Re: Curie 2010!
 

Nice job 1511, 2775, and 175! Three robots hanging!

Re: Curie 2010!
 

The Curie matches have been very exciting so far! I'm also happy to see that my friends on 175 have been representing CT so well. :)

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I knew it from the start, and so far everyone down there is proving me right that Curie is the Division of 2010.:D

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Wo! An upset on 469, their first defeat!

IT really proves that they need a good offense to start up their loop.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

469 has lost before.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Agreed. The camera operators need to look at the big display. Also, I'd love to be able to see all of the field at once. Much more interesting to watch than a traffic jam in midfield

Re: Curie 2010!
 

LOl I just realized that. How about first defeat at championships?

Re: Curie 2010!
 

After Qualification 43 ended , I checked FRC Spyder and saw that 469 was in 25, and as someone who has quickly become a fan of that team, I am a little bit shocked. I am crossing my fingers that they pull ahead with some more rounds tomorrow.

Edit: I started watching late and was going back and forth between divisions (even though I was watching mostly Curie) so if anyone found a good answer to why this is happening I would love to hear it.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

We showed it to them in Q1 on Curie. 1075, 1676, 138 over 537, 469, 223. 8-7.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

They lost 2 matches. That is all. Their issue on the second one was that (no offense to their alliance partners, may you be reading), they were unable to start the loop. Even with the defending robot out of commission, only about 2 balls were scored by them. Furthermore, the offensive robot's autonomous got in the way of 469, and never ended up getting the balls that were moved to the zone in. I am, however, amazed to see 2169, with 0 regional wins under them leading the division. Just goes to show how wacky the seeding points system is.

I dont know what happened to the first one, though.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I know that we're a happy team right now. After an entire build season of effort and drive, we finally got to see our looper in action with some good alliance partners. We started in the opponent's home zone, kicked two balls out in autonomous, just barely missed the third ball, crossed the hump and headed over to our tower and deployed our looping design features.

We locked our handcuffs to the tower, deployed our drawbridge with deflector and deployed our poptop. We got a chance to loop 7 balls throughout the game and we are just so happy to see our design realized and for it to perform like we designed it. :-) We have seen our kicker and possessor work for 17+ games now but finally got to see the looper system work. Qualifier 32 is my favorite game of ours right now.

Curie is turning out to be a fun division and we are looking forward to day 2. Good luck to all out there.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

no... i think its going to be archimedes

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Honestly Archimedes is going in History as the Division of Champs this year (it does have 1124 in it, which is enough for me to say that about Archimedes :D) but for me personally, Curie has most of the teams I want to see expect for one or 2, and so far has given me the type of matches I want to see.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I watched that match, and loved it! Your looper is just so beautiful in action, with the curve!

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I think that Barry Bonzack should be announcer in Curie at least once. Just saying.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I don't know, with all the attention on 1114 and 469 I have a feeling that someone is going to catch them by surprise. I don't know who or when, but it should be fun to watch as it plays out.
Good luck everyone

Re: Curie 2010!
 

With 469 seeded in the high 20's, I think they may be out of the running for #1 seed.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I guess that team is 2169 so far.
We'll get a clearer picture after today.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I haven't been able to watch the webcast yet. Can anyone tell me why 469 isn't seeding as high as expected? I know its early, and that things can change, but are teams playing more defense? Are they malfunctioning? Or are they just getting unlucky with their alliance partners?

I also know that, barring malfunctioning or an effective stopper strategy, it really doesn't matter where 469 seeds. As long as a strong offensive robot selects them, they'll go far.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I've seen them having to pull out of looping position and play regular due to a lack of ammo a few times. Looks like they've run into some ball starvation D. Some of their alliance partners have also had bad matches.

Curie's had a lot of high scoring, close matches, so it's taking a lot of seeding points to get up in the top.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

On the webcast the audio is sorta messed up for Curie right now :(

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Holy $@#$@#$@#$@#, did you see match 100?

