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)

arichman1257 25-01-2017 00:37

On side ball use agreement.
 
What if the two alliance in a match agreed to just move their bin that scored fuel goes into and let it fall into their opponent's bin? Then both sides wouldn't have to cross the field of they wanted to get fuel from human players

Lireal 25-01-2017 00:56

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
The issue is, why would teams want to help each other? In 2015, when the noodle agreement was a possibility, it would help both teams because ranking was based on average points. This year though, an agreement like that would unfairly help whichever team is better at fuel.

arichman1257 25-01-2017 01:16

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
It would help the better alliance more. But it would help both alliances and they would both score higher. The better one isn't winning because of it, they're just winning with a higher score. And it can help all teams on both alliances because it match score is the second sort for qual ranking.

Cothron Theiss 25-01-2017 01:32

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

H08. GAME PIECES through LOADING STATIONS only.
ALLIANCES may only deliberately cause GAME PIECES to leave an ALLIANCE STATION or LOADING LANE
A. during TELEOP,
B. by a HUMAN PLAYER or DRIVER, and
C. through a LOADING STATION slot.
Violation: FOUL per GAME PIECE. If strategic, RED CARD.
The strategy you are proposing would result in a Red Card.

EricH 25-01-2017 01:35

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cothron Theiss (Post 1636004)
The strategy you are proposing would result in a Red Card.

No, it wouldn't. At least, not for THAT reason.

As I understand it, he's simply saying to not put the Return Bin(s) in place, which will send all the Fuel that would normally land in them to the Overflow Bin(s). Then the Overflow Loading Station would be used to send the Fuel into a waiting robot, rather than the Return Loading Station(s). Take a look at 3.11.5.

Cothron Theiss 25-01-2017 01:46

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1636005)
No, it wouldn't. At least, not for THAT reason.

As I understand it, he's simply saying to not put the Return Bin(s) in place, which will send all the Fuel that would normally land in them to the Overflow Bin(s). Then the Overflow Loading Station would be used to send the Fuel into a waiting robot, rather than the Return Loading Station(s). Take a look at 3.11.5.

Woops. I misunderstood what the OP meant. Hmm... I feel like this won't happen often, if at all, even if it remains legal. I also wouldn't be terribly surprised if the Team Update nuked the idea.

arichman1257 25-01-2017 07:18

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cothron Theiss (Post 1636007)
Woops. I misunderstood what the OP meant. Hmm... I feel like this won't happen often, if at all, even if it remains legal. I also wouldn't be terribly surprised if the Team Update nuked the idea.

Nothing would make me more proud of myself than the next team update nuking the idea. Well, except for a situation in which teams actually did this a lot. It would be a really close second to have my own rules : )

New Lightning 25-01-2017 19:46

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
I cringe every time that I see a thread like this. Any agreement such as this always falls under the classic prisoner's dilemma where it incentivizes betraying the deal, which is inherently violates GP.

In this scenario you benefit from not moving your bin and letting the scored fuel go into your retrevial zone. And since your loading lane is on the other side of the field as your driver station it would be pretty hard to communicate that the other alliance has broken the deal. Giving your even more incentive to cheat.

Just like the noodle agreement in 2015, and the boulder agreement last year (2016) I( would hate for this to become a reality and really, really, really hope this doesn't happen.

EricH 25-01-2017 20:03

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1636005)
No, it wouldn't. At least, not for THAT reason.

I should note that any possible violations of C02 and C03 aren't covered by the above comment.

That being said, C02 and C03 are very tricky rules to enforce, particularly if a strategy helps both alliances play above their normal ability. So I would expect a no-call on this, generally speaking.


Just as a note: If your alliance makes such a deal, my advice is keep it. Don't back out. Send 1 HP that you can trust over there, and get those bins off right away. If either alliance breaks the deal, that alliance will rack up points, but rumors spread faster than light* and it's that alliance that looks bad. If you can't trust 'em in quals, can you trust 'em in elims?


*Not actually physically proven. I am not a physicist, nor do I play one on TV. I do not advocate breaking laws of nature.

gblake 25-01-2017 20:42

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by New Lightning (Post 1636342)
... which is[sic] inherently violates GP.
...

That probably depends on who you Grandmother is/was. ;)

PS: Just to be clear - Both of mine would insist that I adhered to any deals that I made.

GeeTwo 25-01-2017 20:57

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1636348)
*Not actually physically proven. I am not a physicist, nor do I play one on TV. I do not advocate breaking laws of nature.

I am a physicist, but that's not important right now. What is important is that bad reputation may not outrun light, but it will outrun you.

engunneer 25-01-2017 20:59

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by New Lightning (Post 1636342)
I cringe every time that I see a thread like this. Any agreement such as this always falls under the classic prisoner's dilemma where it incentivizes betraying the deal, which is inherently violates GP.

