Re: 2010 Finger Lakes Regional
 

...but what you guys did in Q70 wasn't 6 teams working together, having fun, and exercising the strengths of their robots. You deliberately chose not to play a 3-on-1 game against us, when on Friday we *did* play a 3-on-1 game against you guys. It might have kept you in the top 8, but I don't think that "when the going gets tough, quit" is what FIRST has in mind as a lesson it wants students to learn.

We had no intention of scoring in our own goals anyway, and your refusal to play was a 'strategy' aimed specifically at hurting our teams' standings -- because it did nothing to help yours. I have very serious doubts that 'Coopertition' has anything to do with what you guys did.

I always like to see you do well. Team 1551 owes its very existence to team 1511 in ways that you and most of my students will never actually know, and we will always be grateful for that and the support that you have given in the past and continue to give us. Many of your mentors are friends of mine, and I wish you all the best.

But the decision to not even play, to not even try to win the game, strikes me as a violation of the spirit of FIRST.

My friend Chris came to competition for the first time ever on Saturday, and he felt cheated as a member of the audience that he took time out of his busy schedule to watch students not even play. He really enjoyed the games where everyone was trying to win, but his comment after Q70 was "I'm glad I saw some good games before I saw this nonsense. I would have just left."

Re: 2010 Finger Lakes Regional
 

I don't think the coopertition system was meant to be a "no child left behind" policy. It was probably designed to encourage the use of novel strategies, like scoring on your own goal, not scoring, and cooperating with opponents to get more seeding points for both teams.

Re: 2010 Finger Lakes Regional
 

IMO, I'll give you the last one, but not the first two.

Coopertition would let them show off their own robots. Let them score some goals even if you can stop them. Don't prevent them from getting to the tower if you're already way out in front. Things like that.

Sharing/giving spare parts/tools/etc in the pits, or helping other teams with programming or repairs. That's Coopertition, too.

But scoring on your own goal almost seems like kicking your opponent when they're down. It gives them no more qualifying points, but increases yours more efficiently than scoring on your own. It also confuses the heck out of the audience -- and I know that for a fact.

I have a hard time imagining that the GDC even considered that teams would deliberately lose games or score points against themselves on purpose.

Re: 2010 Finger Lakes Regional
 

Pat,

I see what you mean. I guess I didn't think of it from that perspective, as we never had the strategy used against us. And now that I think of it, I think it may have given us a bit of a negative reputation, as we did it in another match earlier.

Of course, 1551 did end up the #1 seed, so it didn't hurt you guys too much. But I have concluded now that while effective with the current system, this strategy of, as you said "giving up" when you know you can't win is not in the spirit of FIRST, and is not gracious professionalism.

Having said that, I hope that teams do not utilize it, and I will make sure that 1511 does not use it as a go to strategy in the future, as it is unfair to our opponents and our alliance partners who would just sit there.

I do still hope that we see some 6 v 0 matches every once in a while.

Re: 2010 Finger Lakes Regional
 

Here's the thing. In a way, 1511 was playing to win. They got something positive out of it. Yes, the qualification match was more boring than watching paint dry, but they were playing the game. I could go on forever about how the ranking system is killing the spirit of FIRST, but you can read up on that on about 4 other CD threads.

I have to say I thought it was an excellent choice and smart of their "rookie" coach. I wouldn't really consider it "throwing the match" or "giving up" but as a different strategy to get as much as they could out of it. Think about all the times you've seen teams like 1114 score on themselves to boost their ranking score in previous systems...

...It's all how you play the game.

Re: 2010 Finger Lakes Regional
 

I'll start by bringing up a common thought we often hear in FIRST: while we all promote the notion of gracious professionalism (and I am a firm believe in what it aspires to accomplish) we must not forget that we are all partaking in a competition. Winners are crowned and champions are recognised because we all set out with the goal (not the ultimate goal, perhaps) of winning.

Is this really any different than trying to win in the "traditional" sense?

If we posit that the best way to win is to seed highly enough to choose the alliance that you deem to be ideal, then we can say that this is the goal of a team at an event.

In years past, this goal of seeding high was accomplished by winning matches first and then ensuring the closeness of matches second. This year, it is only desirable to ensure the closeness of matches as winning is almost immaterial in the grand scheme of things.

In both situations, in order for one team to seed higher than another, that one team has to carry out certain actions that are beneficial to themselves but detrimental to the other. Where this action has traditionally been winning, this year it is ensuring that the seeding points of your opponents are reduced while your own are increased.

