Re: A novel strategy: Always score for your opponents
 

We didn't, actually. One 6v0 game resulted in not enough qualifying points to change our overall seed early on Friday, and the other benefited us not at all.

Our second-to-last was a 6v0, and we got 11 points -- but so did our alliance partners (one of whom was seeded higher than us at the time), and so did our opponents (two of whom were seeded higher than us at the time). We were excited to have the 3rd and 6th seeded teams against the 4th and 5th, and were very disappointed that they essentially chose not to play. The strategy was used against us as a way to keep us at sixth -- below the other three. (The other two teams involved were out of the running at that point anyway.) All it really did was maintain the status quo... but we had one more game to play than either of those three teams did.

Our last match (Q74, the last qualifying match of the regional) was a hard-fought, all-out-on-both-sides 10-8 victory, netting us 26 qualifying points in one fell swoop and launching us into first place with 118 overall QPs.

So no, gentlemen, I reject the notion that we benefited from the overall strategy of this broken system. (And by the way I do agree with those who think that the system is broken... IF people choose to play it that way.) We benefited from having a great robot and a lot of hard-fought games.

Patrick

Re: A novel strategy: Always score for your opponents
 

I don't think you can have an argument that says "6v0 strategies do not work" when the #1 seed had 1/5 of their matches 6v0.

I'm not passing judgement on how you won or if 6v0 are 'right' or not. I'm just saying that the facts point to 6v0 being a good strategy.

Re: A novel strategy: Always score for your opponents
 

I sincerely hope there isn't a rule change mid-way through the competition season.

On a side note: How about FIRST giving a price break to teams attending a week 1 regional? Something like a beta test fee?

Re: A novel strategy: Always score for your opponents
 

Let's be perfectly clear. In the first 6v0 match, we were strongly favored to win anyway, which meant that the 6v0 strategy very likely cost us QPs. Not benefited us, but cost us, because we were strongly favored to win the game in the first place, and were denied double our opponent's score. It helped them, but it didn't help us.

The second 6v0 match (Q70) was a complete wash, because we were the lowest-seeded team of the four in contention, and would have gained on and possibly passed the #4 and #5 seeded teams had it been a straight-up game that we won. (And we likely would have won.) So this 'wash' also cost us in the seeding rankings, both in terms of overall position *and* in the QPs needed to catch the #1 and #2 seeded teams.

Those two 6v0 games decidedly did *not* help us -- they hurt our overall standing.

It is very disappointing to me that the first year we have ever been good enough to place in the top eight -- much less the top seed -- is being cheapened by these kinds of shenanigans. I'm very proud of my team, and I hope none of them read these threads and become disappointed that their well-earned place at the top of the FLR, won with honor, integrity, and gracious professionalism throughout, is being called into question because of an exploitative trick that twists coopertition into a dark vision of what it was supposed to be.

Even if the GDC envisioned 6v0 strategies as a way for teams to work together to rise all of their boats -- and I am far from certain that this is the case -- I *am* certain that they did not intend for it to be used to bring down successful teams.

And that's what it does.

It should be wholeheartedly rejected by all teams as counter to the spirit of FIRST.

Patrick

Re: A novel strategy: Always score for your opponents
 

No, I believe them to be human. They aren't deities and are going to miss something eventually. I think that they rarely have an issue this big is a note of their intelligence. However, I believe this case was a definite oversight/misjudgement. Let them learn from it and fix it in the future.

Re: A novel strategy: Always score for your opponents
 

I'm surprised so many people are willing to adopt this strategy. It may get you more seeding points in the long run and place you higher in the rankings, but it is actually against the spirit of the game and FIRST. Breakaway was designed to be easy to understand, as seen in the scoring system. Dean Kamen wants us to try to get as many non-FIRSTers to these regionals as possible. When you employ the 6v0 strategy, you are effectively confusing everyone in the audience and complicating the game. This is completely backwards from our goal to promote science and technology to the non-FIRST community.

A second fault with the strategy is it has the potential to put teams of lower caliber in the top 8, making the eliminations less exciting (where the strategy does not work anymore).

While it may be a valid strategy, and FIRST may have messed up the seeding system, I don't condone losing matches and getting a higher rank because of it.

Re: A novel strategy: Always score for your opponents
 

For all those suggesting that scoring into your opponent's goal is not GP or is not in the spirit of FIRST, I submit the following excerpt from Dean's Coopertition Patent

Emphasis mine.