In this scenario you benefit from not moving your bin and letting the scored fuel go into your retrevial zone. And since your loading lane is on the other side of the field as your driver station it would be pretty hard to communicate that the other alliance has broken the deal. Giving your even more incentive to cheat.

Just like the noodle agreement in 2015, and the boulder agreement last year (2016) I( would hate for this to become a reality and really, really, really hope this doesn't happen.

This. If the thread title is *** agreement, then it is likely to be so scheme to play the game not as intended.

dmaggio744 25-01-2017 21:59

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Even if you can find another alliance that would like to carry out such a plan with you, it would be stupid to count on it happening. If you do move up past quals, i doubt alliances will be as open to the idea.

bstew 25-01-2017 22:13

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
While I am skeptical as to whether this will be feasible, I would caution against making statements about how this is not how Steamworks should be played

Quote:

Originally Posted by engunneer (Post 1636361)
This. If the thread title is *** agreement, then it is likely to be so scheme to play the game not as intended.

It is hard to tell what the GDC's intent is other what is explicitly stated in the manual. In fact, the intent of the manual is to do just that.
Quote:

The intent of this manual is that the text means exactly, and only, what it says. Please avoid interpreting the text based on assumptions about intent, implementation of past rules, or how a situation might be in “real life.” There are no hidden requirements or restrictions. If you’ve read everything, you know everything.
Every year, teams come up with strategies and designs that the GDC probably never thought of and never could have intended. If the GDC doesn't want these agreements to be made, all they have to do is change the rules so that they are not possible anymore. Without them doing this, we have no idea whether this is the way the game is intended to be or not.

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. The GDC made their intent clear there, but has not made any ruling regarding gear or ball agreements.

Until the GDC makes their intent clear, we should withhold from making judgements of what it is.

Ekcrbe 25-01-2017 23:07

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
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.

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.

bobbysq 26-01-2017 23:47

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Scheuing (Post 1636688)
Let's create a "no more agreements" agreement.

Agree to Disagree Agreement?

Ekcrbe 27-01-2017 00:06

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes (Post 1636931)
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.

Yeah, this is what irks me. I know that these sort of things make FRC uniquely complex and deep for a high school program, but that sort of desired strategic intensity can be achieved without gimmicky backdoor deals between alliances to play the game a certain way. We know this. The 2013 and 2014 games provided ample room to think deeply about strategy and draw up game plans in a way that approached traditional sports, which is clearly part of what many of us enjoy about the competitive aspect of FRC. "_____ Agreement"-type plans just replace the natural strategy of well-designed games with consternation over how best to subvert the 3v3 nature of the competition to move up the rankings. It's not unethical, it's just confusing for less-informed or non-CD spectators and frankly (in my opinion) less enjoyable to watch and play. The alliances that win events and championships should be the ones that together are the best gear placers, shooters, climbers, and defenders, not the best at doing something else. That is the hallmark of an effective game.

TL;DR Strategic depth is not incongruous with games that encourage simply playing with your alliance and against the other one. We don't need other nonsense to get our fill of lateral thinking.

Grim Tuesday 27-01-2017 01:13

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by New Lightning (Post 1636342)
I cringe every time that I see a thread like this. Any agreement such as this always falls under the classic prisoner's dilemma where it incentivizes betraying the deal, which is inherently violates GP.

I think it is wrong to conflate FRC games with the one-shot Prisoner's dilemma. In fact, I think it's more reasonable to model them more as infinitely repeated games, as a team's reputation stays with it forever. Depending on how much each team cares about their reputation, this can lead to situations where cooperation is the nash equilibrium of the prisoner's dilemma.

Here's a good Wikipedia article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_t..._(game_theory)

Roger 27-01-2017 07:52

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Just to roll this back around to the original question, after a couple of years as a field resetter standing behind the driver station, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that human players would ignore the overflowing bins, forget to replace bins, drop fuel all over the place, ... in other words, you think it, it's been done or not done. Not in any agreements, not in malice -- just "because".

Well, not really. Because the HP wasn't trained in their job.

rich2202 27-01-2017 10:51

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
IMHO, C02 and C03 should be a simple rule that there shall be no discussions/agreements between alliances, except regarding coopertition points (if available in that game).

FYI: The fuel use agreement should also include a Gear agreement - Alliance transfers gears from their Loading Lane to the Alliance Station.

C03 presents an interesting problem. Let's say you are a Surrogate Team, and you figure out yourself that you are better off throwing the match so that one of your alliance members doesn't get Raking Points. I think it is bad GP not to play to your ability.

