What do you think about <G14> in eliminations?

[David Brinza]

Should the GDC consider eliminating <G14> in eliminations?

In the OKC regional, <G14> was applied to alliances four times in the elimination matches. That meant the offending alliances lost two supercells and an empty cell in their matches. In spite of three <G14> violations, the #1 alliance was able to win the event.

Here are some observations that lead me to believe that applying <G14> in elimination matches is just not good for the game:

1) In elimination matches, ranking scores no longer apply so there is other motivation to keep the score close other than <G14>.

2) In low scoring matches, trying to avoid <G14> can cost you a win if the opponents scores one or two super cells near the end of the match.

3) At OKC, I observed occasional significant upward and downward real-time score fluctuations. Accidental super cell tallies were apparently entered by the score keepers, which were corrected (sometimes after the match was completed).

4) In the elimination rounds, the objective is to win and margin of victory isn't a matter of GP, it's about effectiveness, skill and luck. Why should a team hold back at this point in the competition.

What happened in other regionals - did anyone lose trying to avoid a <G14> violation?

[EricH]

What I said, looking at the webcasts on Gameday, was something to the effect of: "We were all wrong."

We thought that <G14> wouldn't be an issue, mainly because SCs would be ignored, or because scores would be higher. We thought that teams would willingly take a <G14> to ensure a win.

After Week 1, we were shown wrong.

1114 scored on themselves to avoid it. They lost in QFs for other reasons, but I think a Super Cell helped after it was scored on one of their partners.

217, who said that they WANTED <G14> violations (at least, Paul Copioli did), used SCs quite a bit.

Super Cells were a huge factor in several events, and many matches. More teams lost because SCs were scored in the last few seconds than I care to remember.

<G14> is NOT a minor rule, like we thought it was. It will have a major effect, unless the later events step it up a notch or three.

Note: I was mainly watching Midwest and New Jersey, with a bit of DC elims.

[meaubry]

This is good discussion and everyone should share their opinions, BUT -
FIRST will NEVER change a rule that impacts the game this much, thus late into the competition season. (my opinion)
Thoughts -
As with most years, their are really 2 different strategies for winning between the seeding and the finals matches.
During the finals you cannot chance anything less than a 30 point lead, because if 2 supercells are scored against your alliance at the end of the game, it might swing the score enough to go from almost assured victory to a narrow defeat.
During seeding matches, it doesn't kill you if that happens because its not a win or go home situation, so you don't necessarily need to be overly worried - unless you know that the other teams just cannot score very many points, and even if they do win on a last second supercell luck shot so what, no big deal.
Just my 2 cents worth,
Mike Aubry

[GaryVoshol]

I agree with Mike, this rule should not be changed after some events have already played using it. They could drop it for Atlanta if they wanted, but probably wouldn't. I suspect this one will be top of the hit list at IRI.

But NOBODY knows how <G14> works, especially in elims. A very respected and knowledgeable colleague of Mike and I, also working at the event, came up to me and asked about it. His exact words, "I'm just asking, because I don't know." My wife who was a queuer was told by one of the kids that his mom said it didn't apply in finals - well, there's a good source of info for you.

We had > TRIPLE scores in QF 1-1 and QF 4-1 at Traverse City. When the <G14> was applied to their next matches, that left the alliance with zero super cells and two practically useless empty cells. When the guy at the outpost exhausted all his ammo in auto, he had nothing left to do but lean back in that comfy chair and watch the rest of the match. ;) In both cases, the alliances advanced to the SF anyway. One of them carried a > Double Score <G14> into the first SF match.

[sgreco]

I agree with Mike, this rule should not be changed after some events have already played using it. They could drop it for Atlanta if they wanted, but probably wouldn't. I suspect this one will be top of the hit list at IRI.

But NOBODY knows how <G14> works, especially in elims. A very respected and knowledgeable colleague of Mike and I, also working at the event, came up to me and asked about it. His exact words, "I'm just asking, because I don't know." My wife who was a queuer was told by one of the kids that his mom said it didn't apply in finals - well, there's a good source of info for you.

