View Full Version : The Update, it fixes nothing! (AKA: why is everyone so excited about Update #16?)
Hi,
So I was out of the loop since ship date and have just now read up and understood the implication of the seeding system (6v0 was a "Woah!" :ahh: moment for me).
So basically, the old system (pre update #16) had a built in incentive for 6v0.
(both alliances colluding to kick all balls into one side, thus providing higher seeding points to both alliances).
Team update #16 address this partially by removing the symmetry that existed between the winning and losing alliance's score in the 6v0 scenario.
this address the issue when looked at from a single match standpoint.
However I think there is still a problem with this system:
Basically an alliance may decide to go for 6v0 if they feel losing is inevitable.
The losing alliance will still get 5 seeding points less than the winning alliance, but it would be more than they would have gotten by doing their best and losing.
Example Match:
Red alliance score: 2
Blue alliance score: 1
Red alliance seeding points: 7
Blue alliance seeding points: 2
Now Ignore that 6v0 removes alot of defense and just say you shift all scores to one side:
Red alliance score: 3
Blue Alliance Score:0
Red alliance seeding points: 8
Blue alliance seeding points: 3
(though obviously it would be much higher since there is no defense and only "coopertition")
The losing alliance obviously has no hope of improving it's position in the rankings with regard to the winning alliance's teams, but it could hope for improvement compared to other teams who are not participating in the said match.
Perhaps the title of this thread is worded too strongly (:rolleyes:), but I still see this as a major flaw in the whole "coopertition" idea (or perhaps just the implementation chosen year after year).
Hopefully we will never see gameplay as described above.
-Leav
Justin Montois
13-03-2010, 01:11
The system is not perfect, but at least now at Championship I feel more comfortable telling my drive team and the teams we are playing with that we are going to play for the win. I understand there may be times where 6v0 is "smarter" but we're going to play to win instead of playing just for points. This makes our game simpler.
I'm worried now that even MORE defense will be played in quals and the matches will suffer. We'll see.
hipsterjr
13-03-2010, 07:04
Leav has a point. From the begging I have been wondering how long it would take people to realize this and start taking advantage of it.
pfreivald
13-03-2010, 10:05
The GDC has made it *absolutely clear* that the object and the spirit of the game is to play to win -- each match.
I am stunned that in light of this clarification there are still teams that are considering doing otherwise.
The whole intent of the seeding was to play for the win since the game was announced. The only thing is that this year the GDC wanted to reward those teams that worked to make sure the scores of the matches were kept close to each other. Let me remind you all that your Seeding Score is as follows:
For the Winning Alliance it is the sum of their penalized score PLUS 5 points PLUS twice the un-penalized score of the losing alliance
For the Losing Alliance it is the sumer of the winning alliance's un-penalized score
In the case of a tie, it is triple the amount each respective alliance's penalized score
Before Update #16, the case of the 6v0, yes they would be working together to maximize each alliance's seeding score, but it would ultimately defeat the whole purpose of creating a competitive atmosphere and really the whole intent of the game. Would you really want to sit there and watch a competition where everyone is just scoring on one goal or would you rather watch a competition that had scoring going back and forth on opposing goals and there was that excitement and anticipation of who would come out on tope because the scores are so close?
I personally like the change in how they are doing rankings this year, and I commend the GDC on coming up with such a different way of doing it than the conventional way.
The update fixes several things. First of all, it should reduce the number of penalties. Combined with the additional 5 point bonus, the "always score for your opponents (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83911)" strategy is no longer viable. That's a huge improvement.
The GDC has made it *absolutely clear* that the object and the spirit of the game is to play to win -- each match.
I have to respectfully disagree. The GDC wants Breakaway to be a competitive game, but they have made it even more clear that there is more to winning than getting a higher score than your opponents.
If the GDC wanted us to play purely to win matches, they would have made the ranking system win-loss-tie. But they didn't, which means there's more to winning than "winning".
I'm worried now that even MORE defense will be played in quals and the matches will suffer. We'll see.
When have matches ever suffered due to defense? Honestly, a competition without defense seems a little dull to me.
Vikesrock
13-03-2010, 11:15
When have matches ever suffered due to defense? Honestly, a competition without defense seems a little dull to me.
Quite often in qualifications at "weaker" events in games such as Rack and Roll and Breakaway. Defense can add some excitement to matches, but 0-0 and 1-0 matches are definitely pretty boring.
At least from what I've seen today, I haven't seen too many 0-0 or 0-1, in part probably due to reduction in the most common penalty.
Lil' Lavery
13-03-2010, 12:54
I have to respectfully disagree. The GDC wants Breakaway to be a competitive game, but they have made it even more clear that there is more to winning than getting a higher score than your opponents.
If the GDC wanted us to play purely to win matches, they would have made the ranking system win-loss-tie. But they didn't, which means there's more to winning than "winning".
7.1 OVERVIEW
Breakaway is a game played on the FIELD (illustrated in the figure below). Two ALLIANCES, one red and one blue, composed of three FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC) teams each, compete in each MATCH. The object of the game is to attain a higher score than your opponent by shooting BALLS into a GOAL, climbing on the ALLIANCE TOWER or PLATFORM, or by lifting an ALLIANCE ROBOT off the PLAYING SURFACE.
There are more than one reason to consider why they made the ranking system the way they did. This system discourages defense far more than any other system FRC has had, in a game that can be crippled by defense. It also works in the coopertition patent that FIRST announces last year. But it does not mean you shouldn't play to win.
brasspenny
13-03-2010, 17:40
Really not relevent, but logic is this:
1. IF you know you are going to lose, score for your opponent.
2. IF you know you are going to win, score for your opponent.
BUT if you don't know, you are a fool to score for your opponent. The risk is not worth it, and with pentlties ... Only in blowouts.
Enigma's puzzle
13-03-2010, 22:40
The way I see it (say what you will), is that the GDC is attempting to reward robots for completing the task, not winning. Instead of letting teams that only built a drive train that can push other robots around the GDC want to promote robots that successfully complete the tasks that they provided. I think it is a great idea by the GDC to promote actually shooting to complete their task. So much so that i bet they all cheered when they saw 469 make a robot that could take advantage of there rules in a way to run up the score like they did. It's Innovative thinking. I'm sure they love someone going out of the box to play offense instead of making a way to detract (through defense) from another teams robot.
PS I'm ready and fully expecting to take heat for my views that agree with the rules.
The update does fix losing as the team with the higher score in blowouts.
The 5 points does add up significantly over time, if you win all your matches thats 50 more points then you would have had if your opponent used the same strategy used in week 1.
What's insidious about the remaining problem that you described, Leav, is that is requires no collusion to implement. It's quite easy for any given alliance to, without warning, start scoring against themselves. Granted, we might not be seeing much of it happening, but it doesn't mean the game still is not poorly designed or that there aren't holes like this to exploit.
