Playing two different games this year?
 

One outcome from coopertition-based scoring is the possibility of playing two very different Breakaway games. Will your team adopt this strategy? Or will you play to maximize coopertion bonus (close, high scoring matches)?

To avoid negative connotations, I'll avoid the word "collusion" in describing the game played in qualifications. If ALL teams at a regional agree to play qualification matches according to a "fully-cooperative" strategy, then no harm is coming to the teams as a result of pre-match agreements. Here's the "full-cooperative strategy" for qualification matches:

1. ALL scoring will be for only one alliance in the match (RED or BLUE), it won't matter to the teams in the match.
2. NO defense is ever played.
3. NO autonomous scoring for the "losing alliance"
4. NO robots elevated or suspended for the "losing alliance"
5. NO penalties (always a good idea).
6. The objective for the teams is to achieve the most lopsided score possible: (i.e. 30 - 0, 40 - 0, or more).

Teams on both alliances will get large seeding scores.

The game in elimination matches are competitions where it's all about winning. Defense is back (and probably important). Scoring in autonomous and hanging/suspended robots are important. This is the game that won't require any special explanation to spectators.

Do you want to play Breakaway like this??

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

What makes me so upset about the seeding system is that teams had to decide to make either a bot optimized to do well in qualifications or eliminations, as drastically different robots are required for each. I thought that was the reason we switched to W / L / T in the first place!

A qualification robot doesn't have to worry about traction or a shooter that works over more than one bump. Often they don't even need to hang.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

Although it may help teams get to eliminations, it wouldn't help when choosing an alliance partner or for those who plan to play defense in the elims. No experience playing defense could be a very bad situation -- think about going into the quarter finals not knowing what the refs are picky about, how they feel about contact over the bump, or how capable your team or a team picked for an alliance will be when it really comes to pushing power?

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

No, not at all. Will I play Breakaway like this? Yes, if it maximizes our seeding score.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

Our team choose not to do this, since we knew that we wouldnt be int the top 8 anyways, so if we could wow another team with our awesomeness :P, then we could get into their alliance. It's also more graciously proffesional to play the game the way its supposed to be played.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

If I were in the top 8 and our alliance had asked you to play a certain strategy in a match during qualifications and you refused I would not pick you no matter how awesome you were.

Ignoring an alliances strategy is done at your own risk.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

Our alliance agreed with us; it was a different match that one of the teams pulled this strategy.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

I cant believe people are actually considering this. What is the point of a competition if all you are going to eliminate the competition. Now I can understand scoring for your opponent when you are up big to get some extra coopertition points, but to score only for them, come on. Why would anyone want to do this?

Yes, you may move up, but where if the satisfaction in knowing you did well to earn your position. At the end of the day, I like to see where I am ranked and think about how I got there, what I did well and what I could have done better. If I followed this strategy and was ranked #1, I would not feel accomplished, I would feel I achieved "success" by cheating the system.

I have fun before, during, and after every single match, why would someone give that up in order to get ranked higher? Qualification matches are matches you are guaranteed to play. Would I give up 10 guaranteed matches to play maybe more than 2 matches in eliminations? Never.

People complain about the ranking system in the past, FIRST tries to do something new, and instead of going along with it, people try to find ways around it, and ruin the system. This is meant to encourage high scoring by both alliances, not lopsided for one. If people wouldnt come up with things like these, I think the new ranking system may have worked.

People say the crowd will be confused when the undefeated robot is not number 1. Try explaining to them why they are watching robots scoring in the wrong goal instead of competing. Good luck.

What is teaching the kids on your team? If you dont think you can win just give up and help your opponent. Some say if their drivers wont do this they will find new drivers. Let them get new drivers, dont give up your fun in because people on your team want to win with no dignity.

If you actually try this, good luck. One of the teams on the other alliance will begin to score for you. They wont pass up this opportunity. When they score for you, you just became the losers, big time.

I will never follow this strategy, I actually enjoy playing the game.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

Well I'd like to provide an example today from the DC regional. It was the last qualification match of the day. The MC commends the teams for all agreeing to only score on one side. The whole point was to increase everyone's seeding point before the end of the qualifications.

The match ended 5 - 0 with a red card and a yellow card being played. So much for that, I hope some other teams can pull it off!

