Re: Throwing the game.
 

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

Re: Throwing the game.
 

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

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

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

Re: Throwing the game.
 

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

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

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

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

D

Re: Throwing the game.
 

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

Re: Throwing the game.
 

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

Re: Throwing the game.
 

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

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

Re: Throwing the game.
 

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

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

D

Re: Throwing the game.
 

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

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

Re: Throwing the game.
 

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

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

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

Re: Throwing the game.
 

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

Re: Throwing the game.
 

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

Re: Throwing the game.
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Throwing the game.
 

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

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

Re: Throwing the game.
 

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

Re: Throwing the game.
 

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