Perhaps, for practical purposes, the update removes enough of the incentive that teams will listen to whatever sense of ethics that whisper about the spirit of the game. However, some teams that are truly "playing to win", as David Sirlin would say, score against themselves to help themselves. It's sad, really, that the GDC, with all their great minds can't, for the life of them, design a seeding system without these unintended consequences.
Chris is me
14-03-2010, 01:00
The update removes arranging a 6v0 match just for the hell of it, or ever. You can't just go "oh well this would be a good match, but i want more RP so let's 6v0 this!".
It allows you to throw matches and plug your own goals when your alliance is crippled with a good scorer on the opponent's side, which is exactly what my team did in a match versus 230. Without the 9 QP we got, we would not be the seed we were.
I shrug and say fair enough. I kind of like the system in many ways. If all the robots work, it's a cool idea.
Tetraman
14-03-2010, 01:45
Here is the thing - in Elimination matches, 6v0 is thrown right out the window.
Here is the other thing - First Seed could build an Alliance of themselves, the second to last ranked team, and the last ranked team and still win the competition - As long as the two teams a seeded team picked can do the job of scoring more then any other robot alliance combination on the field, then whatever you were ranked means nothing. Ranking could hurt you more then help you. This is something I discovered in my first year of FRC.
It doesn't matter what your seed is, if you want to be a part of a winning alliance, you need to prove that you can win games, not win 6v0.
The GDC has made it *absolutely clear* that the object and the spirit of the game is to play to win -- each match.
I am stunned that in light of this clarification there are still teams that are considering doing otherwise.Folks,
I you were playing football, soccer or any other game that monotonicly rewards running up a higher score than your opponent, and that only rewards that strategy, then I would agree with statements like this one or with assertioins about "The spirit of the game"; but that is not this situation.
If you want to win the on-the-field competition, look at this tournament's rules - all of them - then do the math and maximize your chances of taking home a Tournament Champions trophy. Don't interject rules that simply aren't there.
I urge you to do that do that in the context of maximizing your chances to earn a Chairman's award, and to also avoid any notions of having to use "proper" or "correct" strategies that are not derived from THIS game's/tournament's rules. Do your best to do well in this tournament. Accomplishing that might require strategies that would be simply foolish in other tournements.
You aren't playing those other games right now, and sometimes the hallowed notions of those games don't apply to FIRST games/tournaments. All games and tournaments are not alike.
Blake
PS: I was growing tired of those green dots :)
Don't interject rules that simply aren't there.
I may just be hard-headed on this issue, but I really don't know how I'd be able to sleep that night after throwing a match. Sure, scoring for an opponent(though I don't like it) I could live with. But throwing a match isn't something I'd be willing to do. I realize that sometimes giving up is the smart thing to do, but its just not in me. At least not in this regard. I guess what I'm saying is that the rules may not be in the manual depending how you read them, but they are still there. They are there because of the way we are pre-conditioned through society. I guess I'm just not smart enough to overcome this one.
I may just be hard-headed on this issue, but I really don't know how I'd be able to sleep that night after throwing a match. Sure, scoring for an opponent(though I don't like it) I could live with. But throwing a match isn't something I'd be willing to do. I realize that sometimes giving up is the smart thing to do, but its just not in me. At least not in this regard. I guess what I'm saying is that the rules may not be in the manual depending how you read them, but they are still there. They are there because of the way we are pre-conditioned through society. I guess I'm just not smart enough to overcome this one.What the heck are you talking about while also quoting me?????
Don't insert statements, opinions or assertions into what I wrote that simply aren't there - What does throwing a match or giving up have to do with any single thing I wrote? - What vague and nebulous rules that are not written in THIS tournament/game's rulebook are you referring to?
If you are going to quote me, please just focus on what I what I wrote. If winning the tournament is your goal, I advocated doing your best to win the tournament. No where in that idea is there room for "throwing a match", and no where in the suggestioin to follow a contest's published rules in order to maximize your chances of winning the contest will you find the notion of "throwing a match".
Don't trot out that old canard - It simply does not apply.
Blake
What the heck are you talking about while also quoting me?????
Don't insert statements, opinions or assertions into what I wrote that simply aren't there - What does throwing a match or giving up have to do with any single thing I wrote? - What vague and nebulous rules that are not written in THIS tournament/game's rulebook are you referring to?
If you are going to quote me, please just focus on what I what I wrote. If winning the tournament is your goal, I advocated doing your best to win the tournament. No where in that idea is there room for "throwing a match", and no where in the suggestioin to follow a contest's published rules in order to maximize your chances of winning the contest will you find the notion of "throwing a match".
Don't trot out that old canard - It simply does not apply.
Blake
I read what you posted just as it says. This is the part I was referring to in particular:
If you want to win the on-the-field competition, look at this tournament's rules - all of them - then do the math and maximize your chances of taking home a Tournament Champions trophy. Don't interject rules that simply aren't there.
One of such strategies would be a 6vs0 match which has been discussed clearly on this forum. It is certainly "maximizing your chances"...but just goes against the rules ingrained into us. I'm not referring to constraints of the game. They are very clear. I'm referring to the constraints we place upon ourselves. I see 6vs0 as throwing a match and thus use them synonamously.
I make the same request as you. Take my words at face value. I didn't implicate you in any form of a crime as you seem to believe. We just see things differently. Let's discuss it civilly rather then being outraged over misunderstandings.
Jason
I read what you posted just as it says. This is the part I was referring to in particular:
One of such strategies would be a 6vs0 match which has been discussed clearly on this forum. It is certainly "maximizing your chances"...but just goes against the rules ingrained into us. I'm not referring to constraints of the game. They are very clear. I'm referring to the constraints we place upon ourselves. I see 6vs0 as throwing a match and thus use them synonamously.
I make the same request as you. Take my words at face value. I didn't implicate you in any form of a crime as you seem to believe. We just see things differently. Let's discuss it civilly rather then being outraged over misunderstandings.
JasonI remain as irritated as when I wrote the previous reply.
I think part of the intent of your original reply was to say that I was urging teams to "throw" matches.
I bristle because saying a team or person "threw a game" is an accusation of cheating/wrongdoing. I don't believe I urged anyone to cheat or to give anything other than 110% of their best effort toward winning a Breakaway tournament.
If purposefully playing a 6v0 match is throwing a Breakaway tournament, then intentionally walking a batter must be throwing a baseball game. Both can appear counterintuitive in the short run, but both can be exactly the right thing to do in the long run.
Blake
PS: I'll bet that winning tournaments has been ingrained in both of us, and that both of us would be properly upset if someone said we were urging teams to be deceitful or cheat. That "Throw a game" term is the sort of phrase that I think of as fightin' words. It must not be allowed to stick in contexts where it does not apply.
I remain as irritated as when I wrote the previous reply.
I think part of the intent of your original reply was to say that I was urging teams to "throw" matches.
I bristle because saying a team or person "threw a game" is an accusation of cheating/wrongdoing. I don't believe I urged anyone to cheat or to give anything other than 110% of their best effort toward winning a Breakaway tournament.