(If you were at DC, please correct me if I'm wrong! That's how I remember it going...)

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

well, if it makes you feel better this was pulled off in the last match at the Greater Kansas City Regional. The final score was 14-0 but the winning team got 1 penalty. This got several teams from both alliances moved up in the rankings. I would have considered this i very smart strategy for them.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

As a disclaimer, I think the coopertition bonus is really dumb.

I think you're entirely off base here though. You ask what the point of a competition is. The point is to win. If executing a strategy that requires you to intentionally lose in order to maximize seeding points is what it takes to win, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

You can be sure that the GDC full well knew what they were doing when they introduced the coopertition bonus. They had to know it invited scenarios to occur where both alliances will score for only one alliance. They knew that it invalidated wins and losses.

If you know that wins and losses are unimportant, winning the match becomes irrelevant. The only thing that matters is maximizing your seeding score. There are a number of ways to do that. The system allows you to be rewarded for intentionally losing and scoring for the opposing alliance. I find this highly counter intuitive and think it will be a nightmare for the casual observer to understand, but it makes perfect sense when you consider the intent of "coopertition".

I don't see anything shameful about executing this strategy. Nor do I feel that if you seed first by doing so, you somehow didn't earn it. You still have to score the points on the field to earn the seeding points to rank first.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

Just like in sports, throwing the game like this is unacceptable. Don't be concerend about rank....we were in 47th place at the start of day three (GSR 2010) and we move up to 28th in three matches, got picked for an alliance and won GSR! (paired with 1519 and 1073). It is more important to look at the result of scouting than it is for ranking. So scout!!!!!

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

Having the most seeding points does not mean you win. If you do this and lose in the quarterfinals what do you have to show for your weekend? No wins.

Also IF you get to elims, your drivers will have no experience. They practiced scoring away from them with no defense. Now try to have them score toward them while being defended.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

We built a pretty solid robot and found ourselves in last place by playing defense well. I personally don't like the scoring system, confusing and anti competition. We will definitely look at working across alliances at the next regional. At the end of day one, with a winning record, we found ourselves near last place because we shut out the opposing teams a few times playing good defense. Good defense in qualifiers returns bad rankings and no selection.

It is a little difficult to convince the teams that are selecting that your rankings are bad because you played defense well. As an example we went up seven ranking points in a loss at one point. Doesn't make sense at first, but now we know.

Just an FYI.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

This strategy reminds me of when a number of NHL players threw a post season game because they got to play more consolation games and make more money, because they got paid by the game, rather than continue through the post season as far as they could.

Sure it maximizes your seeding score, but then everyone would have a high seeding score. No drive teams or robots would stand out because no one will be challenged. I feel it would just make every team have a high seed score regardless of anything else, taking any competition out of the picture.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

2-3-1 is not a winning record. You got ranked so low because there was almost no scoring for either alliance.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

Oh by the way sorry to the teams we played defense for, didn't mean to cause harm.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

Sorry not exactly at the end of the day towards the end, we had most of our matches late and close together. Didn't figure out the coopertition effect until late in the day. Thanks for pointing that out.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

Fear not defensive bots! 1727 Was number 1 seed at DC, and this is how we chose our alliance. We chose no. 2 seed 3123 for their amazing offensive robot. Then when we needed to choose our defensive robot, we completely ignored the rankings and went to our scouting data. The top of our list was 176, because of their 6wd articulated traction wheel chassis. They turned out to be perfect for defending the goals due to their superior pushing power. They hadn't ranked as high due to their defensive playing. This alliance went on to win the eliminations!

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

I think it is fair to say that the GDC probably did not foresee all the possible ramifications of this seeding system. I understand and agree with the concept of coopertition, but when a win is a loss and a loss is a win, when poor robots rise to the top of the seeding, and when it becomes smart to forfeit matches and not play the game, the something is clearly wrong. I talked to both students and mentors this weekend that were discouraged that building a good robot meant less than knowing how to game the seeding system. If the cooperition factor is taken too far and begins to effect the participants' moral, or if FRC gains the reputation for being a league where being good doesn't really matter, then that is potenitally damaging ground for FRC.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

It does not mean you win, but having the top pick of the draft is a big deal. It sets you up to win.

