Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   points shaving at UTC new england? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3505)

Kaitlin Palmer 10-04-2002 17:48

I think that going up to another team and saying "YOU are going to loose, so lets run up the score" is not only rude but poor sportsmanship.

However if you are partnered with lets say a dead bot, or if neither bot can handel a goal AT ALL and it is obvious that the match can't be won, than the team should concider talking to their opponents.

It is in NOBODYS best interest to have a low scoring game. And lets face it, unless your bot is GOD than bad things happen and you may in fact be broken down to the detriment of your ally.

But again, telling another team that they are going to loose is just wrong. So I can see where team 173 would be angered.

Digo 11-04-2002 04:07

Re: I say this is okay...
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Johnson
I have also heard of a non ball team that could get 2 goals and get home via a tether tell their opponents (who were ball handlers, mainly), "We are are going to get 40 points this match -- you can try to stop us if you want but you will likely be unsuccessful and more than that you will likely get a very low score -- If you get 41 points, you will win. Go for it."

If someone says that to me, for SURE I would do my very very best to win (and winning would be better than winning the competition). Nobody can say "We are are going to get 40 points this match". If you say that it's because you didn't read those items listed in the back side of the SME card.


-------------------
Rodrigo Ribeiro
#383 - The Brazilian Machine

Jim Meyer 12-04-2002 15:27

Strange Strategies...
 
We have used some very unusual strageties in the past. In one match at the West Michigan Regional we talked with our opponents and decided that each team would throw their playerstation balls in their opponents goals. The intent was to merely get more balls in both goals without really giving a competitive advantage to either team. This sort of arrangement is where gracious professionalism is a must.

Other strange arrangements might include an agreement to not steal any goals in the last ten seconds of the match. The result should be everyone in the endzone! Again not necessarily a competitive advantage to either team, just higher scores.

Jeff Waegelin 14-04-2002 21:37

Before one match at one of our regionals, we were talking to our alliance partner, and our opponents walked up. They then proceeded to tell us what their strategy was, and what they wanted us to do. I have no idea what they were doing, and it was absolutely the most bizarre thing I have ever seen in FIRST. I don't know if they were trying to get us to fix the match or what, but I do know that we listened to them and proceeded to do what we originally intended before that odd interruption.

Lewis Sussman 15-04-2002 10:05

Re: Re: I say this is okay...
 
Quote:

Originally posted by verdeyw


This is similar to one of the strategies our team discussed. One of our engineers advocated going up to the opponent and telling them that one goal was theirs, and that we would never touch it. Weended up deciding against it because it was just too weird.

What is so wierd about using negotiation as a strategy? Perhaps if the warring parties in the Middle East would be willing to do this, the world would be a safer place. This doesn't have to be a zero sum game (1 winner, 1 loser). We should be teaching this to our students. I think that this is consonant with FIRST's philosophy. Our drive team (all students, no adults) considered all of the possibilities, and figured out for themselves that everyone including us would make out better by adopting a cooperative strategy with our opponents. This turned out to be correct, we got more Q points losing this match than we did winning 2 other matches, and had fun as well (do you remember the dancing bots at either end of the field?). I think that this speaks to a larger issue in the FIRST community. I heard some comments this year about the game shifting more to a "football" or "sports" model, because last year's game was supposedly "boring" due to lack of head banging. In my opinion, nothing could be farther from the truth. I thought this year's game, with a few exceptions, was extremely boring, the same pushing and shoving match repeated over and over again. I'll admit that last year's scoring was just a tad complex for the average math dummy, but the spirit of FIRST rang true. It didn't this year, to me. A coach came up to me and said "wow, there were a lot of zero point matches, that means the play was good!" I tried to explain what we had done in the above mentioned match, and he just didn't seem to get it. Try this analogy: "Hey, none of the labs working on a cancer cure was successful! That means they are competing well and not sharing any valuable information that would lose their shareholders money!" GET IT? FIRST espouses a philosophy of wanting to change the culture. Why? I think it's because they believe it's our only hope for survival. I am extremely proud of all of our students, and was especially proud when they came up to me and asked if this strategy would be ok. That moment was worth all of the hours I've put in as a coach. They give me hope for the future.

Ben Mitchell 19-04-2002 15:06

Lewis Sussman - you said it!

As for #95 - I was at J&J MidAtlantic, and...

Their robot was amazing, hands-down the finest of the competition (those 20 ball clean sweeps really turned some heads;) )

The team is great, they were'nt nasty or cheating at all. I think that this particular match was somewhat of a good thing, that is, minimizing your losses, and making the best out of what would noramlly be a hopeless situation. Good Job #95!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:21.

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