Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Looking from a different point at "Fixing" (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19292)

punarhero 16-03-2003 22:29

Looking from a different point at "Fixing"
 
Hi,
We were at AZ regional and I know everything that was going on. Before we discuss if "Fixing" is right or not, let me explain how it works:

Teams meet with their oppnents, and decide to leave each other's stacks alone. Teams don't decide who wins. The wall of boxes on top of the ramp is open for competition, and the team who is better will win, but with more score than they would have if they hadn't made the deal.

We made the deals twice in AZ. In one of the matches, we scored our highest score, and in the other, we scored our lowest score. Our team decided that we won't do it again because it takes the fun out of the game.

I was the team manager of our team, andx didn't make any more deals after our team's decision. But here's the deal.

I personally believe it is not against the FIRST spirit. FIRST encourages competition, but with cooperation with each other. The deals do not destroy that spirit. The football and all these examples other people are giving do not apply in this case. This is because teams do not decide who is going to win. As a matter of fact, it encourages cooperation because one small mistake, and the "deal's off"

The competition is still there in the games that teams make deals in. The outcome of the match is not decided. What is decided is that bother alliance will score higher than they would if they didn't make the deals. I know how hard it was to try to win a match, while keeping the deal we had made.

Therefore, I think it is not against the FIRSWT spirit to make deals, but I will follow the decision my team has made.

Gope 16-03-2003 22:32

You are entitled to your own opinoin, but, judging by current posts, the FIRST community is in strong disagreence with you.

abeD 16-03-2003 22:41

Just some questions...


Isn't this game, Stack Attack, partly about manipulating, creating, destroying, and protecting stacks? Doesn't "leaving each others stacks alone" take away from this? Just my thoughts...






*These opinions are mine and not of team 710*

GregT 16-03-2003 22:43

Does this subject really require 3 threads?

Greg

Alex1072 16-03-2003 22:46

Quote:

Originally posted by abe D
Just some questions...


Isn't this game, Stack Attack, partly about manipulating, creating, destroying, and protecting stacks? Doesn't "leaving each others stacks alone" take away from this? Just my thoughts...






*These opinions are mine and not of team 710*

Thats what the game was supposed to be about, but I think it did not work out as FIRST intended. The stack aspect of the game appears to be a dominated strategy. I think the only way to have stacks play a serious role in the outcome of any game (or even exist at the end of a game) is to make a deal with the other team.

abeD 16-03-2003 22:51

If a team's robot was not intended to do anything with stacks, but instead they have to make "deals" with other teams for keeping stacks, doesn't that give them the false ability of being able to stack?

Alex1072 16-03-2003 23:00

Quote:

Originally posted by abe D
If a team's robot was not intended to do anything with stacks, but instead they have to make "deals" with other teams for keeping stacks, doesn't that give them the false ability of being able to stack?

But if they play against a robot which IS designed to stack, they will be at a disadvantage, because the stacking team will obviously not agree to any deals.

Rook 16-03-2003 23:15

The reason this strategy is against the spirit of FIRST is. If you have a bot that fights its way all the way through the qualifying matches, but doesn't make it because another team has fixed its way into the finals. That just blows.

You can't just look at it as fixing a single match. You are fixing the entire competition and your actions affect the placement of all the other teams.

Alex1072 16-03-2003 23:19

But what is stoping this team from also agreeing not to ruin stacks?

ngreen 16-03-2003 23:47

With or without the deal the competition is there.

WIth the deal the scores can get high, and certain bots play a important role. Think about rampdoms with this deal. Ouch. My personally deal I would offer teams a general agreement for both teams to avoid knocking stacks of 4 or less over. It is an advantage for both teams. Instead of losing with low point scores, you could get as many a 118 QP's. From the match scores I've seen, that's a nice score. The competition for boxes and for the ramp is still there. Anyway, since few teams have attempted to stack why should we unstack to win. Many people have failed to look at the whole picture. Yes a team who works hard and attack the others stacks and wins a lot of matches, may score low why a team who wins with a deal make it farther. The low scoring team made a strategy choice that was bad in the end. Cooperation is not against FIRST spirit, a general strategy which improve point scoring but not take away from the competitive nature of the game isn't bad.

Although I'm only a human player (PLEASE LEAVE MY STACKS) I will urge that my driver don't attack opponents stacks if all possible. THis is still within the bounds of competition. I can't gurantee another team as to incidental knocking over. But when their stacks goes down, our is now a target. For those of you who are purely competitive, is this not competition still? Maneuvering to score as many as possible but making split second choice when it comes down to the line.

I see deal-making as a valid strategy and one that may affect many future matches.

Gope 17-03-2003 00:03

This isn't really my place, and it is rare that I get angered enough to voice my actualy opinion on CD, but here goes.

I've seen 1st and 2nd year teams saying "fixing matches is not against the spirt of FIRST"

Guess what, you guys are rookies, you don't know exactly what the spirit of FIRST is, perhaps you should take a note from seasoned veterans who have 6 or 7+ years of FIRST uunder their belts. They know what the true spirit of FIRST is because they've expierenced it from the early days when it was a handfull of teams in a room with Dean all going at it head to head best bot comes out on top. And all the veteran teams are saying that "fixing the matches" is very much so against the spirit of FIRST.