If purposefully playing a 6v0 match is throwing a Breakaway tournament, then intentionally walking a batter must be throwing a baseball game. Both can appear counterintuitive in the short run, but both can be exactly the right thing to do in the long run.
Blake
PS: I'll bet that winning tournaments has been ingrained in both of us, and that both of us would be properly upset if someone said we were urging teams to be deceitful or cheat. That "Throw a game" term is the sort of phrase that I think of as fightin' words. It must not be allowed to stick in contexts where it does not apply.
6v0 isn't throwing the tournament. It is throwing a single game. If it helps you in the overall tournament and your ok doing it, go for it. I won't stop you. And I won't judge you for doing it. I also don't see it as being deceitful or cheating. 6vs0 is only deceitful if you deny it when asked about it. It should be painfully clear to everyone involved what is happening. As for cheating, I really don't think that applies either. It just doesn't settle with me. I'm not accusing you of wrongdoing. Far from it, I think it is a creative strategy that people should be free to use. Just don't expect everyone to be open to doing it. Some of us are just stubborn about these sort of things.
PS: I also get annoyed when someone walks a batter or runs down the clock in a game. Both acceptable, but I wouldn't do either. Nobody thinks its cheating, I just couldn't feel right doing it.
I apologize for the strong wording, but I stand behind every thought that was presented.
Vikesrock
15-03-2010, 11:21
If purposefully playing a 6v0 match is throwing a Breakaway tournament, then intentionally walking a batter must be throwing a baseball game. Both can appear counterintuitive in the short run, but both can be exactly the right thing to do in the long run.
The stated objective of a baseball game according to the MLB rules is:
1.02 The objective of each team is to win by scoring more runs than the opponent.
Walking a batter is a strategy used within the game to attempt to achieve the game's stated objective.
The stated objective of a game of Breakaway is:
The object of the game is to attain a higher score than your opponent by shooting BALLS into a GOAL, climbing on the ALLIANCE TOWER or PLATFORM, or by lifting an ALLIANCE ROBOT off the PLAYING SURFACE.
6v0 does not accomplish or help accomplish that objective. Choosing to attempt a 6v0 match is in fact a decision to not attempt to achieve the stated objective of the game, which would seem to me to be exactly what "throwing a game" is.
Personally I will not be offended, or look any differently at an opponent who chooses to use this tactic, but our team will be trying to win every match, no matter how bleak the outlook.
OK - So if you want to win games you do that by ... shooting BALLS into a GOAL, climbing on the ALLIANCE TOWER or PLATFORM, or by lifting an ALLIANCE ROBOT off the PLAYING SURFACE.
Now, on the other hand, if you want to win tournaments (become the event Champions) you do it through this process:
The purpose of the qualifying matches is to allow each team to earn a seeding position that may qualify them for participation in the elimination matches. The purpose of the elimination matches is to determine the event Champions.
With me so far? - I know I am stating the obvious.
Now let's check which of these is celebrated.
Hmmm, I can't find a won-lots-of-matches award for teams to earn at an event, but I can find a Champion award and a Finalist Award; and I can find a Highest Rookie Seed award. the path to all three of these awards seems to have more to do with Seeding points and Coopertition bonus than with Win/Loss stats.
So, enjoy winning games if that is what floats your boat, and enjoy trying to win the tournament if that is what floats your boat; but please don't use the phrase "Throwing a ___" to describe either circumstance.
People playing to win every match when their team is unable to do so well enough to win the tournament can be accused of "Throwing the tournament" just as easily as people playing to win the tournament can be accused of "Throwing a match". My point isn't that both statements would be equally right; my point is that both would be equally wrong.
Again, if you are playing baseball, soccer, bowling or similar games, I have never heard of a reason to purposefully lose a game that matters to the team's post-season play. But we aren't playing those games. We are playing Breakaway games during an FRC tournament.
I recommend banishing the phrase "Throwing a match" from the lexicon we use to describe the 6v0 strategy, and any related strategies. It was that phrase that got my dander up.
Blake
PS: I think Molten and I are on the same page or are close enough - I hope that is true for other readers too.
PPS: Vikes - You and I can reach a meeting of the minds if you are willing to join me in asserting that mid- and low-level teams attempting to win every match (and predictably failing to do so) are "Throwing the tournament"; or (preferably) join me in asserting that using 6v0 is not "throwing" anything.
Vikesrock
15-03-2010, 15:30
PPS: Vikes - You and I can reach a meeting of the minds if you are willing to join me in asserting that mid- and low-level teams attempting to win every match (and predictably failing to do so) are "Throwing the tournament"; or (preferably) join me in asserting that using 6v0 is not "throwing" anything.
Unfortunately, I will not agree to either assertion. I don't see how going into a match with no intent on attempting to achieve a higher score than your opponent (the stated objective) is any different from going into a game in any other sporting event with no intent on winning. Using the same vernacular to describe both events seems perfectly appropriate to me. I understand that by throwing the match you may be improving your chances at earning a higher seed, but a basketball team may improve their chances at a better draft pick by intentionally losing games and we still say that they are "tanking" or "throwing games".
The GDC expressed clearly in Update 16 that their intent is for teams to try to win matches:
The expectation is that winning will be a priority
I have no ill will for teams that attempt to maximize their seeding score through strategic use of a 6v0 approach; their actions are completely legal and within the rules of the game. On the other hand, I will be behind the glass trying to help my drivers win every match (in a way that will maximize Seeding Points).
If that outcome of a given match were guaranteed before the match took place, perhaps I could be persuaded to agree with your "throwing the tournament" assertion, but fortunately it is not. Any alliance has at least some chance of winning a given match.
TubaMorg
15-03-2010, 16:50
I have been following this discussion for quite a while, but have refrained from saying anything, largely because this is an important discussion, and a coherent response hadn't gelled in my mind.
My team discussed the strategy of scoring for our opponents early on, though not seriously. We talk about scoring for the other alliance most years, as a way to keep the score close or to avoid a skunk. We also conclude every year that we are going to try and win every single match we play. We build our robot the best we can to win matches. Some years we don't get there. Other years we preform pretty darn well. We haven't competed yet this year, so we don't know for sure what kind of robot is going to take the field. We do know, however, that even if we have the saddest robot in Texas, we don't want anyone scoring points for us. The only thing worse than loosing a match, is having someone LET you win. That is the lowest form of respect you can ever show an opponent and we flat out refuse to disrespect our opponents. Conversely we refuse to be disrespected and will actively block all attempts to do so.
A rose is a rose, and throwing a match is throwing a match. Before the update there were some arguments that perhaps the 6 v 0 strategy was part of the master GDC plan so therefore an easier pill to swallow. I was skeptical, and it turns out throwing a match is not, in fact, part of the spirit of the game. If your team chooses that route then proudly state you are throwing a match in order to maximize seeding points. Or would you prefer to call it rigging a match? Whatever you call it, don't get mad if other people call it for what it is. If the term "throwing a game" is upsetting, perhaps "playing to win a game" should be your only strategy.