Skyehawk 27-01-2017 12:14

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by New Lightning (Post 1636342)
I cringe every time that I see a thread like this. Any agreement such as this always falls under the classic prisoner's dilemma where it incentivizes betraying the deal, which is inherently violates GP. ...

I agree, they're fun to think about at first, but then you realize this is capitalizing on a loophole or breaks GP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Scheuing (Post 1636688)
Let's create a "no more agreements" agreement.

The war to end all wars?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rich2202 (Post 1637059)
IMHO, C02 and C03 should be a simple rule that there shall be no discussions/agreements between alliances, except regarding coopertition points (if available in that game).

Impossible to regulate.

Chris is me 27-01-2017 13:16

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyehawk (Post 1637084)
Impossible to regulate.

To be totally fair, so are C02 and C03. Rules don't have to be enforceable to have a purpose. They can be instructional - show clearly that the "right" way to do things is not to do the behavior outlined in them.

That said, I don't think rules are necessary to prevent this behavior. It's clearly not in your interest to do this. It would be more arguable if you weren't already crossing the field to get gears, but your robot will already be at that side of the field regularly during a match. So you're going to want those balls!

The alliance that scores more frequently will want this possibly, but the underdog alliance would like more "free" chances to load fuel into cycling robots, so it's hurting a strategy that can be used by them to come back and win the match.

Nessie 27-01-2017 13:31

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rich2202 (Post 1637059)
C03 presents an interesting problem. Let's say you are a Surrogate Team, and you figure out yourself that you are better off throwing the match so that one of your alliance members doesn't get Raking Points. I think it is bad GP not to play to your ability.

Agreed, throwing is unacceptable. Totally unprofessional and also very tunnel visioned when you think about all the teams with effective scouting who will be watching you. Teams are looking for other teams to work with. Not teams who will work against them. And as someone also mentioned in this thread, a reputation follows the team.

Always play to the best of your ability.

Chris is me 27-01-2017 15:33

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rich2202 (Post 1637059)
IMHO, C02 and C03 should be a simple rule that there shall be no discussions/agreements between alliances, except regarding coopertition points (if available in that game).

FYI: The fuel use agreement should also include a Gear agreement - Alliance transfers gears from their Loading Lane to the Alliance Station.

C03 presents an interesting problem. Let's say you are a Surrogate Team, and you figure out yourself that you are better off throwing the match so that one of your alliance members doesn't get Raking Points. I think it is bad GP not to play to your ability.

This is one of many reasons the surrogate match was moved to the third match of the qualification schedule and not the last match. Seeding implications are less obvious at that point, and teams will be less likely to "test something new for eliminations" in that match.

JesseK 27-01-2017 16:33

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

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

Seems appropriate.

This particular agreement states "ignore any discussion about match strategy around fuel which would gain your alliance a competitive edge in winning the match". IMO, it inherently violates C03/C04.

Daniel_LaFleur 29-01-2017 10:04

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by arichman1257 (Post 1635993)
What if the two alliance in a match agreed to just move their bin that scored fuel goes into and let it fall into their opponent's bin? Then both sides wouldn't have to cross the field of they wanted to get fuel from human players

If I agreed with this, what would stop my alliance from parking a brave little toaster in front of the only feeder in front of their drivers station? There is no 'safe zone there, and I am not working with another robot to 'stop the flow of the game'.



.

EricH 29-01-2017 20:11

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur (Post 1637729)
If I agreed with this, what would stop my alliance from parking a brave little toaster in front of the only feeder in front of their drivers station? There is no 'safe zone there, and I am not working with another robot to 'stop the flow of the game'.



.

Brilliance. And if BOTH alliances do that, we get a match like the match that settled the National Champion in 1997: 1.5 minutes of standoff followed by sudden offense.

Eric Scheuing 30-01-2017 09:21

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1637902)
Brilliance. And if BOTH alliances do that, we get a match like the match that settled the National Champion in 1997: 1.5 minutes of standoff followed by sudden offense.

Going to derail for a second here, but I just watched a video of the match. Why was waiting for the very end deemed the most effective strategy?

abigailthefox 05-02-2017 14:06

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Just an observation: a clear majority of the posters on this thread were mentors/college students/alumni/not current student team members. I saw a few students posting, but they were overwhelmingly a minority.

As far as agreements go, I think that this one is pretty benign and beneficial, more in the spirit of coopertition that in trying to undercut the rules to get ahead. 1. Any team can participate in this, regardless of ability, and the benefits are likely to be proportional to both alliances. If one alliance is much stronger, they will likely benefit more in raw score, but in terms of a percentage increase from an average, non agreement score, both alliances will probably see a roughly equal benefit.
2. Both teams benefit. This one is pretty clear, there's no match-throwing, or rankings conniving, or a more capable alliance trying to dupe a less capable alliance into doing something not beneficial to them.
3. It does depend on both sides, but that's no different from coopertition in past years. If one side pulls out of this agreement without warning, the other side will likely be hurt if they were counting on participation from both sides during the match. However, I don't see this as much different than two alliances agreeing to focus on getting the coopertition points, and then one side realizing they can't/won't, and the other side then having wasted time they could have spent scoring points for themselves on trying to complete their end of the (now-failed) coopertition.