I don't see what the outrage is here. FIRST made the rules, we play with them. This is hardly a loophole. It was an expected outcome, that people began discussing on Chief mere hours after the rules were released.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

But you won't know who is good and who is bad because no teams will have been challenged the way they will be in the finals. What's the point of picking if you have minimal criteria to judge by?

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

I agree with other posters that say the GDC set the game up and its not throwing the game, it's playing smart. It should lead to more scoring. But the one example of how someone can win 8-0 (or was it 6-0) with a 2 point penalty and lose the seeding points to the loser shows how important penalties are this year. They seem to be a much larger aspect of the game then in years past.

Any thoughts?

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

You will know who is good and who is bad. That's what scouting is for. The best robots are generally the ones that are driven the best and coached the best. The way you play the game doesn't change how well you drive your robot.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

the whole point of the rule, that i see, is to keep the scores close. So teams arn't out there scoring 30-0.

Comparing to NFL. Yall are saying you should try to be last so you can get the first pick.

Why would anyone outside of FIRST, and really anyone in FIRST, want to watch any matches outside of Elims.? How could a student possibly explain to a parent that by them intentionally losing a match they can possibly "earn," term used very lightly, a spot in the finals. I liked the old ranking system, not sure why they changed it but I guarantee they didn't have this in mind when they set it up.

Play the game like it was meant to be played. Quit lawyering things. Win because you build the best possible robot you could, not because you cheated the system. You'd have to kick me off of being a driver cause there's no way I would ever intentionally lose any match. D-bots, play D. Show teams what you can do. THAT should be what earns you a spot in the finals.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

If say I'm a D-bot and you're telling me NOT to play D. Then how on earth would any scout know that I am great at D? Explain that one to me please.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

30-0 is good for both teams, perhaps even better for the losing team if there is a penalty on the winning team.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

But how can you test driving and coaching if no one is playing defense? At the Granite State regional I saw teams that were prolific scorers break down completely with a big of defensive pressure in the finals. They would go from scoring 5-6 goals a match to 0, or 1 with any amount of defense.

There were other teams that dealt very well with the pressure and could generally still score several goals under pressure, like 1073 who was on the championship alliance. There were teams that knew when to transition depending on said defensive pressure, and there were some that clearly didn't handle it well and suffered blow-out losses in the finals.

Without competitive seeding matches these strengths and weaknesses will never come to light and the final matches will be a complete mess, probably with less capable teams in the top 8. The final matches should be the best, most capable, most competitive teams. Not teams that potentially coasted in because of a few penalties on other teams during co-op games.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

I do agree, this is not a loophole, however I do not feel that any team will benefit from doing this.

How will you know which robots are driven and coached the best? You can see who is best at scoring for the other goal. Some people underestimate this, but I can tell you from experience that trying to aim at a goal next to you is not easy. It took me a while to get the aiming down in practice. Im not sure if a driver could make this transition fast enough to be an effective scorer in elims. Who is the best coached will not be known at all. The coach would not need to work on any in game strategy because they dont have anyone against them.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

Not always.
In San Diego, we chose 294 because they played a good defense. The disconnect between qualifying and elimination strategies does create a problem for defensive robots. Play your game and hurt your alliance's ranking or play for ranking and hurt your chance of being selected, if you don't make the top 8.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

I'm not saying that it makes sense for your entire strategy to be to score for the other alliance for the entirety of a regional event during qualifications. I'm saying there's situations where it makes sense to do so.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

Well I for one, don't see much advantage in only scoring on one alliance for a few reasons.

1) Let's say that only one alliance is scored on. One alliance (the "losing" one) will still gain more seeding points than the other alliance if there are penalties. Penalties are very easy to get this year, especially with travel over the bump. Each alliance will want to have more seeding points, so this cohesion will be impossible if alliances can't decide who will lose. In the pursuit of losing on the field, each team will try to score on themselves as much as possible, but this would cause the coopertition bonus to come into play, and so each team would go back to scoring on their opponents. End result, normal game play.

Summary of that confusion I just typed: Both teams will want to lose, the attempt to lose causes the coopertition bonus to kick in, and the game will resume back to normal.