1114+469 6V0

Re: Curie 2010!
 

1114 goes 6v0 in match 100 against 469 and they score 32 balls!

The human players couldn't quite keep up so the 469 alliance picked up 3 DOGMA penalties.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Well match 100 was certainly interesting. 29-0 (after 3 penalties) in the first true 6v0 I've seen.

Wow.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

32 scores intially, and a final score of 29!!!!! Amazing!!!! That for me was the match of the year.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

IT was hardly 6v0, it was pretty much just the blu alliance keeping out of the way :P

Re: Curie 2010!
 

If that was a preview of the eliminations....that was a bit scary.....

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Final score of 29 :P That's so insane. I wish I could have watched it (webcasts are giving me issues). Great job teams!

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Surprising, and gracious, that Simbotics was willing to give up their no-loss 55-0-2 season for this match...! WOW!!!

Re: Curie 2010!
 

That's not really true. 4v0 may be more accurate but 1114 certainly scored quite a few goals and moved quite a few balls up. It may have looked like they weren't doing anything sometimes because they were being careful not to block any of 469's shots. They would wait for a gap, the plow the misses into the goal.

The other 2 blue robots were blocking their goals to assure the 0 for the red alliance.

Mark, the Simbotics wasn't doing that just to put on a show. They likely felt that they going 6v0 and getting a guaranteed ~30 pts. was the better move to help them seed high versus taking the chance of playing the match out against 111 and 469 and risking a much lower score if they lost.

Note I am just speculating on the above, I have no inside knowledge of 1114 strategy.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Totally agree, didn't mean to say they were just doing it for show. I just think they were doing pretty well in seeding without this match, and probably would still have ended up #1 or #2 with the way they were going - with the chance for maintaining a perfect season :)

Re: Curie 2010!
 

While unless someone here can actually talk to 1114, we can only speculate, but I too agree that was more then likely their strategy.

It paid off, it defiantly put them higher up in the rankings, and while they did sacrifice their no loose score, sometimes to take it all you have to do something like that.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Karthik is know for understanding all the ramifications of strategy. Having the two robots defend the blue goals is key to keep the winning team from defecting from any agreements.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Again speculation, but judging by the actions of 888 trying to defend 1114 at the beginning of the match I'm not so sure this was the result of an agreement as much as it was a one-sided decision by the 1114 alliance.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I think this was the case; if they worked it out ahead of time there would have been no reason to block blue goals because red would have likely agreed not to score on blue for the coopertition bonus. The reason being that if red were scoring for the coopertition bonus, theoretically it would be points they could score on themselves, thus deducting from 1114's alliance and their overall seeding points, which 1114's alliance likely wouldn't have agreed to in pre-match because then 469's alliace would get more than 5 more seeding points(assuming red wins, which was the plan on 1114's part regardless of whether it was talked out or not).

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Curious, why do you say gracious? I have no problem with the strategy they employed, however, if you assume that the 1114 alliance likely would have lost even if they hadn't played 6v0* then what they did benefited them and "hurt" the 469/888/111 alliance, because each point that 1114 scored for their opponents was worth 1 point to everyone, while if they had scored for themselves it would have been worth 2 points to their opponents and 0 to themselves. So, if you say gracious implying that they were somehow helping out the 469/888/111 alliance, then I disagree. They were playing to maximize their own benefit, plain and simple (which, again, I have no problem with and would do the same thing in their shoes).

* I make the assumption that 1114 figured there was a reasonable chance they'd lose the match, because if they knew they could win then then they obviously would have played straight-up.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I think that we need word from 1114 as what their intent was, and when they decided to use this strategy.