If your argument is that your team plays to maximize seeding points, regardless of the outcome of the match, more power to you. As long as you are also playing to win the match, you are welcome in our alliance. Otherwise we may have a problem.
It's all fine and good to adopt a strategy that wins you a high seed for tournament selection but is it really true that maximizing seed points should be the goal at any cost? That appears to be the argument for those still advocating the 6 v 0 strategy. I truly don't think that is the spirit or intent of coopertition.
Team 1480 Robatos Locos has a number of slogans:
"Slow is fast"
"If we're going down, let's go down swinging"
"Respect"
If you want to employ the 6v0 strategy during one of our matches, then we RESPECTFULLY decline.
I recommend banishing the phrase "Throwing a match" from the lexicon we use to describe the 6v0 strategy, and any related strategies. It was that phrase that got my dander up.
I really don't think I can define the strategy in any other way. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Hope there are no hard feelings.
While I disagree with the blanket attitude of always trying to win your matches (certainly you should aim to win most of the time), I can appreciate the sentiment. However, for those who advocae always try to win matches I'm curious as to whether the sentiment is immutable; is this just the attitude entering a match or is there no point during a match in which you would be willing to concede the match?
If a team is interested in seeding points and has the ability to score on itself (I don't advocate concession if you can't advance the cause), it would be pragmatic under some circumstances to throw in the towel and maximize their seeding points. Of course it depends on the robots capabilities, but I imagine a defecit of 8 points with a minute to play is a pretty large hole for most alliances to get out of (especially considering that the defecit is already 8 points after a minute).
For teams that are willing to concede, where is this point in which you are willing to concede? Is it a flat score (a defecit of 8), a defecit-time curve (must score every 8 seconds to win)?
Joe Ross
15-03-2010, 19:02
In the NFL last year, the Colts rested starters after they locked up the best record in the league. This caused them to lose their last two games of the season. It then helped them in the long run (playoffs), because everyone was healthy.
That's a closer analogy to 6v0.
About 10 years ago, the NHL didn't like teams playing for ties in overtime. So, they changed the rules such that you the same number of points whether you tied or whether you lost in overtime, and you got additional points if you won in overtime. That seems equivalent to the change the GDC made. I don't really follow Hockey, but presumably that wasn't enough for the NHL and a few years ago they got rid of ties altogether and now go to shootouts after overtime. It took years for the NHL to make those changes, and the GDC only has a few weeks of play-time for each game.
Vikesrock
15-03-2010, 19:10
In the NFL last year, the Colts rested starters after they locked up the best record in the league. This caused them to lose their last two games of the season. It then helped them in the long run (playoffs), because everyone was healthy.
That's a closer analogy to 6v0.
This was a very controversial decision among both fans and players. Peyton Manning could clearly be seen pacing the sideline and never had his helmet further than his hand, typically a pulled starter will store their helmet and don a baseball cap.
Mrs.Drake343
15-03-2010, 19:22
Look at it this way, if you are playing 469 and they are killing you (like they seemed to do a lot), why on Earth would you try to score against them?!! 30 seconds into the match they are up 10 points. Every point you score will give them 2! If they win 25-0 you will get 25 and they will get 30 seeding points. If they win 25-5 then you still get 25 points and they will get 40!!! If you are losing, your points mean nothing to you...but they sure mean a lot to the winning alliance!
We did terrible in the seeding points. It wasn't until our last match when we got 20 seeding points (the highest all weekend) that we were in the top 8! We lost 3 straight matches and didn't drop in the rankings (we actually went up after 2 of them).
Mr. Drake and I fussed at each other all weekend. If you are getting your butts kicked STOP SCORING!!! As the losing alliance you are better off feeding balls to the other alliance to help your own seeding score.
Bharat Nain
15-03-2010, 19:24
Unfortunately, this year's seeding system allows for teams to lose and yet "win in the long run". If an alliance makes the decision to lose because they will clearly and completely lose that match, I do not blame them. This is because a loss is not a completely loss under this system and you can win more by losing. Makes sense, good. :D
Look at it this way, if you are playing 469 and they are killing you (like they seemed to do a lot), why on Earth would you try to score against them?!! 30 seconds into the match they are up 10 points. Every point you score will give them 2! If they win 25-0 you will get 25 and they will get 30 seeding points. If they win 25-5 then you still get 25 points and they will get 40!!! If you are losing, your points mean nothing to you...but they sure mean a lot to the winning alliance!
We did terrible in the seeding points. It wasn't until our last match when we got 20 seeding points (the highest all weekend) that we were in the top 8! We lost 3 straight matches and didn't drop in the rankings (we actually went up after 2 of them).
Mr. Drake and I fussed at each other all weekend. If you are getting your butts kicked STOP SCORING!!! As the losing alliance you are better off feeding balls to the other alliance to help your own seeding score.
It really doesn't matter how smart it is, if I don't think its right...I'm not doing it. End of story. I really don't think anyone is arguing that it might be the smart move in some situations. We are simply saying that we won't do it. This is a personal decision based on one's values. I would rather come in last place then give in the slightest bit on my ethics.
Mrs.Drake343
15-03-2010, 19:46
This is a personal decision based on one's values. I would rather come in last place then give in the slightest bit on my ethics.
Why do you think that it's unethical to take advantage of the scoring system? This game seems to be more strategy than just playing to win...until you get to eliminations.
JaneYoung
15-03-2010, 19:51
Why do you think that it's unethical to take advantage of the scoring system? This game seems to be more strategy than just playing to win...until you get to eliminations.
Could it be possible that some people have difficulty thinking in different ways?
pfreivald
15-03-2010, 20:02
It really doesn't matter how smart it is, if I don't think its right...I'm not doing it. End of story. I really don't think anyone is arguing that it might be the smart move in some situations. We are simply saying that we won't do it. This is a personal decision based on one's values. I would rather come in last place then give in the slightest bit on my ethics.
Likewise. The rulebook says that the goal is to win, so we will try to win, every time, even if it "hurts us" in qualifying points.
That attitude served us extremely well at the Finger Lakes Regional, and while there aren't 15 OMGHOWDOWEBEAT1551!???!!!eleven!?!?? threads like there are for 469, we did come in 1st seed and regional champs. (Thanks, 217 and 174, for the awesome alliance!)
We're a bit of a 'NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER SURRENDER!' Heinleinian group, for a town full of artists, farmers, and wine makers. :D
Could it be possible that some people have difficulty thinking in different ways?
Definite maybe.
I guess I'm just not smart enough to overcome this one.
I guess the best I could give you is that 6vs0 is a "strategical retreat" but in the end that is still running away. Some of us are taught to not run away and not give up. I'm a bit bull-headed on this one.(and perhaps short-sighted) I'll be the first to admit that.