The rules about seeding have changed this year and teams have simply adapted their game play to fit the rules. If winning a match doesn't matter, why try to win a match? Can this really be considered to be contravenes to the goals or spirit of FIRST? In my opinion, this adaptiveness should be lauded, not scorned.

In the years of ranking points, self-scoring was a common theme, why would it not occur when winning doesn't even matter? I am sure that the concept of scoring on oneself came up in the GDC's discussion of this game, and if it didn't perhaps they should endeavour to be more careful in considering the ramifications of major rules changes in the future.

We were all thrown a serious curveball with the ranking system this year. A week in, we've seen that come late Friday and early Saturday morning, some interesting strategies are going to be implemented. If there really are serious concerns about what is happening on the field, then the way to address that problem is by going to the source, not by looking down on the way teams adapt to the situation with which they are presented.

Re: 2010 Finger Lakes Regional
 

I guess I don't see how this makes sense. In a game where until Eliminations, wins and loses mean very little,(The winner does get CBP) a "weaker" alliance using a strategy to benefit itself is not counter to GP or Coopertition. Actually, isn't 6 teams playing together the best form of coopertition there is? Do you expect the "weaker" alliance to just play the match and take it? No. You expect them to do what they can to improve their standings in the rankings.

Anyway, Congrats to 1551,217 and 174. 217 was amazing out there and it was a fight for the number one seed to see who would get them and 1551 with their hanging deserved it. It will be scary/amazing to see what 217 and 148 will do together. And we still haven't seen 1114....

To 1511, Congrats on EI, you guys are an amazing team and we will be rooting for you guys in Bean Town. Your drive team is very strong and I know you guys will have great success.

To 639 and 2852 thanks for making us part of your alliance. I wish could have played one match 3v3 to really see what we could have done. I wish you both luck in your future events.

Thanks Steve, John Darr, and Paul for the great calling of the matches. You guys are some of the best voices in FIRST and it's always a pleasure to have you at FLR.

To all the teams, Congrats on being part of another amazing FLR.

And last but not least, all the volunteers whose countless hours and dedication make the Finger Lakes Regional possible, Thank You. An amazing event would not be possible without you. We all appreciate it.

See you in ATLANTA!!

Re: 2010 Finger Lakes Regional
 

FLR Webcast Viewers, I appoligize about the quality of the well... stop motion webcast of flr. This years goal was to at least get something up there so we can get the viewership data we need to build a higher quality webcast next year.

Next year we will do our best to bring a non slide show webcast of finger lakes ;-)

Re: 2010 Finger Lakes Regional
 

Wow, this year was so much fun. A little dissapointing but we weren't on our game. I just wanna thank all you guys for helping us out with parts and with helping righting us when we tipped. We kept getting caught off gaurd by the bump in the carpet from the plywood holding the bump in place.
I would also like to thank 1511 for letting us borrow grease to get a spare motor ready.
No more regionals this year, it just wasn't in the budget. Hopefully we'll see some of you guys at IRI later this year. If not I hope ypu had fun and see yall next year!!! ::safety::

Re: 2010 Finger Lakes Regional
 

Is the webcast archived somewhere?

Patrick

Re: 2010 Finger Lakes Regional
 

I'd just like to point this out it doesn't matter what the groundhog says it's FLR that signals the end of winter for rochestarians. The past three years as soon as the second day of FLR comes you can start to see the grass again and the snow stops falling.

Re: 2010 Finger Lakes Regional
 

I would like to second this question, or better yet, does anyone have videos from flr this year? If you do, it would be awesome if you post them on youtube, thanks.

Re: 2010 Finger Lakes Regional
 

Last year, I recorded it on my harddrive and parsed/uploaded the videos to TBA. I didn't have time to this year, I also hope someone has it recorded.

Re: 2010 Finger Lakes Regional
 

There was no team recording station this year. Only the webcast guys might have the full thing.

Re: 2010 Finger Lakes Regional
 

This year's scoring system adds an extra level of strategy to the competition. In order to succeed, you have to win on both. Theoretically, under this system, a team could win all 10 of their qualifying matches and still not make it into eliminations. Winning may not be important in FIRST, but being recognized for your achievements is, and being denied the finals because you won by too large of a margin does not follow FIRST's philosophy. I can see why people might be angry over the strategy of scoring on the other team's goal, but teams compete to win the competition, not just the game. If you are going to compete without trying to win, then there's no point in having a competition, we might as well just have teams individually show off their robot, and there's no fun in that. :(

Just my two cents...