Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   On side ball use agreement. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154218)

Bob Steele 26-01-2017 00:22

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekcrbe (Post 1636442)
I won't make any claims about how the GDC would feel about this or if it fits the "intent" of the game. I'll just say that if you approached me, as a coach or driver, with this idea, I'd say no. If I think we can beat you, I want to do it straight up. If I think we can't, I don't expect that this will help. Either way, if you think this is a good idea, I'm assuming you know something I don't and are trying to exploit it, either to beat us or earn bonus ranking points you couldn't otherwise get. Meanwhile, I can't guarantee it will work out for my alliance.

The issue, as others have pointed out, is that this is a prisoner's dilemma problem. Abandoning the agreement has benefits for either alliance, unlike, say, agreeing not to throw noodles until after the co-op stack is complete. Call me cynical, but I wouldn't take the deal. There's nothing in it for me.

+1

I am of the opinion that you play the game. This game's rules want teams to work to get their gears and the fuel.... Your team designs a robot that will accomplish the tasks of the game. Agreeing to make it easier on each other will do nothing but amplify the advantage that really good teams have right now..... If you are a good fuel scoring robot.... this is perfect. Every ball you put in will come right back to you.... so keep scoring If you could shoot from the middle loading station in your own alliance you could almost shoot continuously.... This is not what the game designers intended.... I am pretty certain of that.

Our team will play the game with gracious professionalism but will play to win....

If approached about this I would counsel my drive team to politely decline.

Other teams can choose to do whatever they see as proper for themselves.

RoboChair 26-01-2017 01:13

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Just Say No To Game Objective Agreements!




please

dtengineering 26-01-2017 01:29

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
So... if your team was approached by the other alliance to say, "Just so you know, we think that the goal of the game is to score lots and lots of points. We're going to put everything we have into offense, and we hope you do the same. We'll both score higher, possibly earn more ranking points, do less damage to our robots and put on a better show for the audience if we both focus on offense instead of defense."

Are they trying to undermine the game, or improve the game? Would saying, "Great idea! We'll do the same!" be G.P?

Jason

Ekcrbe 26-01-2017 01:49

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dtengineering (Post 1636488)
So... if your team was approached by the other alliance to say, "Just so you know, we think that the goal of the game is to score lots and lots of points. We're going to put everything we have into offense, and we hope you do the same. We'll both score higher, possibly earn more ranking points, do less damage to our robots and put on a better show for the audience if we both focus on offense instead of defense."

Are they trying to undermine the game, or improve the game? Would saying, "Great idea! We'll do the same!" be G.P?

Jason

That's neither undermining nor improving the game. If they don't want to defend us, so be it. Maybe we agree that our best plan is to score and not try to defend them either, but no promises. That depends on what our three teams agree the best strategy is for that match. If we need 4 RPs to get into a good picking position, we'll probably argue to our partners to go all out offense. If it's our last qualification match and we're playing against and outgunned by Team A, who is ranked #2 and 3 RPs behind Team B for #1, and Team B wants to pick us, but Team A would rather pick Team B if they can seed #1, you'd better bet that we want to play some heavy hitting defense and make sure Team A can't get either bonus RP, even if they beat us in the match.

But those are just contrived examples. The point is, when we step on the field, we're there to win, whether that means the match or the competition. That means that we craft match strategy based on what is best for our alliance. Now, I'm not against co-opertition. If the GDC writes it into the rules, I'll gladly play along. I even like the message it sends. You could say I'm pro-co-opertition on the whole. But if it's just you telling me we should run a certain strategy for your sake, don't count on it.

gblake 26-01-2017 13:37

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekcrbe (Post 1636490)
That's neither undermining nor improving the game. If they don't want to defend us, so be it. Maybe we agree that our best plan is to score and not try to defend them either, but no promises. ...

I think Jason was suggesting that implementing the OP's suggestion of active cooperation, rather than passive avoidance, would be an excellent way for both alliances to maximize their points.

Eric Scheuing 26-01-2017 13:53

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RoboChair (Post 1636482)
Just Say No To Game Objective Agreements!

Let's create a "no more agreements" agreement.

Ekcrbe 26-01-2017 14:20

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by gblake (Post 1636679)
I think Jason was suggesting that implementing the OP's suggestion of active cooperation, rather than passive avoidance, would be an excellent way for both alliances to maximize their points.

It is, but I don't think it qualifies as improving the game. Did the early-90s 49ers teams play football "better" than the late-70s Steelers because they had a great offense rather than a great defense? I don't think so.