We had > TRIPLE scores in QF 1-1 and QF 4-1 at Traverse City. When the <G14> was applied to their next matches, that left the alliance with zero super cells and two practically useless empty cells. When the guy at the outpost exhausted all his ammo in auto, he had nothing left to do but lean back in that comfy chair and watch the rest of the match. ;) In both cases, the alliances advanced to the SF anyway. One of them carried a > Double Score <G14> into the first SF match.

I agree that the rule shouldn't be changed.

Personally I don't like the rule that much, but their not going to change it.(and having played one week it wouldn't be fair to change it. I watched most of the weekend on gameday, but I wasn't actually at a competition.At the beginning my team decided that our strategy would be to ignore the rule as far the current match was concerned and accept the penalty. We figured that if we blow out a team x3 we wouldn't need our super cells. Now we are thinking differently since we saw the game played. But anyway this adds another dimension to the game, since it probably isn't going anywhere it'll be fun to play and use the rule as part of your strategy.

[Cory]

I dislike G14 no matter when it is applied, but if it's going to be applied in the elims I'd have made all G14 violations reset at the end of each round of the elims.

ie: you beat the tar out of your opponent 150-40 in QF1-3. You do not get penalized for SF1-1.

[David Brinza]

I dislike G14 no matter when it is applied, but if it's going to be applied in the elims I'd have made all G14 violations reset at the end of each round of the elims.

ie: you beat the tar out of your opponent 150-40 in QF1-3. You do not get penalized for SF1-1.
FIRST Q&A says the ONLY matches where <G14> cannot be applied are the first match and the surrogate match. The <G14> cell modification rule even extends from qualification into the elimination matches!

[Jeff Waegelin]

We took the approach in eliminations (and in qualifiers, for that matter) that G14 didn't matter, and we wouldn't think about it. When you get to the eliminations, all that matters is wins and losses, and you don't have the time to think about trying to keep the score close. Just go out there and compete 100%, all the time. If you get a G14, it means you won, and that's what matters in an elimination series.

[thefro526]

We received one G14 in New Jersey. In qualifying match #31 we were ahead by about 40 points and our HP scored 2 Super Cells and sank them both. Our HP lost both of the Super Cells for the next match. We still won.

In qualification matches G14 doesn't really matter. For the most part, in the next match they only punish the offending team and even then I only know of one team (ours) that score 2 Super Cells in the Same Match with The Same HP.

In Elims it CAN be a killer if you triple. But that's only if you need Super Cells to win.

[Cory]

FIRST Q&A says the ONLY matches where <G14> cannot be applied are the first match and the surrogate match. The <G14> cell modification rule even extends from qualification into the elimination matches!

David, I know that. I just meant that if I had a say, that's what I'd do.

[excel2474]

G14 is Socialism.

1114 scored on themselves to avoid it. They lost in QFs for other reasons, but I think a Super Cell helped after it was scored on one of their partners..

This is a STUPID rule if it makes people score on themselves. If a team blows us out, I wouldn't care. Maybe it means we should step it up a notch.

[David Brinza]

I'm guessing we won't see <G14> at IRI!

[bduddy]

I'm against it in every match, so there you go. And there's no reason it couldn't be changed-I highly doubt any teams based their robot design or strategy on it (and if they did, that would be truly sad).

[AdamHeard]

We took the approach in eliminations (and in qualifiers, for that matter) that G14 didn't matter, and we wouldn't think about it. When you get to the eliminations, all that matters is wins and losses, and you don't have the time to think about trying to keep the score close. Just go out there and compete 100%, all the time. If you get a G14, it means you won, and that's what matters in an elimination series.

I agree.

Just play it one match at a time, the goal is always to win that match.

[EricH]

I'm against it in every match, so there you go. And there's no reason it couldn't be changed-I highly doubt any teams based their robot design or strategy on it (and if they did, that would be truly sad).
Think about it. All the Week 1 teams played under one set of rules. If you remove a rule that hurts teams (or add one that hurts teams), you WILL get the Week 1 teams OR the non-Week 1 teams "screaming" at you that you're unfair, biased, that everyone should play under the same rules, the other group has it easier, etc., etc. And there's a fair chance that half the other group will join in to complain with the complainers.

