Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

Curie, match 100.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htuePa5rETo

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

It's funny how i see myself recording in that video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9EGAPBwgFU (HD 720p... i have a copy at 60fps, where can i upload where it would show that?)

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I didn't see much of the blue alliance, except for 1114. From the video, it appears they had communication trouble?

I guess because of this 1114 decided to help red score goals to increase their seeding score as a last-resort plan, turning a 1 vs 3 into a 4 vs 0. I guess it had the unintended side effect of possibly setting a record number of goals?

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

The other two blue alliance members were blocking the blue goals to stop red from scoring in them. 1114 decided on this strategy before the match in order to maximize seeding points as Karthik posted in the Curio 2010 thread.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

Would have been awesome to see it in person!

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

Please look closely at the crowd gathered around the field to watch. The dome tilted a little to the northwest during that match.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

yeah... i was there... you might be able to see me filming this but the energy was absolutely insane... people from all the divisions came to see this match... and Dana, not to be rude, but the final score was 29-0... not 28-0... but to everyone that was there... it was the match of the year

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

An excellent match! The one match I REALLY wanted to watch that day. I was wondering if 1114 was going to take their first loss of the year to go 6v0, soar up in ranking points, or go against them, chance a loss anyways, and not go up as far in seeding points. Nevertheless, it was an amazing match.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I, kinda, find it sad that what should have been the best contest of the year ended up being an exhibition.

Before anyone says I'm hating on these teams, I understand that it is a strategic decision (and a good one, from the teams point of view), I just wish it could have been more of an epic clash.

JMHO

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I totally agree, Daniel. Not much "tition" in the coopertition...:(

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I don't understand what's invalid about competing against the whole field of teams by strategically maximizing your seeding points rather than competing against just three teams in a given match. It seems to me that both are competitive strategies, but if you're trying to win the competition, only one makes sense.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I agree, last I checked losing 25 to 0 using 6v0 is better for both alliances than having two amazing robots tie. Case in point, team 217 and 469 at the Troy District. Qualification 20 they are against each other and play their hearts out and tied 5 to 5. Then in qualification 45 they were again against each other and play 6v0, the score was 25 to 0. In this case 217 and 469 each got 15 seeding points in the first match followed by 217 getting 25 points in the next match while 469 received 30. 1114 was very wise in their strategy of play since they were playing 469 along with 111 whom they were competing for position in the top 8.

Was 6v0 considered when the GDC created this game and seeding system, probably not as no one ever thinks of scoring for the other alliance in a tight match up. If we were using the old system of W-L-T, 6v0 would be nonexistent. There were no rules being pushed or broken, only outside the box thinking which is something we should be promoting among FIRST students and engineers, not hindering. Don't judge some of the best teams in FIRST for how they play the game and use the seeding system to the best of its ability.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I highly doubt that especially since they patented the term "coopertition" last year and this is not the first time they've done this. It was either 2000 or 2001 and the game was called coopertition FIRST and it was a 4v0 game (no 3 team alliances yet). I didn't participate that year but the whole "strategy" was for all 4 teams to work together.

Going with the coopertition theme:
The bumps were a pretty effective way to get alliances to work together, in order to score you had to pass the ball from one zone to another where your teammate could score it. This year more than others it was next to impossible for a single robot to carry an alliance due to the bumps (not all balls being in 1 place). This was a great field element that was very challenging but also forced teams to work together in order to achieve the goal.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I didn't say it was 'invalid' (strawman argument). In fact, I stated that I understood the strategy. I was just was hoping for a competition, not an exhibition on how to shoot goals. If thats what we wanted why not just webcast the practice fields.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I didn't mean to address you, specifically, as this is a discussion I've seen played out a few times -- and some in response to my team's own strategies at two events.

The part I don't understand is how people don't see this sort of thing as competition in the first place. The matches we play don't exist in a vacuum and the results from each -- this season more than any in recent years -- are more important than simply scoring higher than your opponent. I'm sure you understand all of that and my post was simply to illustrate to folks that may not always see the bigger picture that any one person's view of what "competition" actually is may be different than any other.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

Originally I too had the impression that 6v0 was a strategy they had come up with to fall under the category of "Coopertition" with scoring for the other alliance to boost your score, but after reading this post 34 by Josh Fox (sorry, I don't know how to just post a link to his exact post and searched but can't find out how), he says that Woodie Flowers told team RUSH in a discussion that 6v0 was not intended or desired by this years game. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...odie+Flo wers

I was very confused after reading this because I thought that 6v0 was a form of Coopertition on the playing field.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I agree ... to a point.