Ultimately, drive teams will probably make a match-by-match decision if this agreement is still viable/worthwhile by the time competition season comes along, but I don't think it's obviously either wrong or right to choose one way or the other.

NShep98 05-02-2017 16:36

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by abigailthefox (Post 1640710)
Just an observation: a clear majority of the posters on this thread were mentors/college students/alumni/not current student team members. I saw a few students posting, but they were overwhelmingly a minority.

I'll chime in on this.

I think agreements like this effectively go against the intent of how it should be played. At this point, we've seen that if FIRST wants coopertition in a game, there is a very explicit coopertition objective. Just like other game mechanics (high/low scoring, end games, etc.) some years it is there, some years it is not.

With this specific agreement, there is risk of one side breaking the agreement, where with now 3 different places team members can be stationed, it is difficult to communicate this effectively. Additionally, unlike games with specific coopertition objectives, there is nothing to guarantee teams will benefit anywhere near equally from participating in this agreement. Even if there were, this would inherently be putting teams who chose not to do this agreement at a disadvantage, as 2nd order ranking is determined by the cumulative sum of match points.

I honestly wish agreements like this would stop popping up. We saw what happened in 2015 with the noodle agreement. Spend more time building a robot that plays effectively and undoubtedly better than your opponents, and less time tying to exploit inter-alliance game mechanics to inflate match scores.

Ekcrbe 05-02-2017 17:05

Re: On side ball use agreement.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by abigailthefox (Post 1640710)
Just an observation: a clear majority of the posters on this thread were mentors/college students/alumni/not current student team members. I saw a few students posting, but they were overwhelmingly a minority.

Part of this could well be that we've seen how these sorts of "agreements" have gone in past years, such as 2015's noodle agreement, as Nathan just mentioned. I, at least, am a little tired of having to think about them each time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abigailthefox (Post 1640710)
As far as agreements go, I think that this one is pretty benign and beneficial, more in the spirit of coopertition that in trying to undercut the rules to get ahead. 1. Any team can participate in this, regardless of ability, and the benefits are likely to be proportional to both alliances. If one alliance is much stronger, they will likely benefit more in raw score, but in terms of a percentage increase from an average, non agreement score, both alliances will probably see a roughly equal benefit.
2. Both teams benefit. This one is pretty clear, there's no match-throwing, or rankings conniving, or a more capable alliance trying to dupe a less capable alliance into doing something not beneficial to them.
3. It does depend on both sides, but that's no different from coopertition in past years. If one side pulls out of this agreement without warning, the other side will likely be hurt if they were counting on participation from both sides during the match. However, I don't see this as much different than two alliances agreeing to focus on getting the coopertition points, and then one side realizing they can't/won't, and the other side then having wasted time they could have spent scoring points for themselves on trying to complete their end of the (now-failed) coopertition.

There's a clear difference between demarcated co-opertition that uniformly impacts both alliances and a deal you cut that has uncertain and variable benefits for each side. What I don't want to lose sight of is the fact that FRC matches and events are competitions, and we do ultimately reward the winners of those competitions. Of course, there are other things in FIRST worth celebrating, and we do that too, but between the lines, in the part of the event where you play against the other teams, it's a competition. Co-opertition and gracious professionalism dictate that we do that with the highest regard for one another, and we assist one another off the field so that we can all perform better on it, but on the field, we don't play to inflate everyone's scores or to achieve some objective with our opponents. We play to win.

I think this is "a more capable alliance trying to dupe a less capable alliance into doing something not beneficial to them." If you were going to beat me by 50, and we accept this agreement, which affects us roughly proportionally, so now I score 25 more but you beat me by 100, that's not helpful to me. Yes, I scored more, which helps my tiebreaker sorts, but so did you, and you're ranked better relative to me than you would have been otherwise. This is why it pays to break the agreement, and once you do, you can reap immediate benefits (i.e. it's easier to win the match), unlike with co-opertition. I know that one's reputation travels at the speed of sound, but it's still unsavory to me to be doing anything that relies on that good faith. Additionally, for the teams that got burned in that match, there is no reprieve.

NBA teams—even the worst ones—wouldn't agree to inbound the ball to each other at every possession and hope that they can win that way rather than playing normally, even if the players are friendly and help each other up after the whistle blows. It's no different here. Be friendly, share your tools and your know-how in the pits, but just go win your matches on the field.


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