into its own alliance in order to gain the supercell advantage in the third match of the elimination.Somewhat troublesome. I'm not sure what to do about that, or whether anything should be done about it.
I wonder how anyone is going to keep track of this during the qualifications...maybe they should have some kind of white flag they put on robots to identify them for future matches. A "2X" flag and a "3X flag" goes into your flag holder at the end of the match if you transgress.Except that your flag holder gets left on the field with your trailer for the next team to use. (There is no on-robot flag holder this year.) A Q&A stated that the field management system would keep track of <G14>, but they haven't specified how that works.
i still do not see why you would not ignore g14 and blow out the other allaince in qualification matches, in order to get a higher ranking.Because you would not get a higher ranking. Read the rules on Qualifying Points and Ranking Points carefully (section 9.3). For several years it has been in a team's best interest to win while allowing their opponents to score a maximum number of points. <G14> only reinforces that.
I can see an interesting strategy in which an alliance who has won the first match and seems to be losing the 2nd match dumps balls into its own alliance in order to gain the supercell advantage in the third match of the elimination.
My first reaction to this strategy was: "That's terrible, it's like throwing the match. How un-GP".
But then I started to wonder. A LOT of thoughts came to mind.
1) How practical is it to know the likely outcome of the game anyway. Even if the real-time scoring says 40-20, that's only a difference of 2 super-cells. Would you really have enough knowledge and determination to start scoring on yourselves, rather than trying to even the odds a bit and win with a super-cell or two.
2) Since the human players have control over the Super-Cells at the end, how quickly are you going to be able to assess their final scoring capability, and make the determination that you're better off NOT trying to win, but instead hold-back to get better handicap next game.
In other words, the final outcome of the game can be tipped either way with one or two well/badly placed super cells, so I think most teams would be hard pressed to back off. It will be a VERY HARD LESSON to learn.
But perhaps FIRST really is trying to get us to learn it.
FIRST is always about teaching us Life Lessons.
They tried "teamwork" in Aim High, making us help our alliances onto the ramp at the end. Exponential reward for additional robots.
---> Impromptu Cooperation...
They took it further in Rack 'n Roll, where we had to be innovative about lifting strategies so that unknown alliance robots could work together.
--> Cooperation by design...
I think this year they are teaching us that sometimes we need to PLAN to sacrifice our own "glory" to ensure that those around us also have a shot at success.
--> Strategic cooperation.
It's the ultimate "Not winning at all costs" lesson. You actually have to PLAN A STRATEGY to assist your compeditors so that you can both succeed.
Phew..... I get it.
Phil.
smurfgirl
21-01-2009, 10:33
I think there a lot of people who'd agree with you on that. That said, for people who build a new robot and play an entirely new game year after year, we're incredibly resistant to change. Who'da thunk?
That's not quite true. Dave has said that <G14> does not exist to level the playing field. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=795184&postcount=49) I don't think anyone's trying to dodge <G14>. Some people are actively campaigning against it, while others are content to sit back and watch the show.
Notice how we've all been having discussions of its dynamics and how it will affect matches and game strategy? Hmm... did anyone ever think that might be the reason it's here? To make us think harder, to add a new level of complexity to the game? Different teams are going to take different approached when dealing with <G14>, and I predict many interesting matches because of it.
Bob Steele
21-01-2009, 11:52
I think that perhaps somewhere the GDC is smiling after reading the last two posts.......if they read this sort of thing...
Joe Ross
21-01-2009, 12:51
I think the strategy of making sure you get blown out in the 2nd match would be not unlike a strategy used in the eliminations in 2003.
That year, there were only two matches in the eliminations. They used the same qualifying point formula as the qualifying matches (that year it was 2x opponents score + your own score). The alliance that had the highest combined qualifying point score between the two matches advanced. It was to your advantage that if you were losing, you wanted to minimize your own score so that you minimized your opponents qualifying score. If you look over the elimination rounds at the championship's scores (http://www.usfirst.org/community/frc/content.aspx?id=9304), you generally saw either a very close score, or a blowout. You would often see a team descoring their own boxes, or pulling off the ramp at the last second to minimize their own score.
One thing that would be interesting this year is if a losing team starts scoring for their opponents trying to force <G14>, and then the opponents start scoring for the losing team, trying to not get <G14>. You could see some very high scoring matches this way.