By your post, Dave Flowery, I assume that the 6v0 was not decided ahead of time.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I'm willing to bet their strategy is "get as many seeding points as possible so we can get to Einstein". What else would it be?
I'm not in Atlanta and I haven't spoken with anyone on the team there today, so I have no idea if it was planned or not.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

They must have deided ahead of time judging by their lack of autonomous...1114 wouldn't show up and not move in autonomous unless it was intentional.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

You want to know why 1114 locked down the goals? Look who is #2 and 5 points behind them in the standings - 469's partner in that match, 111. It seems to me they were ensuring that 111 didn't receive a 2x loser's score bonus to boost them relative to 1114's standing, other than the 5 point win bonus. Hmm, it appears that 1114 covets that #1 seed. I wonder why that is, perhaps? ;)

The talk post-Match 100 surely cements my beliefs in making the "interesting" post about this match in this thread a few days ago. There were too many teams who are known for strategerizationery involved in this match for some kind of traditional gameplan to occur.

In my opinion, this match does underscore the dorkiness of this coopertition model. And as always, the best teams came out ahead in the process at the expense of the 2nd tier teams. Even though they appeared to go along with the ploy, I truly wonder how good 288 and 231 felt about that *awesome* 29 points they received that did nothing to elevate them anywhere near the top 8, while they sat there doing nothing. Yee haw boy howdy, excitement on the Curie field.

I can't fault teams for doing what they can to legally work the system to their advantage, but I can fault the system for placing teams in situations where lame decisions such as these have to be made.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Man, Earthquakes all over the place, Volcanos and clouds of ashes, S&Ps down 25 pts! and now 1114 is first seed and going to probably pick 469... yep, id say the end of the world is near

Re: Curie 2010!
 

LOL good way to put it!

I wonder what 1114 will pick second O___O

Re: Curie 2010!
 

If they don't want to disappoint it will be 469 but only time will tell.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I am curious to hear 281's and 288's side of the story of how this went down.

And for those who need to see this match...

www.vandenrobotics.com/Videos/cu_m100_hires.wmv

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I know the trend is to talk about match 100, but I am back into the hotel now and want to say thanks to the above quote. This has turned into an awesome second year experience.

It's funny, the announcer today compared our looper to a lounge chair during one of the games (and called the wrong team name for our number but its stressful so I'll give him some slack. It's Prometheus. LOL) and after looking at our video this evening I thought it does look like a lounge chair when in looper mode. It gives me ideas for off season fund raisers. :-)

Anyway, we got to deploy the looper another couple of times today and its been real fun. Curie is shaping up to be an exciting division.

Now that the exclaiming of our team's elation and fun is over I will return to your regularly scheduled match 100 commentary and state that I pretty well walked out of match 100 as soon as I saw what 1114 was doing. I was looking forward to that match all day to see how the different bots played when against each other, and was disappointed to see teams playing the stupid coopertition aspect versus playing hard that match.

I can't blame 1114 because its obvious they are going for that 1st seed hard, but I do blame the GDC for coming up with a qualification system that rewards lawyering and shenanigans versus rewarding fun, competitive game play. It turned what should have been a super exciting match into a joke, and if nothing I hope this will be the last year of coopertition. You should qualify the same way you eliminate if you ask me.

Good luck to all in Curie.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I watched the match with the lawnchair (webcast, of course), and have been wanting to ask you guys since then:

How was the beer?

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Oh if only there was beer. :-) It would make the competition a lot more interesting for sure. But seeing as its about high schoolers we have to stick to fizzy and fruit drinks. LOL

I wish we would have thought of using a lawnchair, it would have made the construction a lot easier.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Just an ignorant Mom here, but could someone explain to me about match 110? Why did 1511 not get the 2 bonus points for a successful hang? At least from the web cast it looked high enough and in plenty of time. There was plenty of speculation about the red hang, but no discussion about 1511, so we thought it was a given, yet when final score was announced, no bonus for blue. ??

Re: Curie 2010!
 

