Re: Curie 2010!
 

To all teams on Curie.
While tearing down the field on Curie we came across several team flags and I now have them in my possession.
If you are missing your flag contact me via PM (I have one from Team Rush, 537, and a GM flag to name a few).

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Still a little tired and overwhelmed from the whole weekend, but I wanted to address the comments on Match 100 in this thread. The decision to play 6v0 was made solely by the alliance of 231, 288 and 1114. We never let 111, 469 and 888 in on our strategy. The goal of the match was to obtain as many seeding points as we possibly could. The 111, 469, 888 alliance was an Einstein quality group of teams. We decided that the chances of beating them were very slim. We spent a lot of time discussing potential strategies, but the 6v0 definitely looked to be the one that maximized our seeding points. All three teams agreed to this strategy, although I don't think any of us were 100% happy about. It definitely feels weird not playing to win. As for the blocking our own goals. We were concerned that our opponents would start scoring in the other direction to maximize their seeding points once they realized we were aiming for a 6v0. We knew that the time they spent scoring in our goals meant less time they were scoring in their own goals, hence less seeding points for us. Wow, just thinking about this makes my head spin.

Also, our alliance was not the only one who ran this type of strategy this weekend. Our opponents played 6v0 against us a couple times this weekend, once using the goal blocking strategy. All part of this very weird game.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Here is the story from the field floor. When 888 failed to boot up and connect on the field, the field techs began the process of trying to determine whether it was a field error or robot problem. All diagnostic efforts were done by the field staff. No work was done on the 888 robot, other than power cycles and connection checks by the FTAs. They worked the problem for a long time. Probably longer than they would have at any regional. We assume this is because at championships they want to make an extended effort to make sure every match happens without field issues. The alliance had no choice or say in how long or short this effort lasted. When they finally concluded that it was a robot issue, the match was played 2 on 3 with 888 disabled, because they had already taken the field. Hardly an advantagous outcome for Alliance 3. Alliance 3 later utilized their time-out to try to fix the problem, was unable to, and called for a substitute in the later moments of the time-out as directed by the field officials.

Regarding the replayed match, again this was totally a decision of the field officials. No protest or challenge was made by any team. The rules explicitly state that any match with such field malfunctions will be replayed, so we assume that was the ruling. We would judge that the accumulated balls on our return rack did present a disadvantage for us, as we play a recycle strategey by controlling balls from the rack.

Edit: After reviewing the video of this match, the stuck balls did indeed starve our recycle efforts, and forced us to abandon the midzone and move to the forward zone, where there where only 2 balls remaining.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Hopefully the off season events will universally denounce the ranking system and go for the traditional W-L-T formula so we can see the matches played out like the elims which are very very fun to watch and teams won't have to obsess over seeding points as much and give the audience their money's worth.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Congrats to 1676 on a very solid season performance. You guys really made New Jersey proud. Keep it up.:)

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Absolutely 100% in agreement here. I didn't like to see it, and even Karthik admits it was kinda wierd, but the GDC knew exactly what they were doing when they designed this game, and I cannot imagine they did not consider such a possibility.Someone (888 I believe) kicked a ball off one of the bumps, and it went up and got lodged between the supporting wire and the rails of the ball return. That moved everything a bit, causing another ball to get stuck on the end of the return....and a great alliance partner! You guys rock!Or at least come up with some other way to rank teams. WLT has some disadvantages, where we see good teams hurt by weak alliances, just as Ranking Points has its disadvantages in that a team with a losing record can seed.

Something needs some tweaking. I'm sure the GDC would be happy to entertain suggestions.
Thanks! :)

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Attached is a frame grab of the ball return malfunction at the end of the second QF match. I circled the ball that caused the problem and drew in the path it took from 888's bot. The red ball return was loose and drooping for the entire tournament, I thought about saying something but never did...

Edit: Also, I'm not sure if the announcer mentioned it or if it influenced the refs decision, but during the match the middle field entrance fell apart and the Plexiglas part fell onto the field hook side up. At one point it got caught under our bot and impeded us a little, and at another we missed several scoring opportunities because the field crew was reaching on to the field to fix the problem.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

The ball stuck under the return was one of those things you don't expect to happen. A robot kicked a ball, and it somehow wedged itself on the underside of the ball return, between the cable and the poles. I made the decision to let the match run because a robot had kicked the ball there, and then sought guidance from above on a replay while the match continued. You can always replay a match after it ended, but you have to replay a match if you stop it early. The decision came back to replay, so we did. The balls did not fall off the ramp because as they ran down, they hit the stuck ball, and had to go up and over it. That stole enough speed that they did not clear at the bottom.
The ball return was as tight as it goes all weekend. We checked it after the ball got stuck and there was no room to take any more slack out of the cable. If you ever have a concern about the field being incorrect, please go and talk with your FTA at the event. If you had, I would have looked at it and been able to show you that it was fully tightened down.