If your alliance is capable of pounding the opposing alliance into mush the previous match what does it matter if they have supercells if you can so readily outscore them with ease?
EXACTLY what I was thinking
I think the strategy of making sure you get blown out in the 2nd match would be not unlike a strategy used in the eliminations in 2003.
That year, there were only two matches in the eliminations. They used the same qualifying point formula as the qualifying matches (that year it was 2x opponents score + your own score). The alliance that had the highest combined qualifying point score between the two matches advanced. It was to your advantage that if you were losing, you wanted to minimize your own score so that you minimized your opponents qualifying score. If you look over the elimination rounds at the championship's scores (http://www.usfirst.org/community/frc/content.aspx?id=9304), you generally saw either a very close score, or a blowout. You would often see a team descoring their own boxes, or pulling off the ramp at the last second to minimize their own score.
One thing that would be interesting this year is if a losing team starts scoring for their opponents trying to force <G14>, and then the opponents start scoring for the losing team, trying to not get <G14>. You could see some very high scoring matches this way.
I called that the scorched earth scoring system. I'm gonna knock all of the tubs out of all of the zone (mine and theirs) just to play it safe!
What a crazy year that was.
There is no controversy in FIRST that will ever match 2003's "Collusion" controversy. Where teams protected their stacks by brokering deals with the opposing alliance so that no one's stack would be knocked down and both alliances would score well and seed well no matter who won or lost. This <G14> stuff is a trifle compared to that.
Somewhat troublesome. I'm not sure what to do about that, or whether anything should be done about it.
Fight fire with fire and do the same thing?
One thing that would be interesting this year is if a losing team starts scoring for their opponents trying to force <G14>, and then the opponents start scoring for the losing team, trying to not get <G14>. You could see some very high scoring matches this way.
Doh! You gave away a secret! :ahh: I laugh every time I think about this strategy. The audience will be so confused!
Doh! You gave away a secret! :ahh: I laugh every time I think about this strategy. The audience will be so confused!
Comedy gold just waiting to be mined!
smurfgirl
21-01-2009, 14:39
That year, there were only two matches in the eliminations. They used the same qualifying point formula as the qualifying matches (that year it was 2x One thing that would be interesting this year is if a losing team starts scoring for their opponents trying to force <G14>, and then the opponents start scoring for the losing team, trying to not get <G14>. You could see some very high scoring matches this way.
I would like to see it happen at least once, I think that would be a really crazy match to watch. I can imagine some very confused audience members.
I wasn't concerned about <G14> until now.
For those who don't think that supercells will make much difference, recognize that each supercell is worth 7.5 moon rocks. Three tosses from your human player and you've got 45 points! This will be very important in low scoring matches.
Imagine the pre-supercell score is Red 30 - Blue 20, and both alliance have 4 supercells. Do you throw the supercells? How many?
Suppose Blue begins to toss a supercell in the last seconds, so Red throws one as well. If blue misses, and Red scores, Red wins 45 - 20. Red alliance - all three teams get a <G14> handicap. Red has to toss the cell, or Blue can win the match...
I am certain that in elimination matches, alliances will play the game -that is try to win the tournament - by making their scores low if they feel that they are loosing. Imagine a mistake is made by Blue - two empty cells are dumped into a robot, and they are scored in a trailer early in the game, for example. This puts the alliance with a potential 40 point disadvantage. They are certain they can't win against super Red alliance, so Blue begins to play ineffective defense and stops scoring, hoping to get a <G14> advantage in the second match.
Blue stops scoring with 16 points. What does Red do? (Blue still has two supercells...) If Red takes their score up to 30 points - so as to not get the <G14> handicap, then Blue can win with a last second supercell toss.
Any ideas on how coaches can deal with these situations - especially when two of the alliance human players are far from the coaches?
-Mr. Van
Robodox
Rick Wagner
21-01-2009, 16:16
A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. I'm inclined to win the current match and not worry about G14. It would be ironic to be worrying so much about G14 and then to lose a match that you won't need to worry about it any more.
In the qualifying rounds, the effects are diluted, and by the time you get to the eliminations, the scores will be higher and there should be less effect. Until I have some match experience behind me, I'm not going to worry much about it.