JaneYoung
15-03-2010, 21:53
I think there is more to this than just simply coming up with one idea and then passing judgment on it. Thinking is a form of exercise and the more we think, the more we understand. There's a lot to be said for staying agile and flexible when forming strategies during qualifications, depending on how the alliances are formed - then eliminations require more thinking. Strategy is a big part of this game and understanding why it is important, and the different options available, provides the exercise. This may be a game that continues to reveal options and strategies as we move through more competitions. It took a while for folks to absorb the idea that playing a close game was beneficial - now we've moved on to other thoughts that have been introduced during week 2. Thinking can be uncomfortable, but I always think that it is beneficial. When the game is played, having been explored and tested, it becomes a better game, making the players and the robots better along the way.
.02
Jane
TubaMorg
15-03-2010, 21:59
Could it be possible that some people have difficulty thinking in different ways?
I apologize Jane, but I need to respond to this. The reason why is that you are implying that taking a stand on an issue implies that the stance wasn't thought about. Some people have examined the 6v0 controversy thoroughly and landed on different sides of the issue. I would suggest that "thinking in different ways" is a statement that inherently implies more than one point of view. Implying that a dissenting opinion is a sign thoughtlessness seems a bit far fetched in this case. Especially since there is no evidence to support your hypothesis.
Respectfully,
Dan
Tom Bottiglieri
15-03-2010, 22:01
It really doesn't matter how smart it is, if I don't think its right...I'm not doing it. End of story. I really don't think anyone is arguing that it might be the smart move in some situations. We are simply saying that we won't do it. This is a personal decision based on one's values. I would rather come in last place then give in the slightest bit on my ethics.
How are values involved at all? Isn't the whole point of science to make educated, analytical decisions rather than just trusting your gut? Isn't the word 'science' a part of the FIRST acronym?
The seeding method is different. Yes it would be nice to have another tick in the win column, but there comes a point where trying to "win" the qualification match is the equivalent of eating at Taco Bell. Yeah, it seems great at the time, but you will really regret it the next morning (when you are seeded 40th).
Also, you are just hurting your alliance partners.
JaneYoung
15-03-2010, 22:08
I apologize Jane, but I need to respond to this. The reason why is that you are implying that taking a stand on an issue implies that the stance wasn't thought about. Some people have examined the 6v0 controversy thoroughly and landed on different sides of the issue. I would suggest that "thinking in different ways" is a statement that inherently implies more than one point of view. Implying that a dissenting opinion is a sign thoughtlessness seems a bit far fetched in this case. Especially since there is no evidence to support your hypothesis.
Respectfully,
Dan
I can see that and I understand what you are saying, Dan.
But, I was actually asking the question, not implying anything.
If people have examined the 6v0 controversy thoroughly and landed on different sides of the issue, then they have been thinking. If people just make a choice without thinking - that is where my question is. What makes the seeding points so hard for us understand?
Thank you, Dan, for your response.
Jane
... The rulebook says that the goal is to win, ... pf - You aren't the only one who leaned on this broken crutch, you are simply the most recent.
The rule book says two almost diametrically opposed things. In an introductory section it says you should attempt to outscore your opponents in each match. In what I think (my opinion) is a more important section it says: The purpose of the qualifying matches is to allow each team to earn a seeding position that may qualify them for participation in the elimination matches. The purpose of the elimination matches is to determine the Event Champions.
In related section the rules describe how to earn these seeding points.
Maximizing your wins will certainly help you comply with the introduction. Maximizing your seeding points will help earn a trophy from the folks who run the event. One of these seems more important to me. Your mileage may vary (obviously - just read the comments in this thread).
One group of folks wrote the rules - all of the rules. I find it odd that some readers will embrace the introduction; but will reject the connection between the seeding points and the title of event Champion. Maybe those sections use different fonts (one for the good rules and another for the bad rules)and my PDF reader is unable to show me the difference? ;)
Weren't both sections of the rules produced by the same committee?
Blake
PS: Is this a case of evolve or die? :ahh:
pfreivald
15-03-2010, 22:22
How are values involved at all? Isn't the whole point of science to make educated, analytical decisions rather than just trusting your gut? Isn't the word 'science' a part of the FIRST acronym?
FIRST is more about values than it is about science. This isn't about trusting your gut, this is about doing things the "right way".
It would be an educated, analytical decision for my team to never loan another team a tool, a part, a raw material, or a helping hand -- indeed, it would definitely increase our chances of winning. But it ain't what FIRST is about.
The proudest moment I have had thus far as a FIRST mentor is absolutely **NOT** the regional win we had this year (after never even making the top eight before). The proudest moment I had was when another team needed a banebots 12:1 transmission and announced it over the PIT speaker, and one of my students didn't even ask me, they just passed the part over the pit wall -- knowing full well that we were playing against them next, and that the transmission might very well make a difference in who won the match. (It did, and we lost, and it didn't matter.)
That has *nothing* to do with winning the match, nor in getting the highest seed, nor in getting a trophy or a medal or a pat on the back. But it has everything to do with FIRST.
Tom Bottiglieri
15-03-2010, 22:29
FIRST is more about values than it is about science. This isn't about trusting your gut, this is about doing things the "right way".
But how is this the "right way"? Lending a helping hand to a team in need is something I think we can all agree on... But, making stupid strategic moves on the field is not only hurting yourself, but hurting your other partners as well.
I believe there is a quote from Dr. Flowers that is something along the lines of "Gracious professionals learn and compete like crazy, but treat one another with respect and kindness in the process." (Emphasis mine)
I have no idea how scoring for the other team when you are facing a certain loss is going against that. Really, I don't.
pfreivald
15-03-2010, 22:44
But how is this the "right way"? Lending a helping hand to a team in need is something I think we can all agree on... But, making stupid strategic moves on the field is not only hurting yourself, but hurting your other partners as well.
I believe there is a quote from Dr. Flowers that is something along the lines of "Gracious professionals learn and compete like crazy, but treat one another with respect and kindness in the process." (Emphasis mine)
I have no idea how scoring for the other team when you are facing a certain loss is going against that. Really, I don't.
That same GDC -- of which Dr. Flowers is a member -- has explicitly stated that playing each match to win is part of the game. "The expectation is that winning will be a priority, but still values the high, close-scoring, matches." (From Update #16).
I'm sorry, but a recent quote that directly addresses the issue in question is rather more relevant than a vague quote from long ago about the generalities of FIRST.
Alan Anderson
15-03-2010, 23:02
Maximizing your wins will certainly help you comply with the introduction. Maximizing your seeding points will help earn a trophy from the folks who run the event.
I'd like to know how you're going to earn a trophy without a focus on winning your matches. Maximizing your seeding points will help you to find yourself in the elimination rounds, but unless you've been playing to win you likely won't find yourself staying there very long.
That's how I see it, anyway.
I have a few things to add in here.