Do you really want that? Do you think the GDC really wants that?

[David Brinza]

Think about it. All the Week 1 teams played under one set of rules. If you remove a rule that hurts teams (or add one that hurts teams), you WILL get the Week 1 teams OR the non-Week 1 teams "screaming" at you that you're unfair, biased, that everyone should play under the same rules, the other group has it easier, etc., etc. And there's a fair chance that half the other group will join in to complain with the complainers.

Do you really want that? Do you think the GDC really wants that?
I don't think it is particularly unfair to tweak this rule, since the match results from Week 1 don't carry into Week 2 and beyond. Winners in Week 1 were determined with rules that applied to all the teams in those competitions.

If the GDC decides to modify a rule, it would apply to all teams in subsequent regionals. This is far less frustrating for teams than changing the game pieces for Championship versus what was used in the regionals (remember the much softer Poof Balls for Aim High in Atlanta?)

[Alan Anderson]

I refuse to answer a poll with such biased questions. I do not believe that mere consistency is the strongest reason for keeping <G14>, and I do not believe that <G14> prevents teams from playing to the best of their ability.

And can some of you please just stop using the words "violation" and "penalty" when discussing <G14>? You shouldn't have to resort to disingenuous emotional arguments in order to state your opinion.

[bduddy]

I refuse to answer a poll with such biased questions. I do not believe that mere consistency is the strongest reason for keeping <G14>, and I do not believe that <G14> prevents teams from playing to the best of their ability.

And can some of you please just stop using the words "violation" and "penalty" when discussing <G14>? You shouldn't have to resort to disingenuous emotional arguments in order to state your opinion.
What would you call it, then? G14 is clearly, as I see it, a rule that is attempting to create a certain behavior by teams. If this behavior is not properly adhered to, that team suffers a consequence. Other than the fact that the consequences apply in the next match, how is that different than any other rule, where I presume you would have no problem with those terms?

I do agree with your initial sentiments, though. People, please, when creating a poll, just post answers and perhaps "other". Posters here are perfectly capable of justifying themselves, and they may have reasons you didn't think of.

[Taylor]

What would you call it, then? G14 is clearly, as I see it, a rule that is attempting to create a certain behavior by teams. If this behavior is not properly adhered to, that team suffers a consequence. Other than the fact that the consequences apply in the next match, how is that different than any other rule, where I presume you would have no problem with those terms?

Perhaps we shouldn't use those words because they're not the correct words. A "penalty" is a 10-point deduction - <G14> is most decidedly not that. "Violation" certainly doesn't apply, because there is no rule violated. <G14> merely provides an adjustment to be made based on circumstances.
I think it's presumptive of us as a community to guess what intent the GDC had in creating <G14>. Honestly, I don't think it had anything to do with blowouts, creating GP, or anything like that. Perhaps the GDC merely wanted to see if coaches are capable of calculating scores on the fly, making decisions based off that data, and communicating those decisions to people who may be posted dozens of feet away.
I think it's been pretty widely accepted that Lunacy is the most strategically intense game we've had for many years. <G14> adds complexity to that strategy and forces the human players to be more than hurlers.
That being said, I personally don't agree with <G14> carrying over from quals to elims, I'm not sure I like it in elims, and I'm sure the 2009 CAGE Match (and possibly IRI) will reflect these views. But when we go to the BMR, I'll happily play by the rules the GDC has instituted.

[Cory]

I think it's presumptive of us as a community to guess what intent the GDC had in creating <G14>. Honestly, I don't think it had anything to do with blowouts, creating GP, or anything like that.

It seems pretty obvious that by penalizing teams for beating an opponent too badly FIRST wants to keep scores close.

For the same reason the winners always have some multiplier of the loser's score contribute to their ranking score.

[Alan Anderson]

What would you call it, then?

The simplest word that seems to carry an appropriate meaning is "handicap".

Perhaps we shouldn't use those words because they're not the correct words. A "penalty" is a 10-point deduction - <G14> is most decidedly not that. "Violation" certainly doesn't apply, because there is no rule violated.