The definition of 'competition' is probably the sticking point. Many see each match as a competition, while others see the regional/championship as the competition. Thus they have very different goals during each match.

The point I was trying to get at (and probably failing miserably) is that if FIRST wants a 'spectator friendly' competition, then they should create rules that foster/nurture that type of game/strategy. The rules, as they stand, create a strategic disconnect with attempting to win every match since it may be in an alliances interest to not play for the win.

Again, I understand the strategy and I understand why some will employ it (just like stuffing a defender into the goal ... to get stuck). It's a strategy, and it's valid, but it's also one that challanges ones ideals of what a 'competition' is about.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

Not to nitpick, but they each got 15 seeding points in the 5-5 match (assuming no penalties)

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...19&postcount=1



~

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

The one quarl i may have about this post is If those Canucks were playing for the win, we would prbably get something like 18-13. an exciting match taht woudl fill up the seats. but it wouldn't have it's own thread on Chief.

On the other hand, what we saw on friday afternoon was truly exciting. It was the story of the Championships until alliance selection on Saturday morning. As great as QM 119 on Archimedes was, It was not talked about to the extent taht this match was. I was on the dome floor when taht match finished and heard people say "yesterday's match was better".

6v0 or 4v2 may not have been intended by the GDC. but it showed taht FIRST teams really do think outside the box and use unique stratedgies when they need them.

If you want to bring people to the stands (or the floor for that matter). you have to put on a show, case and point 18-13 wouldn't have the sizzle that 29-0 had.

If people haven't figured out that this game isn't all about winning, please try to go undefeated winning matches 3-0 or 4-0... let me know how high up in the standings you are.

EDIT: speaking of Archimedes match 119. I should have that up on my youtube channel tonight.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I completely agree with you.

I have the utmost respect for 1114 and absolutely agree that they made the right strategic decision in this match; however, as a (webcast) viewer I was completely disappointed. 469 when paired with a quality scorer (like 111) was a juggernaut versus arguably the best all around robot in 1114. With supporting cast this had all the makings of a prize fight. Could 1114 starve the cycle where others had failed? How high could 111 and 469 go? Unfortunately, it ended with a KO in the first round with smiles and big paychecks all around (okay so maybe a little too much on the metaphor). I mean 32-0 pre-penalties was cool but 217-469 put up 26 through solid defense in MI districts and 1718-16-343 put up 34 pre-penalties without the benefit of 469 on Newton. For me, this will always be a memorable match for what might have been...

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

If my team was in that division, and in response to the 6v0 strategy we decided to collaborate with 1114's alliance partners and opponents to block all 4 goals thus keeping the score as close to zero on both sides as possible, would that be considered a viable strategy? We all know that 1114 being the number one seed benefited no one except 1114, 469, and 2041 in the end. Wouldn't it make perfect strategic sense to break it up before it even happened by sabotaging 1114 in each of its following matches? Would this be considered Gracious Professionalism? After all, it is "playing the game", "competing in the overall competition".

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that people on these boards and in the FIRST community would not be happy with that strategy. 1114 would certainly not be happy with that strategy. It makes the game boring, and it is unfair to the teams who actually WANT to play the game. Reminds me alot of 6v0...

Just an opinion.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I don't think blocking all goals to try to keep the score low is a viable or gp/moral/good decision. Unlike a 6v0, this hurts both alliances seeding scores. But a 6v0, like 1114 did, their alliance seeding score is improved.

Earlier in the competition, we decided to do a 6v0 against 1114, 27 and 88 by blocking both of our goals. I don't think anyone on our team really liked the idea, but agreed it was the best option to improve our seeding score*. Going against the #1 seed and two first round picks, with a team that had jaguar issues (they didn't move in the match, so we had to push them infront of the goal), we didn't think we had a chance to win the match. The decision to block our goals wasn't "lets screw over 1114's seeding score", but to encourge them to continue to score for their alliance, helping our seeding score. They scored two goals for us, but for the most part, I think it worked. A part of me was relieved to see 1114 do the same strategy in match 100, knowing they approved of it.