1) With penalties and the possibility to win a match, would it not be worth scoring as much as possible? You may seem to be down 10. In my opinion you still score in the case the other alliance gets 10 penalties -- I understand it is less frequent in the game now, but it is possible (I was in a week 2 regional and still saw a 6 point penalty alliance).
2) In a qualification match against (as the MC announced during the elimination matches) possibly the best scoring robot at the regional we played defense. If we would win we could get 5 points plus 2x what they score and then what we score and our alliance believed that would bring us above 8 points. They could have scored 8 easily if we weren't there, but we limited them to 3 -- unfortunately we still lost 3-0. Both alliances suffered from the match and at the time some teams may have thought it was a bad move on our part.
The alliance we defended against then chose us for eliminations because we showed them our defensive capabilities. Something to remember is you need to prove you're able to handle eliminations against some good teams in case your 6-0 matches (the ones you can get your alliance partners to agree with) may not be enough to get you in the top 8. If you haven't played and shown off what you can do against a defense or as a defense, what would alliance captains see in your team?
3) I would urge teams to really go over the situations and look to see how well they could do if they played 6vs0 in, lets say 3/4 of their matches (saying 1/4 the alliances had a team unwilling to cooperate). Look at how they would fair if winning 3-0 in matches vs losing 8-0. Sure you get the same amount of coopertition points but then your opponents get more -- something to take into account if your goal in qualifications is to end up top seeded.
I'd like to know how you're going to earn a trophy without a focus on winning your matches. Maximizing your seeding points will help you to find yourself in the elimination rounds, but unless you've been playing to win you likely won't find yourself staying there very long.
That's how I see it, anyway.
That's a bit of a false dichotomy. A focus on maximizing seeding points does not preclude a focus on winning matches. In fact, the two are pretty highly correlated. The argument is that there exist (likely rare) situations in which conceding a match is more beneficial than attempting to win because of the seeding points. I suppose I'm just irked by blanket statements that say scoring on oneself is never the right thing to do. As an aside, I don't believe the converse statement that a team should always give up/switch sides when losing badly is true either, but I don't think anyone is interested in having that argument.
PS: Is this a case of evolve or die? :ahh:
I hope your not referring to us as unevolved for simply disagreeing. That is a really big step to make. As a fellow mentor, I'd hope you'd try to set an example for your students as being able to discuss such disagreements civilly while avoiding sarcasm, name-calling, and general hostility. If I were your student, this thread would make me seriously doubt my faith in you as the cool-headed adult. I'm done debating with you Blake. It's clear that your not open to discussion, I will continue to discuss this thread openly with anyone that is interested.
I hope your not referring to us as unevolved for simply disagreeing. That is a really big step to make. As a fellow mentor, I'd hope you'd try to set an example for your students as being able to discuss such disagreements civilly while avoiding sarcasm, name-calling, and general hostility. If I were your student, this thread would make me seriously doubt my faith in you as the cool-headed adult. I'm done debating with you Blake. It's clear that your not open to discussion, I will continue to discuss this thread openly with anyone that is interested.Oh please.
It would seem that inserting a winking smiley and/or the "Ahh!" smiley into a message isn't enough to convey a tone of serious, but good-natured, mental arm-wrestling.
Take a look at what Jane wrote and combine it with this.
If you have ever played a game with rules like this one's before now; I'll be surprised. My comment was intended to summarize the following:
When presented with novel rules, previously successful strategies are likely to need to evolve. Habits that served us well in past competitions/environments might need to change a little or a lot.
What is rewarded by the complete set of Breakaway rules might not be what was rewarded in any other situation we ever faced in our entire lives. If that is the case, doing what we do/did in the rest of our lives might not serve us well.
Teams that experiment with new strategies (on paper or on the field) mgiht find a new strategy that allows them to thrive in the Breakaway environment. Teams that approach Breakaway specifically, or FIRST events in general, as if the game's/event's rules were like those of most other competitions/programs, might find that they are less successful than they hoped.
This sort of environmental pressure (novel rules and rewards) and the resulting unusual behavior was/is already present in FIRST competitions (look at pfreivald's post about sharing a transmission with an opponent). If instilling that attitude isn't an example of evolving how students think about competition (turning it into coopertition), I don't know what is. That mental evolution is encouraged by the environmental pressure of constant positive reinforcement from leaders and by the criteria used to determine who earns the off-the-field awards.
The "Is this a case of evolve or die? :ahh: " comment/question wasn't intended to declare you or any other person unevolved. It was intended to encourage everyone to see the Breakaway seeding system as a new environment that appears to reward new approaches to coopertition.
Blake
PS: The students I work with weekly, and their parents, seem to be doing fine. If you ever get a chance to meet them, form an opinion then.
JaneYoung
16-03-2010, 08:34
And as it continues to evolve, there is opportunity for continual improvement and challenge, making our grandmothers proud.
Mrs.Drake343
16-03-2010, 10:43
If you are happy to let the chips fall where they may and just accept what place you land in, then there is no strategy involved. If you would like to try and control your own destiny then different thinking will be required.
It is just simple math (even I can figure it out and I'm just a musician). Yes if you win all of your matches you will probably be near the top. But if you are just winning with low scores you may find yourself watching after lunch on Saturday. The only way to ensure with winning all the matches is to crush your competition.
At Florida 1 seed was 8-2, 2 seed 9-1, 3 seed 7-3, 4 seed 9-1, 5 seed 8-2, 6 seed 8-2, 7 seed 7-3, 8 seed 6-4, 9 seed 7-3. (All before finals)
As you can see from the records from Florida, just winning is not going to work, unless you crush your competition. But remember, when you crush your competition, you are giving them your score (hence the 6 vs 0).
I'd like to know how you're going to earn a trophy without a focus on winning your matches. Maximizing your seeding points will help you to find yourself in the elimination rounds, but unless you've been playing to win you likely won't find yourself staying there very long.
The judicious use of self-scoring seems to me to be the one way that improves your chances of playing in the afternoon without making your team more valuable. Nonetheless, if we consider a higher seed to be more valuable, self-scoring may be able to help your team by allowing your team a better pick of partners. While you may not be helping your elimination alliance by bettering yourself, you are helping your alliance by acquiring better partners.
This is one of the few ways that teams cannot help themselves besides improving their robot/driving. Unless you're a dynasty team (and the Technokats are, so it may be harder to relate), you're running a rat race of teams of closely matched abilities. Every edge you can gain is valuable.
Folks,
To keep from driving the thread into the ditch (or to try to drive it back out); I went back to the original post and reminded myself of Leav's initial question.
He asked the CD world if folks like us think that even after Update 16 there is still a problem in the seeding system; and thereby hangs a tale.
My opinion would be that:
a) Some of us think Update 16 was an improvement; but that regardless of the update, the unusual seeding system is just one more puzzle to be solved, and is not an encouragment to violate deeply held ethical principles.
b) Some of us think that update 16 is an improvement; but that regardless of the update, the specifics of the seeding system rules are substantially inconsistent with the thoughts (winning matches is the goal) expressed in the introduction to the game rules, and the seeding system is perhaps tempting mentors/students to practice behaviors that will serve them poorly in other contexts.