2) If everyone scores on one goal, then at the end the top 8 teams have a high probability of being just random teams. A good team will focus their efforts on showing off their robot's capabilities during qualifications, so they are a nice pick for a top 8 team. You are not standing out at all by scoring on one person.

3) The team that would be chosen ahead of time to "win" will quickly realize that scoring on their opponents will increase their seeding points by even more. The reason for this is the coopertition bonus. Everyone will see this happen, the "losing" alliance realized that they have been had, and no one will so it again.

As far as all of this decreasing a teams trust for picking for elimination rounds, the teams have proven that they want to win, the only way they can win is by playing for the team. They have also proven that they are in the spirit of the game. If anything, you would be inclined to pick these teams.

I know scoring on one alliance has been seen already and will be seen again, but it's more of a last ditch effort than an actual smart strategy of getting to Atlanta.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

And don't forget about durability. If the qualifying matches are played like flag football and the eliminations are full contact. A robots first real hit could be its last.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

Im sorry, I thought that was all you wanted to do. Yes, strategically it would make sense to do this sometimes. I just cant see myself doing this because these situations would be matches you think you would lose. I would not want to give up because assumably the other alliance is a high scorer, so if my alliance were to win we would get more seeding points.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

Yes, I agree that there are times when you would want to do this in specific situations. (Rant/example below)

Rant::Yesterday on our last match at Kettering one of our alliance partners broke down very early in the match and seeing that we were in a losing situation we successfully scored multiple points for the other alliance. The game ended with a score of 10-0. Despite the fact that it cost us a game (we were then 9-3-0) I believe we made the right decision. I even had a judge come up to me later in the pits and compliment us on our "smart" stratagy. However, I am under no circumstances saying teams should make this their stratagy every game, it is for us, a team who won many of our matches X to 0 giving us a very low co-op score, just another part of the crazy new system.
::end rant

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

This should be done regardless of which way you play the game. the ONLY use i find in this is if the game is a 12-11 match, which we've only seen ONCE so far.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

The absoult worst thing about a 6v0 stradgy is that it does NOT maximize the seed points. In fact it minimizes them.

Consider a 16-0 score each teams get 16 seed points. Not to bad, right?

Now consider those same 16 goals split evenly for a 8-8 tie, Here each team gets 24 seed points!

Looks to me like a tie is the way to maximize seed points. Why in the world would you want to leave one side scoreless? The alliance which through strong defence skunks the other alliance hurts only themselves.

Play no defence and strive for a tie.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

I think with TU 16, it is generally agreed that the mutual 6v0 strategy is no longer a preferred option (though it may still occur for reasons I will list below). Let me be clear that I was not a big fan of 6v0, but understood there may be times when it may have been appropriate.

First of all while I fully agree that 6v0 does not maximize seed points, it does not minimize them. In a match, points scored for the losing alliance do not benefit the losing alliance. With 6v0, every goal helps both alliances. Further the argument was that under 6v0, more goals could be scored than under a 3v3 situation.

I also grant that a tie is the best outcome to maximize seeding points betwen two alliances working together. However a tie is much more difficult to engineer than simply scoring all your goals on one side. I believe to properly execute it, you almost need to predetermine the final score, which I feel is one step too far in the argument of collusion. There was also the argument that when engineering a tie there is a much larger incentive to backstab. I didn't like this argument because I feel that is definetly unprofessional and that one's reputation is far more important than seeding points.

Lastly, I think most of its advocates understood that 6v0 does not maximize your score but reduces risk. It's the question of whether you would prefer to have $2, or play a game where a die is rolled that paid $6 if the result was even. The $6 pays better; even the expected value $3 pays better, but there may be situations where all you need is the guaranteed $2.

As an aside, strong defence has its place in qualification matches. Not all teams are aiming to be in the top 8 seeds. For some teams, the qualification matches are there to showcase their abilities which may include impressive defensive capabilities. For others, the win resulting from strong defence may score better than the loss that results without it. Sweeping generalizations on what is the optimal strategy are rarely correct in complicated games.

Re: Playing two different games this year?
 

If you mess up a tie, one team gets screwed over. If you mess up a shutout by missing a ball or something, no biggie. Well, back then. now with the update, predetermined matches won't happen, just occasional bailouts and throws.