Other than that, I think the field performed well. Thanks to all the teams for working with us to get things running. We may have run behind the other division a bit due to some extra troubleshooting, but I believe in No Robots Left Behind. Also, thanks to the many captains that listened to my spiel before selections about not using "graciously accepts." Your English teacher thanks you.


See you at the next one,

Wetzel

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Karthik,

I was lucky enough to be in que when this match went on. It was an absolutely brilliant move by 1114, 231 and 288 to play this strategy considering how close you and 111 were seeded at the time. The fact that the score was driven up into the 30 point range was just a bonus.

Also, in the end with the penalties assessed against the Alliance of 469, 111, and 888 wasn't there only a 2 point difference in the seeding points awarded between the alliances?

Anyway, thanks to all of the teams we played with on Curie over the weekend, we definitely had a blast and learned a lot!

Re: Curie 2010!
 

1114 absolutely made the right decision in match 100. We were only a few SPs behind them at that time and couldn't risk losing a close, high scoring match and falling into 2nd place. Looking back at the match now, we should have played it differently. We should have assumed that 1114 was going to play 6v0, skipped our autonomous, and immediately scored the 3 balls into their goals, then start scoring for us. That would have given us 6 more SPs than 1114.

There were a lot of strategic moves on Curie by teams that understand the ranking system. During our last match on Saturday against 40, they realized half way through the match, once we started scoring for them, that it was going to be a blow-out and proceeded to play defense on us, preventing us from scoring in their goals.

Both 1114 & 40 played the correct strategy, but I find it odd that most teams don't realize it. Far too often I've seen a team down at least 5 points at the end of the match go for the hang. The team cheers, but really, their opponents should be cheering louder since they just got a 4 point gift and the hanging team got nothing.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Mike,

I too thought this several times during the weekend. However, I think you suffer the same problem I have... You are on a team that was in the position to fight for seeding points to make the top eight. So, points were the most important thing to you...

However, if you put yourself in the position of a team that might be way out of the top eight and are just looking to get picked, the ability to hang in every match might be more important to show than the seeding points.

In that case, hanging, regardless of the score, is this right move for that team.

However, if I play devil's advocate for a second and take the approach that some others have approached the topic of 6v0 and 1114...is that decision to hang regardless of the points a selfish thing to do with regards to your teammates? What if they need points, or are trying to keep their opponent lower in points so they don't get past them and the hang just gives the opponent more points? Is their decision to hang, even in a losing situation, not in the best interest of your alliance when it only benefits the hanging team (rep) and the opponent alliance?

But, you can also devil's advocate the above argument saying that maybe penalties could be there, lowering the apparent winning alliance score, and the hang might give you the win...

I think it just shows that things aren't always black and white... We just have to think about it a little bit when we attack/commend teams for their actions on the field...




Unless, of course, you have a personal agenda against a certain team and use every chance you get to try and bash them publicly, which most people see through and it just proves how little of a man you are...no pun intended...

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I completely agree, I think I'll make a gif of the ball getting stuck to show people how ridiculously improbable it was.

I'd like to re-phrase my last comment a bit, I didn't mean to imply that the tension of the ball return was an oversight on anybody's part. The reason I never mentioned it to the field staff was that it wasn't really that bad.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Mark,
The FTA did check the tension of both ball returns following this match. I also looked at both ball returns from the driver's stations and you can be fooled by the shape and distance of the two. In my mind they were identical.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I would like to say, after competing with the best of the best in the world, that myself, and the entirety of team 1986 really enjoyed the unusual amount of mutual teamwork we were so welcome to in our alliances. Teams can get so focused with the robot that they forget about the team of drivers controlling that machine. I have seen some teams that just do not care about what the alliance had to say about any strategy or plans, but Curie was one of the nicest group of teams that I have competed with. So thanks!

To 888, 1676, and 1421, all of you guys were a great (super-)alliance, and arguably the best alliance of people I have ever teamed with. I saw zero problems with the team, no human player compromise issues, and everyone just worked together fluently, even with our robot issues, and our riddiculous set of quarterfinal matches. 1421 really came in the clutch after all of that, and really stepped up. You guys were really pivotal to get all three of us to the finals. Even faced against 1114 and 469, we worked together amazingly!

I would like to say to anyone reading this post, remember that FRC is not just about competing with the robot; your teams personality will show when you join alliances, so be a team that people want to team up with, not just with your robot, but with your own graciousness towards the game and the players.

Thanks again Curie! Great Division!:D

Re: Curie 2010!
 

It is my opinion that just because you find a hole in the ranking system doesn't mean you should go out and exploit it. You guys had an excellent robot (and you should be very proud) and I'm not entirely convinced that you would have lost. 469 was not unstoppable, we proved that in match #1 on Curie and 67, 177, and 294 proved it on Einstein. Regardless, if you had played the match out and lost, so be it...that's part of the qualification matches...sometimes you go up against hard teams. Just because you're given a tough match doesn't give you rights to take an unGP way to minimize casualties to ensure a 1st seed position. That being said its all in the past now, and hopefully the GDC will revisit their ranking system for next season. You guys were a formidable opponent and I am proud to have lost to an aliance of your caliber.