The growth of the FIRST community is great, but I've witnessed alot of new teams that simply don't quite unnderstand what it's all about. Rookie teams didn't even get the 3 hours speal from Dean on Kick-Off(not to say that I didn't enjoy the break).

My hope is that the people who are "fixing matches" will realize how it is actualy "fixing the compeition" and will begin to change their ways.

ugh, venting is good

BaysianLogik 17-03-2003 00:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Rook
The reason this strategy is against the spirit of FIRST is. If you have a bot that fights its way all the way through the qualifying matches, but doesn't make it because another team has fixed its way into the finals. That just blows.

You can't just look at it as fixing a single match. You are fixing the entire competition and your actions affect the placement of all the other teams.

Slight problem with this reasoning. If you have robots that are not competitive by any stretch of the imagination, which i noticed at least 25% of the robots at annapolis fit this description, the teams against these robots as well as the bad robots themselves, automatically got higher scores, because these robots COULDN'T destroy the stacks. so even robots that are not necessarilly the best would get high scores by loosing. Higher scores, in fact, than some of the matches where 4 very competitive robots were together. Although this was a problem in previous years, never to this extent, because most of the other games one team got the points, the points didn't just dissappear into thin air.

The highest QP score at annapolis was when two mediocre robots, both of which didn't make it past the quarterfinals, went against two robots that virtually stayed in their starting positions.
One of the lowest scoring matches i saw was when 3 of what i thought were the top 4 robots at the competition were against each other, and duked it out until virtually nothing was in either zone.

In this game, even if no agreements are made, the stacks are going to survive in some rounds because of the competitiors. So if i were to choose between agreements, which put the poor robots at the bottom rankings, and the better ones at the top, and one where poor robots got higher scores by totally loosing, and the competitive robots got low scores by fighting till the bitter end, i would choose the agreements.

ngreen 17-03-2003 01:11

I may be a rookie, but I know GP.
Deciding the matches outcome beforehand is not GP.
Making an actual agreement that you won't compete is not GP.
But I get seriously lost when people are unwilling to see most of this as a strategical choice.
I hope my team will choose to leave the opponents HP stacks. Our teams thoughts on human player stacks will be consistent, we will let one 4 and under stand, if they knock ours over, for the most part they will lose theirs, and in competition the decision to attack the stacks will be always present.
I don't plan to make agreements like a said in my previous post. That would be un GP like. But this will not keep me from trying to convince alliance partners into such thoughts, and It will not stop my telling the opposing team what we will do if they attack our HP stacks. Gope, I am sorry that my previous post may have caused you to disappreciate the efforts of first and second teams. I hope to prove to be GP in my competition and hope that previous comments may not effect my team. Thanks again, Gope, for your insight into creating a more GP FIRST and continuing to challenge the rookie teams to new standards. My team will give our best efforts to make you proud!

AlbertW 17-03-2003 01:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Gope
This isn't really my place, and it is rare that I get angered enough to voice my actualy opinion on CD, but here goes.

I've seen 1st and 2nd year teams saying "fixing matches is not against the spirt of FIRST"

Guess what, you guys are rookies, you don't know exactly what the spirit of FIRST is, perhaps you should take a note from seasoned veterans who have 6 or 7+ years of FIRST uunder their belts. They know what the true spirit of FIRST is because they've expierenced it from the early days when it was a handfull of teams in a room with Dean all going at it head to head best bot comes out on top. And all the veteran teams are saying that "fixing the matches" is very much so against the spirit of FIRST.

The growth of the FIRST community is great, but I've witnessed alot of new teams that simply don't quite unnderstand what it's all about. Rookie teams didn't even get the 3 hours speal from Dean on Kick-Off(not to say that I didn't enjoy the break).

My hope is that the people who are "fixing matches" will realize how it is actualy "fixing the compeition" and will begin to change their ways.

ugh, venting is good

you forget that teams define the "spirit of FIRST"

I'm not condoning the match-fixing, but if there is a MASSIVE influx of teams one year that all think building bots that are shaped like giant donuts and roll around the field is a good idea, then that is then the spirit of first

punarhero 17-03-2003 01:26

Why are we calling this "Fixing"
 
You know what fixing means? Fixing means you make sure certain partner of yours loses in qualifying matches to help my ranking, and I'll pick u as my alliance partner. That's what fixing is, and I COMPLETELY agree that it is against the FIRST spirit.

But just making an agreement of leaving each other's stacks alone and competing for the rest of the boxes is not. Maybe I'm not from a 6 or 7 year old team, but I've been in this competition for long enough to realize what FIRST spirit is, I think.

Making an agreement is just a strategy that maintains the sense of uncertainty and competetiveness in the competition. And again, why would FIRST make your score your score + 2 X loser's score if they didn't want the cooperation? Making agreements is just taking that cooperation to another level.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:38.

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