That is a perfect explanation of my complaint.

It seems pretty obvious that by penalizing teams for beating an opponent too badly...

Why do so many people choose to interpret <G14> as saying overpowering your opponent is a bad thing? Being denied a potential 15-30 points at the end of your next match because you significantly outscored the other alliance is no penalty. I perceive it as a clever attempt to help make the rankings at the end of relatively few matches better represent the performance of the robots.

If you can consistently double or triple your opponents' score, I still don't see that the loss of a super cell or two is a big deal, even in the quarterfinals.

[MasonMM]

I think FIRST has taken the idea of coopertition to an absurd level with the introduction of <G14>. I do not see the correlation between punishing teams who are successful in a match and developing a future with more engineers. I want <G14> removed from the rule book in it's entirety, but I especially think that during the eliminations, alliances should not have to think about taking their foot off the gas.

At the very least, the rule should be tweaked for eliminations so that the loss of empty/super cells does not carry from the qualifications to eliminations or from quarters to semis to finals. Having an alliance enter the next level of the bracket with a handicap, does not contribute to effectively crowning the deserving winner of an event.

FIRST should remember this is FRC, the FIRST Robotics Competition not the FIRST Robotics Coopertition.

Coopertition is something that should be practiced in the pits and at all times off the field. But when a team is in a match, it should be about playing to your maximum potential and ability.

[Jeff Waegelin]

I perceive it as a clever attempt to help make the rankings at the end of relatively few matches better represent the performance of the robots.

I think this is the most interesting description of <G14> that I've heard yet. In essence, what you are saying is that it should penalize the teams that are "riding the wave", so to speak, with good partners. A team that can put up enough points to double (or triple) their opponents' scores will be largely unaffected, but the teams that they're paired with will get a larger impact. Some may say that is unfair to the partner teams, but it might indeed help to have the rankings better represent individual performance.

That being said, I think this effect may be rather small, but it's certainly an interesting way to look at things.

[EricH]

I think this is the most interesting description of <G14> that I've heard yet. In essence, what you are saying is that it should penalize the teams that are "riding the wave", so to speak, with good partners. A team that can put up enough points to double (or triple) their opponents' scores will be largely unaffected, but the teams that they're paired with will get a larger impact. Some may say that is unfair to the partner teams, but it might indeed help to have the rankings better represent individual performance.

That being said, I think this effect may be rather small, but it's certainly an interesting way to look at things.
It might actually be what was intended by the rule in the beginning. A while ago, I looked at the effects of <G14> on individual teams, sorted into 5 categories by performance. Interestingly enough, only 2 of the 5 would affect themselves seriously. Those are just the type that would have to use SCs a lot. But, when you factor in alliance pairings, there can be a huge impact.

[raceteen48]

G14 is Socialism.




that is the first thing i thought of when i heard it, let's punish the people who succeed! yay liberalism! (did Obama and his congress made the rules for this years game?

I do think it stops people from getting lucky with alliance pairings, a little bit, but I think it should be thrown out in the elimination matches, if that were why it was designed

[Daniel_LaFleur]

First off, <G14> is not a penalty, <G14> is not a punishment, <G14> is a conditional effect.

I think FIRST has taken the idea of coopertition to an absurd level with the introduction of <G14>. I do not see the correlation between punishing teams who are successful in a match and developing a future with more engineers. I want <G14> removed from the rule book in it's entirety, but I especially think that during the eliminations, alliances should not have to think about taking their foot off the gas.


Absurd level? I want? ...

As future design engineers, our students will see specifications from customers that will not make much sense to us because we've not been given all the information (and will not because of intellectual property). Consider <G14> as one of those specifications, and a soft specification at that since you only have a consequence if you violate the condition.

Also, who said anything about taking your foot off the gas?!? <G14> is a condition, and therefore a decision if it is right to violate the condition and accept the consequences, nothing more.


At the very least, the rule should be tweaked for eliminations so that the loss of empty/super cells does not carry from the qualifications to eliminations or from quarters to semis to finals. Having an alliance enter the next level of the bracket with a handicap, does not contribute to effectively crowning the deserving winner of an event.