It was a poor choice of words, I admit. I was trying to convey what a big deal it would be, at least to me, to give up a 'perfect' record for the strategy gambit. Perhaps this is better stated as the perfect embodiment of why the new system is less than desirable: decide that you will probably have a hard time winning, even though you've had a 'perfect' record so far in 3.5 events, and instead of "going for it", admit defeat and go for the strategy. Totally the best strategy, just made me sad to see the game go that way :/ Sorry for the poor choice of words.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

And 111's last match may have just earned them a #1 seed on Curie... 1114 has to gain at least 30 seeding points to top Wildstang. Wow, that's strange. That was my 111th post!

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Wow! 1114 pulls it off!

1 1114 10 301.00 104.00 22.00
2 111 10 286.00 120.00 4.00
3 2612 10 264.00 124.00 4.00

I'm not sure about the rest, but I think the top 3 seeds are pretty much set.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

These are the rules as set out by the GDC so I think your portrayal of 'lawyering' and 'shenanigans' are inaccurate. This happened in 2003 on a large scale so the GDC knew what was coming.

1114 is just playing the game in an intelligent way so you are right not to blame them. These actions are not shenanigans or lawyering, they are just the rules as they were explained to EVERYONE. Characterizing their game play as shenanigans is a shot at them, you know that. If you want to criticize the GDC go ahead, but don't bring 1114 into it.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Well, 1114 and 469 are together. Let's see how these strategies play out.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Curie division alliance selection (no declines)

1: 1114 (1) - 469 (21) - 2041 (28)
2: 111 (2) - 1538 (23) - 2630 (36)
3: 1986 (3) - 1676 (4) - 888 (54)
4: 2612 (5) - 27 (9) - 141 (80)
5: 1306 (6) - 2337 (19) - 624 (63)
6: 175 (7) - 88 (20) - 573 (18)
7: 3234 (8) - 2775 (12) - 40 (49)
8: 1511 (10) - 1732 (25) - 368 (13)

Backups are (if I'm reading correctly)
2992 (11)
126 (14)
1421 (15)
2169 (16)
830 (17)
115 (22)
2557 (24)
1764 (26)

Re: Curie 2010!
 

No shock to 1114 and 469. I am a little shocked about 2041. However they seem like a good 3rd partner.

I'm just glad we finnaly know who the 3rd parter is on the Alliance we have been discussing about for so long. I hope everyone down there or back home has a good lunch, and Lets hope for some amazing elimination rounds in Curie.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

GOOD LUCK ALLIANCE #2 - Wildstang (111), Thunderbolts (2630) and The Holy Cows (1538)! :)

Hope to see some good matches :)

Re: Curie 2010!
 

How'd that ball get stuck in the return for Q 4-2?

Re: Curie 2010!
 

from what I heard on the webcast, somehow the ramp went into compression / was depressed and made a gap between the end of the ramp and the cross bar from the tower causing the ball to get stuck and all balls after to get stuck behind it.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

please tell me someone has a recording of the MC shaking his thing speach. I want to do a techno remix of that.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

As an alumni I'm beginning to get very frustrated by the lack of follow through with penalty assessments. Alliance number 3 had almost two timeouts essentially. And a game replayed where there was no advantage what so ever. If anything the number 6 alliance where the ones that were at a disadvantage as those balls that come in from alliance 3 come in their direction. I really am frustrated by this entire event.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

It's not a matter of one team getting an advantage over another. The replay was due to an arena fault which is specifically stated in the rules to cause a replay.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

so they should have stopped the match then. I mean I'm been out of first for a long time but field defaults never stopped matches before and I have been involved in games where goals and sidebars came apart. It just doesn't seem like the rules are as strict as they use to be which is a shame as teams that are designed to tough and put the time in to make sure their electronics work get penalized by these actions.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

How is it penalizing a team? The field broke and they re-played it as a match to make sure no team got an advantage for the broken field

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Goodness sir for it not being about a team getting an advantage and then saying it is to guarantee that there wasn't an advantage you clearly demonstrate my point. :cool:

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Under the rules, if a field fault happens, at any time, the match is to be replayed. They don't stop matches unless it's really bad; as a matter of fact, it's never called for in the rules. What a field fault is is up to the FTA and Head Ref to determine.