Would this opinion be pretty accurate? In either case Leav's thread title seems pretty good. The update is an improvment, but didn't remove the root cause(s) of the debate.
Blake
TubaMorg
16-03-2010, 13:13
In my opinion, I would have to say you summarized the arguments very well!
The judicious use of self-scoring seems to me to be the one way that improves your chances of playing in the afternoon without making your team more valuable... No argument.
If you can become a high enough seed you can become an alliance captain - That certainly puts you in a driver's seat; but it doesn't necessarily indicate that your bot has more than a snowball's chance during the Elims.
If you can win matches like crazy, regardless of your seeding, you are likely to be drafted (by someone). That makes afternoon play likely; but adds a lot of risk because you aren't sure who will pick you first (see previous paragraph)
If you can become highly seeded, but not high enough to become a captain, then you might be picked solely on your seeding position. That is a very risky plan; but it does have some chance of succeeding.
If you have put together a good enough machine and team, and can shift from a high-seed strategy in the Quals, to a win matches like crazy strategy in the Elims; then you probably have the best of both worlds going for you.
Blake
Jimmy Cao
17-03-2010, 09:28
(Sorry for getting to the party so late, it's taken quite a while for me to really formulate a healthy respect for both the good and bad parts of this system).
First off, I agree that TU16 didn't fix the underlying "issue". In my opinion, the losing alliance getting the winning alliance's score is inherently flawed. However, I think this system deserves more credit than we give it.
I won't even bother discussing the issues I find with the pre-TU16 implementation of the ranking system, as I think most of us can agree that is is deeply flawed.
My most direct exposure to the TU16 defined seeding rules was at Cass Tech. Before we continue, we need to agree on the purpose of seeding matches. In my opinion, seeding matches exist to sift through the pack, putting the BEST machines on top (and most especially the best 15, as that's the maximum # of teams who might ever get the chance to decline a selection and still play). If you disagree on this point, then I believe you'll find the rest of my argument invalid (as this is the basis of everything I'm going to say now).
So, do you think that this algorithm brings out the top of the pack? I do. Lets look at the alliance selection results from Cass Tech (I can't say if similar results were seen at other regionals). Straight off usfirst.org...
1) 217
2) 1718
3) 469
4) 226
5) 2612
6) 1941
7) 308
8) 313
Those were seeds 1 through 8. If you see a large amount of "inter-picking", I think that indicates that this algorithm worked to bring out the top of the pack.
1 Picked 3. Then 2 picked 4. Then 5 picked 7. That is to say, the first 3 picks were all top 8 inter-picks. I think this speaks volumes to this algorithm's ability to sort out the top tier of teams. Granted, Cass Tech was a FiM event with 12 matches, and more matches generally ensures better sorting out of teams. Nevertheless, I believe that this algorithm is effective when sorting out the best teams, especially the very best. If a very good team ends up with a poor win/loss record, but played well, they'll still seed rather high. Likewise, if a middle/bottom tier team gets a lucky schedule and goes 11-1 or 10-2, they're likely to seed lower than a good team that only managed to go 8-4 due to a killer schedule.
So, while I think that getting the winner's points for the losing alliance is conceptually flawed, it helps bring out the best teams to the top of the pack, regardless of the "toughness" of their schedule.
I do think, however, that it does not do a good job of sorting out the middle/bottom of the pack. Nor does TU16 fix the "6v0" condition. However, I think it's a step in the right direction.
Just my $.02.
I'd like to know how you're going to earn a trophy without a focus on winning your matches. Maximizing your seeding points will help you to find yourself in the elimination rounds, but unless you've been playing to win you likely won't find yourself staying there very long.
That's how I see it, anyway.
Quoted because it's so true.
There's a large difference between quals and elims and unless you've been apart of the strategy in elims then it's hard to truly understand. A generic example is teams who have a very bad qual record yet bring something to a table for an alliance to help them win, such as awesome defense. Specific examples are 233 in 2009 (Florida) and 176 in 2010 (DC). In both instances both teams played to win in Quals, regardless of the seeding system, and the result was experience that was used to get them a Regional banner.
Kims Robot
17-03-2010, 10:19
If you are happy to let the chips fall where they may and just accept what place you land in, then there is no strategy involved. If you would like to try and control your own destiny then different thinking will be required.
I think this sums up my thoughts on the current ranking system... both pre and post update 16.
My question for teams is "Do you want to Pick or be Picked?". In my mind there are two very different styles of strategy & play depending on what your answer to that question is. For the Juggernaut teams, the answer might be the same, as they can outscore any team on the field. For the rest of us, there is a choice to be made.
If your answer is you want to Pick your own alliance, go for whatever strategy gets you the highest seeding scores. Its not hard to do the math, if two of your robots dont move in the match and you are up against good teams, go help the other alliance... if your opposing alliance is going to be successful defending the heck out of you... figure out a way to get a lot of points for everyone.
If your answer is you want to be Picked, then play to win every match. If you are lucky, your alliances will be set up such that you can do so, and hopefully make it to the top of the ranks anyway. If you are unlucky and your alliance partners don't move and you end up in a 3v1 match, you "show your stuff" and hope that the top seeded teams or your opponents notice/have good scouting and pick you.
Me personally (I cant speak for 1511 anymore), I like to control my own destiny. I like to be in charge of my own outcomes. I shudder at having to completely rely on luck or someone else to pick my team. A complete aside, we gave a team at champs who only had 10 members our pick list, our honest assessment was that we were 5th on our list and although the team wanted to pick us first, we told them there were better choices. They finally agreed to use our list and were able to pick our second rank team... that team then convinced them NOT to pick us, even though we were still available and highest on the pick list! Granted if I was completely selfish, we would have told them to pick us first, but its been a stellar reason in my mind to NOT rely on other team's selection.
But at any rate, if you are fortunate, don't go up against any teams playing defense, and have good alliance partners, playing to win every match will likely boost you up in the rankings. If you are unfortunate, go up against teams that play defense, and have alliance partners that have control system problems, playing to win every match is very unlikely to win you a top 8 seed no matter how hard you try.
Personally, I don't like that we have a system that forces teams to choose between the two options. I would rather a game where winning matches and climbing the ranks were ALWAYS the same thing (Key word is ALWAYS). I'm hoping next year we go back to a game that is W-L-T then seeding points, or a game where it is clearly acceptable to EVERYONE to play a 6v0 game.