Again, why? It is nothing more than a strategic decision to make whether or not to violate the conditions of <G14>. If you choose to violate those conditions then you must accept the consequences. If you violate those conditions in the elimination rounds then you have chosen (maybe by not thinking) to accept the consequences in the next round.


FIRST should remember this is FRC, the FIRST Robotics Competition not the FIRST Robotics Coopertition.

Coopertition is something that should be practiced in the pits and at all times off the field. But when a team is in a match, it should be about playing to your maximum potential and ability.

This has very little to do with 'coopertition' and much more with strategy and decision making.

The product that each team is putting on the field is more than just a robot. The product is the robot and the drivers/Human player/coach. It is the sum of the machines capabilities and the decisions of the team. Y'all need to accept that and deal with the consequences of the decisions (and, maybe, non-decisions?) that your team makes.

The above is, as always, JM(NS)HO ... good luck all.

[raceteen48]

yes, but also, there a points where especially in low scoring games, that score on the screen could be ten to 15 points off, and that could be enough to make it double, or if you stop, could cause you to lose

[Daniel_LaFleur]

yes, but also, there a points where especially in low scoring games, that score on the screen could be ten to 15 points off, and that could be enough to make it double, or if you stop, could cause you to lose

All that means is that you need to make a decision.

Do you risk losing the match? or do you risk losing a EC/SC in your next match?

Decisions, decisions, decisions .....

[Greg McKaskle]

I don't normally post on nontechnical issues, but here are the similar systems G14 reminds me of...

Handicapping in golf. (From Wikipedia) --
A golf handicap is a numerical measure of an amateur golfer's playing ability based on the tees played for a given course. It is used to calculate a net score from the number of strokes actually played, thus allowing players of different proficiency to play against each other on somewhat equal terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_handicap
Handicap systems are not used in professional golf.
----
Maybe professional FRC would drop G14? But maybe not.

NFL draft system. (From Wikipedia) --
The draft order is determined by first generating the order for the first round. That order is based generally on each team's regular season record, with the exception of the two Super Bowl contestants, who are placed at the end of the draft order. Tiebreakers and specifics are as follows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_draft
----
If great teams have the most money and great players want to play for great teams and make great money, how else do you keep the league from shrinking to three or four teams?

Sales quotas. (Not from Wikipedia)
Compensation based on derivatives. Your compensation is scaled based on your sales excellence, but also your ability to improve over your results from last term. If sales don't grow, your salary will often shrink even if your sales numbers are high in absolute terms.

And because April 15th is near -- income tax. (Not from Wikipedia)
Not a flat tax. Not a simple system. Lots of handicapping rules. Lets the government acquire the funds it needs to operate and influence peoples behaviors all at the same time.
Maybe this isn't a good example, but in case you think FRC rules are too complex or the penalties too harsh, it will give you a point of comparison.

Greg McKaskle

[Paul Copioli]

I haven't been paying much attention to this thread lately, but I was just the MC for Kettering (at least sharing the duties with Eric Peterson). Steve Chism, the VP of programs for FIRST watched every match of the entire district event and was taking copius notes. I made it very clear to him just how silly I thought G14 was. I also complimented him on the functionality of the new field control system (it is pretty cool) and other items, but I digress.

Earlier in the thread EricH stated that I wanted my team to get G14 penalties and also went on to say that we used SCs a lot as if somehow wanting to get G14s precluded us from using Super Cells at all. Our team had the most G14s at Midwest (if you count the triple score as 2 G14 penalties) so I kept my word. The use of the SC is prudent in this game and there are various ways to use them. However, if you get a G14 penalty in every match then you are guaranteed to win every match (I know, very Yogi Berra of me)!

In eliminations, when you get more than triple your opponents score, that will hurt in the next match and at Ketttering one team lost the next match due to the G14.

In principle I do not like G14 and absolutely think it is absurd in the elimination rounds. With that said, we all have to work our strategies around that rule as it will not change.

That is my #2 rule change proposal at IRI (if you are paying attention at all, you should know what the first rule change proposal is).