And there was an advantage: If there are no more balls coming down the return due to a jam, then balls are supposed to come in from the side. If they run out, there's a problem--both sides are short of balls, and it's anyone's guess who's at the disadvantage. So they replay the match.

Derbyshire, I've seen field faults cause the entire match to be played wrong. The match had to be replayed. This is AFTER the match ended. I haven't heard the foghorn in quite some time, maybe the last couple of years or more. I've heard of it, but not heard it.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

But you're saying the replay is somehow giving an advantage. There is no advantage for any team in a replay

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Congrats to 469 1114 and 2041 for being crowned our Divsion Champions!!!!!!

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Nope, not a shot at anyone that decides to play for strategy and it shouldn't be read that way. It was another vote for why I don't like the coopertition aspect. Sorry if it sounded un-GP or something, but I think if you read my other posts the last few weeks I'm as laid back as you can imagine so it wasn't meant at a shot at all and wanted that clarified. Still don't like the coopertition, as anything that rewards purposely tanking yourself to advance is not a good way to approach things.

Moving on to other things, our team had a blast at Curie this weekend and a very good weekend here in Atlanta. We learned quite a few things, finally got to see our robot go against some of the better teams in the nation and seeded 12th out of 84 with a win-loss record of 8-2. We were disappointed that we weren't picked, just like the other 60 teams that weren't, but Atlanta is always like that. Only so many can go on, and so many variables go into picking from scouting to politics to who you know and have played with before that we honestly weren't getting our hopes up to play in eliminations anyway.

Would have been nice, but at least we got one of the better seats in the house as the second backup robot for Curie's eliminations. :-) We wish everyone a safe and prosperous off-season, and congrats to the number one seed for winning Curie. Those were some fun games to watch this afternoon.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Congratulations none the less to the winners of curie division, your were simply playing the game, maybe not in the spirit of the competition, but the game none the less congratulations, you bested curie division it was a shame you guys didn't go on to win the championship. Either way your guys had great bots cleverly and efficiently, designed and built.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Congrats to all in the Curie division on their accomplishments! I was very surprised that our champion alliance didn't go on to win it all, but it's great that they got that far. Hey, it's an honor to lose to a great alliance!
Congrats to the finalist alliance, too, 1676, 888, 1421, and 1986!
888, you did great for the few matches you were available for. I wish you could have played longer.
1676, your midfield playing and high shooting scored several key goals and you shut down the opposing alliance from doing the same. Your hanging helped many times in matches.
1421, you were the best replacement we could have gotten. Your tactics kept us going all the way to finals, and I'm happy you were able to share in the Championship spirit.
And 1986, you're a great team to be on!

Hopefully we shall see all of you in Curie next year, whether it be at a regional or at the championships (I hope so... :D ), and good luck in advance!

On an unrelated note, I've been having account problems. I cannot post new threads. Anyone know how to contact an admin or moderator to correct this?
Also, if you didn't know, I had created a simulator for Breakaway, inspired by 5th Gear. The source file is now available at http://teamtitanium.org/resources.html (that's why I wondered how to create a new thread)

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.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Here's a youtube link to the exact time when the ball got stuck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un5F088PTyE#t=2m7s

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I guess I'm stuck on the concept that teams are supposed to read rules, then assume that the GDC actually meant to make the rules say something else and play as if the rules were written that way, other than the way they actually were.

I'm reminded of a team that got very mad when they couldn't turn around and score for their opponent since they blocked their own goals (not on Curie). What right would that team have to be mad, when the same "exploiting the ranking system" arguments could be fallaciously applied to what they planned to do?

Re: Curie 2010!
 