This says to me that GDC both anticipated and desired the cooperative aspect created by this seeding system.

As I have said before, I am against collusive agreements between alliances. However, I feel that an alliance deciding, on their own, to cooperate for their opponent either in the form of 6v0 or in the form of only scoring a few goals to increase seeding points in a win is not only not against the spirit of FIRST and GP, but is exactly what the patent describes.

Re: A novel strategy: Always score for your opponents
 

I would just like to say that 1551 had a really good robot, and their number 1 position was well deserved.

EDIT: After reading the patent, it is obvious that the GDC intended it this way. There goes "easy to understand for the masses" out the window...
EDIT2:^^After further looking through the patent, this may not be true...

Re: A novel strategy: Always score for your opponents
 

The seeding system does seem to favor both "cooperative" 6v0 and balanced but "competitive" 3v3 matches, so maybe this *is* what the GDC is looking for...?

Re: A novel strategy: Always score for your opponents
 

Another thing of note is that date of Dean's patent: 2004. Do you think that they were really looking at the 2010 seeding algorithm in 2004? WTF?

Re: A novel strategy: Always score for your opponents
 

According to one embodiment of the invention, a first participating player, team, or alliance is motivated to cooperate with a second participating player, team, or alliance by rewarding the first participating player, team, or alliance for assisting the second participating player, team, or alliance to achieve a higher score than might otherwise have been the attainable.

I'd like to narrow the emphasis further to the bolded word. Assisting someone is not the same as doing it for them. Simply passing a ball is an assist...scoring it for them isn't an assist. At least not the way I've been taught.

Re: A novel strategy: Always score for your opponents
 

I dont think that this rule was for during competition--It may have been for in the pits, helping get an opposing alliances robot ready.

Re: A novel strategy: Always score for your opponents
 

I'm not sure what that has to do with coopertition-denying 3v0 games.

Re: A novel strategy: Always score for your opponents
 

After talking to pfreivald, I learned that we were approaching the situation and this discussion from pretty different starting spots. Once we talked in the same 'common denominator' I think we came to the same conclusion or atleast understood the other's opinion better. So, hopefully this may help some the confusion:

My definition of 6v0 was different than his definition. I thought a "6v0" was when both alliances agreed before hand to only score for on alliance. However, he viewed it as any match where either alliance did not play full out to win. Basically when he said 2 of his matches were 6v0, I thought that they must have pre-planned it and scored for just one alliance. That was not the case, however, because we had different ideas of what a '6v0' was.

Secondly, in match 70 at FLR has been called a '6v0', but I think that is a mistake. As discussed in this thread and the FLR one, once two of the one alliance's robots did not work, the final alliance partner decided to sit infront of the goal and did not score, which would have given the other alliance 2 points for each goal. Many (including myself) feel that was a very smart play by that team as they did not want to fall further behind in the rankings. But, from the other perspective, it hurt the other alliance as their ranking points were abnormally low because that team did not partake in the match. I can understand how someone would feel upset and how the other alliance " purposfully quit so we couldn't get ranking points".



I think the 6v0 (my definition) strategy is a legitimate strategy that is well within the rules and GP. That, however, does not mean I will use it in every single match.
While I understand how someone can feel that other team 'quit so we couldn't get ranking points', I compare it to playing defense (in previous years). Both are well within the rules of the game, and impede the other alliance from scoring so your alliance benefits. I know some disagree that playing defense and this 3v0 strategy is unGP. Although I understand their opinion, I respectfully disagree.

Re: A novel strategy: Always score for your opponents
 

A hypothetical team helps a second team by building their robot for them. Upon having success at their events, the second team receives much false praise for their "accomplishments", as in reality, they contribute little of their own efforts to the process. The first team carries them along, and they receive acclaim for what they have done to bring "success" to the second team. However, the second team no longer exists because they were never forced to stand on their own two feet - they were never encouraged to become an active participant in the process - and they believed the false hype handed to them by their benefactors and the FIRST community at large.

I view scoring for the opposition when the opposition is less capable in exactly the same manner.

However, I view "ammo sharing" among competitors as a valid application of the patent language.

It is not impossible for Dean Kamen to make a mistake in judgment, nor is it impossible for him to overlook rather important side effects of the game mechanics he has patented.