Paul

[wedge41388]

As a Scorer at the boston regional, I found that the super cells had a very low impact on the game. I noticed about 5 or so cells actually scored during the entire regional and they only really affected the score once where it allowed a team to just beat the opposing alliance. (Cant remember exactly which match....it was a long weekend.) Most of the time the super cells were used as a hail mary with very low success rate. Teams who had there cells removed hardly ever used the super cells anyway, they just were able to score a ton of moon rocks by use of excellent dumper robots and basketball player payload specialists.

[raceteen48]

i agree, it did seem like a fairly rare occurrence that it actually changed the outcome of the match, except the poor guy who accidentally ended up throwing it in his own alliance's trailer, after it bounced around quite a bit

[Lil' Lavery]

As a Scorer at the boston regional, I found that the super cells had a very low impact on the game. I noticed about 5 or so cells actually scored during the entire regional and they only really affected the score once where it allowed a team to just beat the opposing alliance. (Cant remember exactly which match....it was a long weekend.) Most of the time the super cells were used as a hail mary with very low success rate. Teams who had there cells removed hardly ever used the super cells anyway, they just were able to score a ton of moon rocks by use of excellent dumper robots and basketball player payload specialists.

There are a number of problems with that mentality.
There's a difference between super cells being effective thusfar and their importance. Just because super cells haven't decided a ton of matches, doesn't mean they're not important. Anyone who watched 118 reach the finals in DC, 27 earn the third pick at Kettering, 217 reach the semis in Chicago (and almost beat the winning alliance), or teams of their ilk can tell you how important super cells can be. The reason that they haven't been making a huge impact is because teams are using them in the fashion you describe, as additional scoring, hail marys, and in general, an afterthought.
When the super cell becomes a focal point of an alliance's strategy it is very powerful. Heck, even look at the 45, 234, 620 alliance that beat the 1279, 118, 538 alliance in DC. They scored tons of moon rocks, but even they scored a super cell in 67% of their matches during the eliminations to help them clinch.
Beyond that, just because something hasn't been used (and is thus perceived as "unimportant") doesn't mean that rules that impact it should be ignored. In other words, even if a scoring object was determined to be useless, an unfair rule shouldn't be imposed on it.
I'm not saying that <G14> is unfair, but that the principle of the rule is what matters, not the actual impact.

[tonsoffun2325]

as the human player for team 1742 the OKC regional champs. We decided to just score and worry about losin a super cell later. cause we would rather lose a super cell next game then lose the match now cause we didn't want to shot the super cell.

[Johnny]

When this rule first came out, I was completely opposed to it being enforced in elimination rounds. Now, having competed in a regional, I've had a change of heart. The rule has it's place in this game and shouldn't be changed. it add's a completely new element of strategy into this game. We can complain all we want, but why not just use that energy to get used to the rule? For a game that seemed simple at the start of the season, it has proven to be a little bit more difficult and strategical, eliminating G14 would take away from the games intent. Deal with it please:)

[Bob Steele]

In Oregon an alliance tripled the score in the their last quarter final and their alliance everything was ready to go and the head referee had to be reminded about the rule... to their credit the situation was remedied...

Showing tremendous GP, team 488 (who was on the team that was effected) supported the request to apply the rule.

Much to my chagrin and embarassment.. our alliance (Alliance 1) had the luck to out score this team by a large margin in the Semi-final 2 against 488's Alliance going in to the FINALS... and we should have received a G14 penalty.

We totally forgot about this.. and didn't remind the referees that we should have had our SCells limited also in the first game of the final... (In our defense... our alliance didn't use the SC our strategy...so it didn't occur to me..)

I do want to apologize to team 488 for letting this happen. They are terrific team and we enjoyed competing with them...but this rule should have been applied to us in that match... and we should have said something.

I think our refereeing team did a terrific job and I am not trying to cast blame on anyone except us for not realizing that we should be penalized....

One other issue I have with G14 is how rescheduled games are supposed to be handled... We had several early matches that got rescheduled to the end of the day... I assume that G14 was supposed to be simply applied in the next match...so I guess we need clarification on how G14 should be applied.