While I agree that the GDC is responsible for this, teams should not take advantage of the rule. Just because they aren't breaking the rules doesn't make it any less GP.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Go talk to Don Rotolo about that next time you see him.

Just because you didn't break any forum rules when you posted that doesn't mean that your post was GP. (Or that your word choice doesn't need work; there's a distinct difference between making something less of something, which is what you said, and making something more of something, which is what I'm pretty sure you meant.)

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Also talk to Don about his take on GP and you'll learn a thing or two.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

...and I saw him do it.
With a statement like that, it is small wonder you have so many red reputation dots.
Sage advice from some well-respected participants. Indeed, I would be pleased to have that conversation any time you like. You know where to find me.

Don

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Why?

The new system is great. The best teams seed in the top 8. In the past they did not.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

The new system is really close to good, but it leads itself to being taken advantage of in some cases. If you suspect you can't beat another team you can turn around and score on yourself to improve your seeding score. This aspect is horrible from a spectator standpoint. When you have to sit and write a dissertation to explain to spectators why everyone if scoring on the opposite goals, then the game has lost its "spectator friendliness".

It also does not reward defensive playing. As it stands the way you play when you qualify is not the same as when you play in the eliminations. I think there are some tweaks that can be made to improve these two issues, but I admit I am at a loss to what those things could be exactly. Surely the community can brainstorm something to keep the good and ditch the 6v0 bad.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

The seeding system, imho, will work awesome at an event like IRI where you are almost guaranteed to have a good scoring robot on every alliance playing...

It's when you are playing an alliance that can't score when teams have to "exploit" the scoring for the other team part...

Re: Curie 2010!
 

IRI will have the occasional 6 vs. 0 match as well if they keep the current scoring system. Not every team there is Einstien Quality.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

In regards to Match 100:

I think by now it's quite obvious that the FIRST Community is quite split on the strategy played during that match.

I was often told that when reading the rule-books, I should keep in mind what the GDC ment for the game to have, and not to Lawyer. Now we could have a whole conversation on that, but this is not what I'm trying to get into. Sadly, the tournament set-up is one of those areas where we're not sure about the GDC intent with the game. I have seen posts that say both that the system was not ment to be used in 6v0, and others that the GDC was planning for matches like Q100. Both sides have very strong arguments.

In the end, 1114 interpretaed useing 6v0 as a scenario the GDC designed the rules to allow, and that it was not a whole in the Seeding system.

So I belive we should stop taking hits at certain teams for there own interpreations of the Rules.

I think its perfectly fine (if not awesome:p ) to discuss if 6v0 was an intention of the GDC or not, but I think it would be a good idea if we keep in mind when doing it, that this is something that people have to interpret and have an opinion on. An opinion is an opinion, and an opinion can-not be wrong or right.

My $0.02

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I have to admit, I was a little disappointed when seeing Match 100, but I reminded myself who exactly made the rules. I personally hope that next year there would be something set in place to discourage that kind of strategy, but it was completely legitimate this year and I cannot blame anyone in Match 100.

On the elimination match where the ball got stuck, I remember being down at the driver station, and just looking up at the end only to see a ball between the rail and the wire. I found it hilarious because I never thought it would ever happen. It was definitely an unusual circumstance.

Curie this year was a great division to start my first year of driving. There were a lot of hard hitters in the division, and I had a blast every single match.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Jeff, If you are a first-year driver, then your opponents next year are in for some serious trouble. You guys were awesome. If we ever meet up again, I hope we are wearing the same color again.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Thanks for the comment (sorry for intervening, since it was directed towards Jeff). Myself, both drivers, and the human player were first-year drive team members. Id love to see you guys again next season. Good job at Curie, it was an amazing experience for all of us. =)

Re: Curie 2010!
 

As long as a team's seeding score has some aspect of the opponents score, you will have teams scoring for the other side (if possible...not possible in 2005, 2007, 2008)....