Any ideas on how coaches can deal with these situations - especially when two of the alliance human players are far from the coaches?
-Mr. Van
Robodox
A solution is already implied above: score in your own alliance's trailers when necessary.
The other solution is to not let on that you're about to dominate the score, then blindside your opponents with alot of orbit balls of all types in the last 20 seconds. This is a high-risk since it's impossible to know where your opponents will be in the last 20 seconds.
The best solution would be to only depend on moonrocks every single time, with supercells for last-minute assurance for victory.
Rick Wagner
21-01-2009, 16:43
As super cells will only be available in the last 20 seconds, and only in the corners for PS throwing (probably not enough time to feed attack robots), the implied defensive strategy is for robots to head to the mid-crater and keep moving. Should be an awesome sight.
Ted Weisse
21-01-2009, 16:51
Circle up the wagons...:D
artdutra04
21-01-2009, 18:35
I wonder how anyone is going to keep track of this during the qualifications...maybe they should have some kind of white flag they put on robots to identify them for future matches. A "2X" flag and a "3X flag" goes into your flag holder at the end of the match if you transgress.
Your have to "wear" this badge of "dishonor" until your next match...
Or maybe they should just put a big 2x or 3x on the forehead of the commanders for the teams that will have disobeyed the rule...I love this idea.
It's like an awesome indicator.
Except that instead of being from one's ego, it would have been mandated by the rules.
And just to clarify, if you are at the receiving end of G14, you aren't breaking or disobeying any rules. The rule clearly states a condition for which the number of available bonus balls is dependent on your alliance's score ratio. Regardless of whether you are on one side of that ratio or not, you aren't breaking any rules.
EDIT:
If you had a terrific alliance and outscored your opponents in the first round of quarterfinals 3X You would lose ALL of your supercells... 2 per team X 3 teams in your alliance... for a total of 6 lost supercells (I didn't ask the question if this would carry over to the next match.
I can see an interesting strategy in which an alliance who has won the first match and seems to be losing the 2nd match dumps balls into its own alliance in order to gain the supercell advantage in the third match of the elimination.If the alliance really is good, then why would they even have to sandbag their second match? Why not just score into their normal goals and just win? Even if they don't show a blowout in their second match, a win is still a win, and all you need is two to move onward and upward.
I've been doing some thinking, and I think that <G14> will add suspense to the finals, along with more third matches.
Here's my reasoning:
I designate 3 types of teams: elite, good, and moderate. Elite is the teams that just plain don't need the super cells. Good only uses them occasionally. Moderate wins a lot of matches on the super cells. What happens when you throw the teams together?
During eliminations, the whole game changes. The "elite" and "good" teams come in picking, and probably have a <G14> from their last qual match. When more than one is on an alliance, the effects of <G14> are more pronounced.
Let’s take the 1v8 and 4v5 bracket as an example for the eliminations. 1 is probably an elite team, a good to elite team, and a moderate team. 8 is a good team and two good to moderate teams. 1 usually blows out 8 in the first match, and the same happens here, despite two members of 1 coming in with a single cell missing. 1 loses 6 cells; 8 loses none. Second match is closer, but 1 still wins easily, let’s say 2x this time around.
Meanwhile, in the 4v5, 4 is two good teams and one moderate team, while 5 is one good team, one moderate to good team, and one moderate team. Typically, 4v5 is close and hard-fought, and this time is no exception—four matches, any missing super cells are back on by the last match, and the final score is 45-44 (just to throw out a number).
Now, we go to semis, 1v4. Alliance 1 is down 3 cells; 4 has all of theirs. Match 1 is a battle, and 4 wins due to a pair of super cells scored at the last second. Match 2: 1 has all their cells; 4 is missing 3. 1 wins handily, 2x 4’s score. Now it’s Match 3: 1 is missing 3 cells; 4 is missing 0. 1 manages to steal 4’s super cells and scores them at the last second. 1 wins, 60-30. 1 goes to finals against Alliance 2, who is in a similar boat. Who wins will depend on any blowouts.
Is this the intent of the GDC? Or is it not conceivable to be a portion of the intent? And yet, in eliminations, you can't afford to back down! So what I think <G14> really does is to make for some very interesting strategy even in the high-scoring finals.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.