I think that in some situations, the bottom of the list(assuming the same ability) is the best place to be. Most of the teams you'd rather not pick you, won't have heard of you. Most of the teams you want to pick you, will scout well enough to see you if your good. Being selected is just as much an accomplishment as seeding highly. The trick to keeping selection in your favor despite seed is to advertise. If your about average and well known by the person picking, you will have a decent chance of being selected. If you are good, you have a very good chance at making it. Besides, if you really think seeding shows ability...wouldn't you rather be picked by alliance 1 on their second pick then have to choose and get lower end teams? The point of elimination matches are twofold. First, it selects teams that get to choose. Second, it allows the rest of us to shine for the selecting process. Both can be achieved through luck or skill. How is one any better or worse then the other? How is either safer? I've discussed which one I prefer, but I believe it is just that. A preference that doesn't have a right answer.
Kims Robot
17-03-2010, 10:53
The trick to keeping selection in your favor despite seed is to advertise.
I have to respectfully completely disagree here. 1511 has selected its own alliance at least once every single year (many years more than once), and we rely 95% on our scouting data, and watching team performance. For all the teams that hand out robot fliers Saturday morning, we don't get them. If you go pump yourself to our pit crew, those aren't the members that develop our selection list. The other 5% has a little bit to do with knowing teams and knowing their histories, and usually doesn't play in as much as it did this year (with the weirdness of the ranking systems and difficulties with the new control system, in some cases we had to "guess" at what the team was capable of). From my knowledge most of the big teams work the same way. You have to perform on the field. And while the initial cut at our pick list doesnt even look at current rank, I would say 99% of our pick lists, the bottom 10 teams dont even make it on there, because if you are at the bottom, there is a reason.
MikePres
17-03-2010, 11:41
You have to perform on the field. And while the initial cut at our pick list doesnt even look at current rank, I would say 99% of our pick lists, the bottom 10 teams dont even make it on there, because if you are at the bottom, there is a reason.
Not always true. We just got back from the Israel Regional. This regional had a lot of comm problems. thanks to that, the whole competition was delayed to the third day and every team had only 3 matches to prove itself. my team scouted the field performance, not even looking if the teams won or not or their final rankings, and our notes gave us the true info we needed for selecting alliances and protected us from over confident speeches of others. we needed a Defensive bot as the third member of the alliance and we picked up a team that was pretty low in the rankings. they didn't get a single goal the whole day - so they didn't get ANY Coopertition bonus that day. there were teams that found themselves really low just because of comm issues. When team addressed us, we always asked for explanations why the low ranking. If the excuse was good enough - we took them as an option.
After qualifications we were 2nd in ranking. I admit that got there not because we lost on purpose or because we got the best bot in the competition - it's because we won with smart game-strategy (not out-of-game strategy) and we knew that with the ranking system there is no point in defense. every game we prayed not to tie for 0-0 cuz that's the worst. We tried to win but we hoped that our rivals will at least score too. We proved, again, that no matter how good is your bot, there's no substitute for a good strategy.
Yes, the ranking system isn't perfect but that's the rules of the competition - deal with it. Is it fair that we lost our semi-final in a coin toss? I think not but that's the rules we had due to no time for a rematch. Update 16 didn't fix the problem but it gave us motivation to at least win.
Bharat Nain
17-03-2010, 12:09
You can show off your robot's ability while playing for the opposing alliance if you know your alliance is incapable of winning.
For example, an alliance consisting of 148, 469, and 217 against an alliance of 25, team dodo 1, and team dodo 2.. with broken drive trains and the inability to kick balls.. I would much rather than team dodo 1 and team dodo 2 block our goals while we go score for 148's alliance. If we are able to score 15 balls for them, any good scout will pickup our robots abilities.
This will give the other alliance 5 points more than us... but if they incur more than 5 penalty points, then it doesn't make a difference.
Philosophical, whether this is right or not is another question. Are we teaching our students go out and lose a match? I'm not sure anymore. They are winning in the long run but something does not sit right about "losing" a match. It's not the way I've known to play a "competition". The idea is of co-opertition is uncomfortable - maybe because it does not work with this game.
Kims Robot
17-03-2010, 13:24
You can show off your robot's ability while playing for the opposing alliance if you know your alliance is incapable of winning.
...
Philosophical, whether this is right or not is another question. Are we teaching our students go out and lose a match? I'm not sure anymore. They are winning in the long run but something does not sit right about "losing" a match. It's not the way I've known to play a "competition". The idea is of co-opertition is uncomfortable - maybe because it does not work with this game.
Bingo our scouts watch for "number of balls scored", not "number of balls scored for your alliance".
But yes, the Philosophical question really has me confused, as playing to the rules gives you the option of playing to win each match (competition) OR playing to win the event overall(coopertition). But yet FIRST has stated in update 16 that the point is competition (to win), yet it is based on the Coopertition patent (to maximize seed through your opponents score). I'm taking some liberal leaps here, but this is how I see it and its insanely confusing to understand what we are "supposed" to do.
I have to respectfully completely disagree here. 1511 has selected its own alliance at least once every single year (many years more than once), and we rely 95% on our scouting data, and watching team performance. For all the teams that hand out robot fliers Saturday morning, we don't get them. If you go pump yourself to our pit crew, those aren't the members that develop our selection list. The other 5% has a little bit to do with knowing teams and knowing their histories, and usually doesn't play in as much as it did this year (with the weirdness of the ranking systems and difficulties with the new control system, in some cases we had to "guess" at what the team was capable of). From my knowledge most of the big teams work the same way. You have to perform on the field. And while the initial cut at our pick list doesnt even look at current rank, I would say 99% of our pick lists, the bottom 10 teams dont even make it on there, because if you are at the bottom, there is a reason.
Yes, one of the obvious forms of advertising is fliers. Others include banners and mascots and big flags for the field. Most of these I consider fluff. There are many ways to advertise yourself. Each match you are advertising yourself in ways that people don't consider. For instance, if I have any say in the matter I would refuse to pick the best team at the regional if I know them to be uncooperative in matches. Advertise yourself from one drive team to another. Most teams I've met take that into consideration when picking. Afterall, teams with your mentality(want to control their destiny) tend to want to decide how they are going to play. You can advertise yourself by how you play on the field. Scoring is nice, but sometimes a team just wants a guy that can do (....). Think of Rack n' Roll. Some alliance selecters would settle for a robot that couldn't score for one that could be a very quick ramp. Yes, alot of this will be picked up by scouts. I'm not belittling their use. I'm just saying alot of teams forget that they are always being watched. Going for top 8 is nice, but impressing the top 8 is just as good.
Also, to the effect of scoring on yourself being a way to show off to scouts...I think perhaps it would be best to keep points classified. Not by which goal they are on. But by which ones are defended against. For instance, if a team scores 5 points without defense against their opponent I'm less impressed then if they score past their own alliance doing defense. It's hard to judge sometimes...but it would be well worth knowing if you have the scouting force to tell.
pfreivald
17-03-2010, 19:40
I agree with Kim. We typically ignore all data given to us by a team about their robot, and rely only on scouting to tell us what we need to know, because people tell you what their robot was *designed* to do, not what it actually *can* do. We can only presume that the same is true of most other teams.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.