Sure, offensive play can be more fun for spectators to watch, and I'd prefer to have exciting, spectator-friendly games every year. I think they're better for the program and its outreach efforts. But as a team and an alliance, it isn't always in our best interest to avoid playing defense, even if our opponents say they won't defend us. We may judge our best chance to win a match is by defending. It's FIRST's job as the game designers, not ours as the competitors, to ensure that the spectators are entertained.

natejo99 26-01-2017 15:00

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
I don't see this working out in any way. As much as I hate to say it, there are teams who don't abide by GP, and who will exploit this agreement. And reputation may spread, but at that point they've already benefited from it and gotten the ranking point(s). As soon as that starts happening, I think it'll be hard to find teams who will accept such an agreement, just to make sure they don't get snaked. I could be wrong, and this could work out wonderfully for both sides, but I can tell you that I would not take the risk by accepting this sort of deal.

Fields 26-01-2017 15:47

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
It would be nice if the GDC could just add a new rule:
No prisoner dilemma deals are to be made.

But... I'm sure someone would find another way around it.
It's fun when you find a cool little "loophole" (2015 multi-bots and conveyors), annoying when we have to play lawyer. (agreements and flashlights)

Eric Scheuing 26-01-2017 16:07

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by natejo99 (Post 1636719)
... at that point they've already benefited from it and gotten the ranking point(s).

This is why I think these agreements will never work. For them to gain traction, every single team at an event has to agree to participate. If one team denies participation, it gives them an advantage from a ranking perspective and other teams will need to abandon the agreement to keep up.

Caleb Sykes 26-01-2017 17:44

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fields (Post 1636745)
It would be nice if the GDC could just add a new rule:
No prisoner dilemma deals are to be made.

It would be nice if the GDC would quit making games where the optimal decisions to minimize seed are often prisoner dilemma deals.

Citrus Dad 26-01-2017 19:48

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bstew (Post 1636404)
There were agreements in 2015 where opposing alliances agreed to do coopertition together or even withheld from throwing litter until a coopertition stack had been finished. These agreements mutually benefited both alliances and I would consider playing to the best of their abilities. However, the GDC did prevent the noodle agreement from happening which was just another (possibly game breaking) form of coopertition or agreement.

Another group of agreements in 2015 was between elims competitors to split the cans rather than competing over them during the quarter finals. That allowed both teams to maximize scores for moving onto the semis. On Einstein this was the norm since all of the teams had can grabbing capabilities.

gblake 26-01-2017 20:15

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes (Post 1636805)
It would be nice if the GDC would quit making games where the optimal decisions to minimize seed are often prisoner dilemma deals.

Don't be a hater.

Embrace the challenge; and use the opportunity to teach students to use slightly-more-sophisticated-than-normal analysis/thinking to help them navigate the world's many non-linearities, including ethics' many shades of gray.

Like so many other topics, this is a subject that doesn't fit well into the superficialities of tweet-sized sound bites. That makes it a fun one.

Blake

bstew 26-01-2017 22:18

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Scheuing (Post 1636749)
This is why I think these agreements will never work. For them to gain traction, every single team at an event has to agree to participate. If one team denies participation, it gives them an advantage from a ranking perspective and other teams will need to abandon the agreement to keep up.

If every team is participating, that will just inflate the average RP should not really change up the rankings. However, contrary to what you are saying, if a single team does not participate in these agreements, whereas every match they are not in, they will be in a net disadvantage.

I fail to see how any team would do this strategy, if not for their benefit. In an ideal situation where this strategy is beneficial to both alliances, denying participation is only detrimental to your rankings. Why would other teams give up this agreement if it had any benefit?

I do agree that these agreements are unlikely to happen in practice, but it would be nice for the GDC to show a definite intent.

Caleb Sykes 26-01-2017 22:31

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by gblake (Post 1636872)
Don't be a hater.

I don't think I'm a hater, but I do tend to disagree with many decisions the GDC makes.

Quote:

Embrace the challenge; and use the opportunity to teach students to use slightly-more-sophisticated-than-normal analysis/thinking to help them navigate the world's many non-linearities, including ethics' many shades of gray.
I don't believe there is any ethical dilemma here. In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing unethical about two alliances agreeing to work together to score more points. If anyone actually does believe this is inherently unethical, I would love to hear why coopertition in 2012 and 2015 was ethical but this is not.

Quote:

Like so many other topics, this is a subject that doesn't fit well into the superficialities of tweet-sized sound bites. That makes it a fun one.
To each his own, but I find it more fun to play games where I can just focus on winning than to play games where I have to focus on maximizing some other metric.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:12.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi