TIEBRAKERS to prevent RIGGING THE MATCH
 

Please read this.

(this has already been a bit discussed before in the following thread:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=15969
but I wanted to post a poll, because if most people agree we can contact FIRST. <--

This is a bad part of this year's game:

If you win, you receive <edit>your points and</edit> twice the loser's points. But to do that you have to spend precious time worrying about making the opponent score less, and not letting the opponent bother you. That's maybe the biggest difficulty of the game: your two opponents.

If you talk to the "enemy" alliance before the match and set that you are going to tie in a very high score, then you don't have opponents anymore: you have 3 allies. Just like in 2001.
It will be easy to do an excelent score with half of the boxes and one robot at the platform, and you won't need to worry about the opponents bugging you: they will HELP you to do the same score. And then you get your score PLUS their score, wich will be A LOT of points and it won't be a very difficult thing to do.

When some teams realize that that's the best way to score points and start doing it several times, watching and playing the game won't be fun anymore.

Think about.

I can imagine people saying "they won just because they rigged their matches! that's not fair with us! that's not gracious professionalism!"
And the other people will say "there's no rule against doing that!".

To prevent us from this big problem, we could ask FIRST to set some tiebrakers through an update.

Examples of tiebrakers:

1-Highest stack
2-Most robots on the platform
3-Most scoring boxes
4-Most boxes on your side of the field
5-Flip of a coin

Or any other way FIRST wants.

If we don't do something before it's too late to change, the teams that manage to convince the other 3 teams will be in advantage of points, and the ones that are against that and in favor of "fair play" will be more likely to loose.

Although this would raise the overall AVERAGE score, your potential score would be limited.

If you win, you have the potential to earn more points than if you tie.

Thus, there is little reason to tie, since you can get a better score by winning straight out.

I thought if you won the match, you got your score, plus 2 times the losers?

Re: TIEBRAKERS to prevent RIGGING THE MATCH
 

Excellent point.

FIRST was probably hoping that people behave and keep in the spirit of Gracious Professionalism in this issue. Unfortunately, I bet there is someone out there that is willing to attempt this. Hopefully this will be prevented.

While it's quite true that it is possible to get more points by doing everything for your two teams instead of tieing with the most amount of points, it involves getting a stack of ~22 high which is HIGHLY unlikely since the boxes tend to get VERY unstable at even 8 or 10 high.

I think that earning both of your scores is a problem. Going away with your tied score (not added together) might be better since it's easier to score above that with just your one teammate.

Re: TIEBRAKERS to prevent RIGGING THE MATCH
 

I believe i remember Dean Kamen saying that FIRST involves cooperating as much as competing. So, if you can win more by cooperating, then I say its fine.

I really dont think he meant cooperating in quite that way..

You have a point, he didn't say collaborate. :)

Hmmmm, could this be a creative way on FIRST's part to demonstrate how cooperating is better than fighting? We will have to see if teams who cooperate to tie will do well ;)

well i dont know about you guys but when you are talking about stacks and knocking bins around the scores could very easily be off by one especially when you cant see the other side easily so Im think there would be a whole lot of hurt feelings even if no one decides to backstab anyone

Although I really dont think the 4 teams would all agree to rigging the match, I would like to bring tiebreakers back. It causes strategys to become a bit more involved. The bad side of tiebreakers is the coin flip. I think then it should go to giving both alliances the match points.

Plus, remember the tiebreaker last year when the coin didn't land flat :)

as i recall, tht was because it landed on a tether cable. this year that shouldnt be a problem! :D

If you use this strategy you decide that the best strategy is not to go after your competition but to work together and share the victory. I don't understand how that isn't gracious professionalism. It may not be pleasing to the spectators but it seems to embody the spirit of FIRST in every way.

In many occasions cooperation is better for everyone than competition: some scenarios

1) Red 50
Blue 10
= Red 70 QP's
= Blue 10 QP's

Red 50
Blue 50
= Red 100 QPs
Blue 100 QPs
in this case both alliances would want to tie

Originally I thought using this idea in every match, after some thinking I now feel thats a bad idea, this should simply be part of the playbook, and since (in my mind anyway) it does not violate the spirit of FIRST, but rather encourages it, I see no reason to enact rules prohibitting this style of play.

Just like every other FIRST game of the past, there are loopholes in the rules that need to be patched up. This is one of those times, I say, contact FIRST and express your concern with this issue!


WHAT FUN IS A GAME IF EVERY OTHER MATCH ENDS IN A TIE?????

As I recall, when you use Caps Lock, it makes what you say right.

Anyways, I know a few games that are fun when you tie your opponent.

My point is that the fun is playing the game, not necessarily the result.

I think doug said it best. All you have to do is bump 1 robot of the platform and you have broken your promise. Backstabbing would be to tempting because of a potential gain of over 250%. I think the new tie rule would cause too many bad feelings between teams.

Ah yes, but say a team who has to qualify for nationals ( team number ends in an even number ) Earns their way to nationals by tying every match? When I am in Houston...I sure as heck don't want to see divisions and ultimatly the finals decided by teams who got there by repetitive ties.

I'm with most of you guys- it'd become a game just like 2001 where everyone worked together- I believe 2001 was the only year FIRST had a 4v0 format- for a good reason...

without competition this wouldn't be the FIRST robotics competition-

The competition is to score the most points...

Breaking the Tie
 

I have to agree, there should not even be the temptation for strategizing a tie. Our team was the one at the Nats which had the tie. Coincidently it was against another team from LI, and both of our teams are quite friendly (Team 28). Now, obviously we didn't plan to tie down in Fla. but when the coin leaned on the teather of our mouse (to further the anxiety), the adviser of the other team and I agreed that, at that point, the win was not as important as the amount of fun we had in getting there.

I have seen at least one match at a regional "plan the match" when one alliance was obviously out matched. They scored almost a perfect score, and the losers were still happy with what they got because it was higher than there previous average.

I think FIRST will realize their goof. BTW I now like coin tosses--only because we won it

;)

Even though FIRST encourages cooperation, I don't think they want teams to agree behind the scenes with each other just so they can get more points to win the game. The point is not to secretly plot a victory, but to truly work with your allies and enemies during the 2:15 period. By playing fair, no one would complain and the game will be more interesting than just winning.

AAAAUUUUUGGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!
 

I'm just going to go stick my head in the oven.

Two years ago, virtually EVERY team screamed and yelled about how much they hated the 4-vs-0 scenario. It was boring, no fun, a waste of time, and not challenging. More than one team said it would be their last season specifically because there was no more "competition" in the competition. I even had one person nearly tackle me in the stands just before the awards ceremony, and practically beg me to PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE ask FIRST not to stick with the "complete cooperation" games.

Now here we are two years later, and all of the sudden everyone is all up in a lather about the potential situation where - GASP! - teams will all collude to ignore the "competition" and just "cooperate" to the detriment of the game.

The only way this "intentional tie problem" will happen is if all four teams decide to accept a lower score than they could by winning. If even one team decides that they might prefer to WIN and ADVANCE OVER THE OPPOSITION, then the "intentional tie" scenario fails. Given the number of teams that were present in 2001, and are still around for this year's event, I have a hard time seeing the "intentional tie" situation happening.

In other words -
- you spoke
- FIRST listened
- you got what you asked for
- what is the problem?


-dave
(unfortunately, the oven is electric, so it will just hurt a lot...)

Precisely.

I found that to be quite humorous myself, seeing how, with a highly competitive game, people just want to cooperate. While in 2001, people flipped out. I enjoyed the 4v0 game...but I seem to be outnumbered.
:D

For the record, I loved the 2001 game. The problem with coordination is when teams coordinate to cause either a major disadvantage to one team (i.e. working 3 v 1) or causing a major advantage to an alliance (as I described in my earlier post).

I havn't decided if I like this game yet, I like certain objectives and how everything looks so simple but is still a very complex game to build for. The problem itself is the people and teams that are willing to go beyond the robotic portion of the robotic competition to give themselves an advantage.

If a team agrees with yours to rig a match they are breaking the spirit of first and being borderline dishonorable. In order to rig a match you have to trust that the opponent will not , say, tip over one of your stacks right at the end. Since you know that this team is dishonorable, why would you ever trust them to follow the honor system? Back stabbing is just as legal in the rules as cooperating. You could even consider this "justice" because you are losing points after agreeing to rig a match.

Another thing: The only thing anyone has posted here is disgust. Nobody has said "we will pursue a rigged agreement in all of our matches and we see nothing wrong with this behavior." So don't worry, the majority of teams will not rig matches. Unless you're all a bunch of liars.

Hmmmmmm, well Dean did say the game would not be fair. Is this what he was thinking of? I know it sounds completely contradictive to complain about a 4 vs. 0 game, then suggest that cooperation could be the key. But honestly, I think more of us are arguing against rigging the match. I wouldnt want to rig a match, it would be greedy. And its not FAIR, but it's also not right. "cheating" is what I'd call it. Use your gracious professionalism, be honest.

Remember, the name of the game is QPs and EPs if you get that far. Whatever a team does to maximize it's QPs within the rules is OK with me. If that means (gasp!) co-operating with your opponents I don't have a problem with that. It is to your advantage to ensure that your opponents have SOME points. That may mean scoring for them and possibly IN SPITE of them. I know in the past we've scored points for an opponent in spite of their active opposition.

I have much more problem with teams "taking a dive" to lower their score in a hopeless match and therefore lower their opponents QPs. This is something we as a team have decided never to do deliberately. We will always strive to achieve the highest score we are able to. But let's face it accidents do happen. Like knocking over that tall stack while attempting to place that last box.:o

I was at the KickOff the year we first had alliances. I have told this before but not in a year or so and it may be instructive for the newbies.

In the process of announcing the game Woodie mentioned that something very strange had happened the year before. That year had been 1 vs 1 vs 1. The strange thing that happened was that NONE of the top 10 seeds on Friday evening made it to the finals. Doing a little research FIRST discovered that those teams were targeted by lesser ranked teams and interefered with to a much greater extent. The lesser ranked teams would ignore each other while deliberately lowering the score of the top ranked team in the match. They couldn't prove there was collusion, it may just have been that the teams independently decided that was their best strategy.

So Woodie announced that henceforth, since collusion could not be prevented, it would be required! They then went on to describe the alliance system we now know and (mostly) love.

In view of this history, I don't think FIRST will have any problems with four teams working together to achieve a higher score than would otherwise be possible. They will probably be delighted.

IF you make such an agreement, you'd darn well better KEEP it. Backstabbing your opponents at the last second will not help you win friends and word will get around pretty quick. Your team will be shunned and distrusted for years. People have long memories, and some of us mentors have been playing this game since you kids were playing with blocks. It could take a very long time to undo the damage done in a couple of seconds for a very minor advantage.

Um... call me crazy, but your position in the rankings is relative to other teams... so if everyone tried the tie idea, nobody actually wins. Also, the logistics of stacking and distributing bins with exact precision is just a tad daunting; 29 bins on the ramp, one of them is bound to land unrecoverably when they all fall, or simply not all will fall the way you want everytime. Instead I feel we should just go out there and try to out score and out think each other. Who knows, it may be... fun?

I sincerely hope teams don't set out to do this. It is an unprofessional way of playing the game. However, we all know there'll be one or two teams that try this idea. I feel that figuring out how to tie, in some situations, might be harder than just keeping ahead of the opponent alliance. Also, if the match is high scoring, you would want even more to have a higher score. And in regards to the poster that mentioned the 50-50 tie, if your team had 51 and they had 50, you would get 151 points, so the best idea would be to gain points instead of tying.
Just my thoughts. I really hope, though, that not too many teams go to these lengths...

Ties are GREAT!
 

Tying is great. It limits everyone's scoring potential equally.

I know I would be very comforted to find out that when one alliance can't stack crates, both alliances will be limited in their scoring.

Ideally, all teams would tie every round - with the same score.

Better yet, they shouldn't keep score, and just declare everyone a winner. Afterall, isn't that what the FIRST Robotics Competition is all about?

I dont see a need in tie breakers.

They already say what happens if there is a tie in QF matches and Final's.

The tie seems to be a great idea

just think you can make a stack 8 high in the first 10 sec then go and get 14 bins in your area leaving one to be put out of the scoring area. then every robot to the top.


This would give each team 324 points

If a team can't do what they say they can do this will only benefit you. in the past if your depended on someone and they did not do what they said they could do it cost you big points.

if they fail to get 14 bins or get to the top of the ramp you get 2 times the loser score. that will be a lot.

So the pressure is still on you to make sure you get the points you need and that would be 162 points.


if you come short of that you just gave the other team big points.


I like this better than playing hard and getting a few points

Re: AAAAUUUUUGGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!
 

I think Dave means that people will not do 4-vs-0 because all of them hate it.
I think that will happen MOST times, but (as we could see in many posts here) there are some people that think to tie is good, and if they have the chance they will, and most people (the ones that don't like 4-vs-0) will not be happy about that, and (what's worse) will feel tempted to tie too, not to be lower in points.

About "what benefits the tie brings?":
The other thread about this was called "Nash Equilibrium". It was about the movie "A Beautiful Mind". There are, let's say, four guys and 5 girls. One of the girls is obviously the most beautiful. Usually, all of them would try to date the most beautiful one, and when they realize they didn't manage to do that, they will try the other ones, but those girls will be upset with the guys, so the guys don't date anyone.
But if the 4 guys talk and decide that no one will try the most beautiful one, all of them date a girl, wich is a better thing for every of them.

I hope you see the relation of this and the current subject (and maybe the reasons stated in earlier post were better).


Dave,
Stack Attack is AWESOME. Virtually everyone loves this game. But we saw a little "bug" in the "program" and we are affraid it can cause bigger problems in the future, during the competitions.

I don't want to be boring, I'm insisting on this only because I understand that you think most people hate the complete cooperation.

All we are saying is don't give 4-vs-0 a chance.

There have been a couple of questions about Nash Equillibrium, I'm not by any means an expert, and I apologize for any errors but here's some general info.

Adam Smith argued that the best strategy in a competitive situation was to do whats in your own self-interest at any cost. Get the most points for yourself if it means rolling over the competition. In the late 1940's the RAND Corporation developed a game called "Prisoners Dillemna" which is used as a simulation for any competitive situation from international affairs to psychology. The basic idea is that two criminal partners are arrested and both are placed in separate interrogation rooms and given the same information. They can "defect" and confess and implicate the other guy or they can "stonewall" and refuse to talk. If both stonewall they'll both get off with a slap on the wrist, if both defect they'll both get, say 5 years in jail, if one stonewalls and one defects the one who defects will get off with limited jail time and the one who stonewalls will get it.

Logically, when faced with Prisoner's Dillemna the best strategy is to defect, because no matter what the other guy does you'll be better off. So you could say that the best think to do in an INDIVIDUAL match in FIRST is to NOT cooperate with your opponent and to do whatever you need to do to maximize your score. Unfortunately Prisoner's Dilemna doesn't accurately describe FIRST, FIRST is itterative, we play the same game over and over again. So what John Nash (his life was chronicled in "A Beautiful Mind") did was make a Prisoner's Dillemna Tournament, he played the same game with a group of people over and over again, and a funny thing happened, the players who defected in every match ended up with hundreds of years in jail while those who cooperated in every match did much better. Think about it, if you defect in every match, sometimes you'll do very well and sometimes you'll end up with a significant ammount of jailtime, and the people who play you will gradually learn to defect as well so you'll ALWAYS end up getting jailtime in each match. If on the other hand you stonewall you'll get screwed on a couple of matches but gradually people will realize that you'll both get off easier by cooperating with you and stonewall as well. Try it with your team, I guarentee that these are the reults you'll see.

Nash Equillibrium means that if in every match you do what's best for yourself AND whats best for your opponents, over time you'll come out better than if you did just what was best for yourself.

FIRST isn't an exact corralation, but I suspect that Woodie & Co. had this in mind when they designed the game. If you attempt to tie on every match you will get lowers cores on a few matches than if you had won and higher scores than if you had lost, over time you'll end up doing better than if you had just gone after the opponents in every match.

I don't know, maybe using this strategy in every match won't work, it doesn't satisfy the human need for conflict for example, but its definitely worth putting in your playbook and not banning.

Scoring for an opponent was used extensively last year to help raise the winner's score, and was a good competitive strategy. However there was also risk involved as you could accidentally help your opponent to the point where they were able to beat you in the final seconds and win the match. This is not the same thing as deliberately tying. There is no risk involved in going out with the sole purpose of tying (unless somebody backstabs you, but once they did nobody would ever trust them again anyways, so...).

As to protesting against teams taking a dive to lower the winner's score, the thought behind that strategy is almost the same as tying. Either way you are acting in your best interests to maximize your potential of advancing by doing something that might not quite fit the definition of "Gracious Professionalism".

com·pe·ti·tion (n): 2. A contest between rivals
(Notice the last word?)

listen everyone
 

LISTEN TO ME!

ties aint gonna happen. it takes to much coregraphy to do. the only tie i can see planned is if everyone stays still giving each team zero. other than that, no 4 robots will be able to get a certain amount of bins a certain hieght while still having so many on the ground. THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY VARIABLES. plus if the plan changes youve got no way to communicate with the other side of the field which is 54 feet away between 2 plexiglass walls with music blaring and crowds yelling. SO CLOSE THE THREAD TIES WILL BE RANDOM:ahh:

Re: listen everyone
 

For the most part you are right...

The more you think about it, planned ties are way to difficult to pull off, unlesss you have a zero - zero tie. Which I have seen before (and im sure it wasnt planned).

I agree with eliminating ties.

I have done the math and it would be very difficult to get a better score than you could get by tying. (Teams could get as many as 452 points just by stacking 8 totes in the human round, putting 14 totes from the center in each scoring zone and getting back on top). This would be hard to duplicate with your opponent knocking down your stacks and pushing your totes out of bounds or stealing them, even if you do end up winning. You would have to score at least 152 points, much more if your opponent doesn't score many. (It can be awfully difficult to stack totes for your opponent and protect your own stack at the same time.)

As clearly shown in this string of messages, there is significant disagreement about whether rigging a match is or is not in the spirit of "gracious professionalism", though I have never been involved in any competition where it has been (no matter how it is done). Yes, teamwork is important, but that is why there are alliances.

Because of this, rigging the matches would give an advantage to those teams that felt it was OK (assuming they could convince their competitors) and a disadvantage to those who felt it was not OK.

If FIRST intended collaboration with the opposition to be OK, then they should specifically state it, otherwise, the rules should be modified so that it is not a significant benefit. Other than that rule, I think this is a great, complex and challenging game.

This isn't worth bugging first about. The game is unfair. Deal with it and move on. If teams decide to work for a tie, let them. They'll simply alienate themselves from the rest of the first community.

99% of us understand that First is about the thrill of working with science and technology to build a machine in 6 weeks. You'll be hard pressed to find 4 teams willing to screw that system. If not, then I better find another project to work on cause First isn't what I thought it was.

Lets leave it at this, if you don't want ties to happen, your team should not participate in group planned ties. As long as one team doesn't participate, it will not happen. Thats all that needs to be said on this subject.