*This was our second match of the event, before we knew we would lose 4 matches by a combined 5 points, essentially killing our chances at seeding high...not that I'm bitter or anything:D ... I guess some of our luck from Wisconsin and Midwest caught up with us...

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

Why is it not viable? In essence you are playing in favor of the good of the many. Instead of 6 teams benefiting, now every team who is not 1114 or 469 is benefiting. You cannot tell me that every other contending team in that division would have had a better chance of getting to Einstein had 1114 not had the top spot and picked 469. It is absolutely a viable strategy. Moral? Of course not. My point is that I don't feel 6v0 is morally right either. Yeah it benefits 6 teams, but what about the teams who never had a match with 469? They didn't even have the opportunity to go out and try to match the score because that is how scheduling works. It is not fair to those teams. What about the teams who wanted to play the game? I quote team update 16..."The objective of the system is to reward high-scoring, close, competitive matches. Furthermore, we intended to make a disincentive for teams to win with a high margin." So teams who decided that they wanted to follow that mantra pretty much got the bad end of the stick by the teams who decided to outright ignore it. Do I blame those teams? Not necessarily. Would I ever use the strategy? No.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

This is throwing matches to bring down an opponent regardless of alliance. 6v0 is working for the good of everyone on your alliance and doesn't hurt the other side all that much either. They're worlds apart in my head.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

Huh, that's surprising to hear but the GDC has arguably one of the hardest jobs ever, and they have to re-do it year after year. Imagine trying to come up with a new sport, new rules, and new way to score points every single year. You have to make it difficult and challenging for the crusty old vets, but not too intimidating and achievable for the newbies. Add into that that 40+ thousand WICKED SMART people will be playing this and going over it with a fine toothed comb and they are never going to win.
When we as engineers work on products we get the benefit of several iterations and months to years to get it right. They get a couple of months and 1 shot to roll it out and hope everyone likes it. Some years are great, some are not, that's just the way it rolls.
In the end, if you've learned something new from the game/year then I think it was a success.

All in all this year was one of the more fun years to watch in recent memory, if this was like a normal engineering project and they got a chance to do a second iteration this game could be one of the best ever, but on the whole given what they've got to work with and what we got out of it, I think this year was a pretty good success. Now if only they could pull off another Frenzy year....:p

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I cannot speak for 1114 and thier partners in match 100, but when we did it (match 17), I made sure the drivers had a backup plan, in case our partners wanted to play the match straight up, 3v3. We would have completely understood and respected any team that wanted to play it normally. Atleast for our case, both our partners agreed to the 6v0.

Our strategy in match 17 didn't really affect 1114, 27 and 88's plan. They could still score, play defense if they wanted to and hang at the end. The only thing that we prevented them from doing was scoring in our goals, which really isn't a big deal. They could still enjoy playing to together, but got a little help from us and were encourged to score in their own goals.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I too don't know how the GDC designs new games every year with new rules. I believe it would be impossible for them to come up with a game that would not allow for unintended actions on the field such as 6v0 in 6 months without teams involved. If they used a game for two years, then I could see flaws in the game ironed out so that it is truly the game that they intended.

The Game Design Committee is such an amazing group of individuals who create amazing games every year. Breakaway was a great success! :) Thank you GDC!

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

Guys,
I think we have to tender our discussions on issues like the 6v0 strategies with something else in mind. Whether the GDC had intended this strategy or not, the rules did allow it. Potentially, every year the rules may allow something that not all of us will feel is gracious, fair or good for spectators. Teams will use the rule to advance or play different strategy than the majority of the remaining teams. We should not pass judgement on these teams. They are simply using the rules all of us are presented with in a way we might have not considered. Was this a good use of the rules? Yes, the team finished as first seed and in a great (and enviable) picking position. Isn't that what we all strive to do. Isn't that what your strategy meetings discuss? In a competition where you are striving to show your sponsor, your school or your district that you can compete on the big stage, aren't we all using the rules to advance the team?
For the newcomers, we were part of such a controversy once. One year the game rules awarded bonus points for a robot that was supported above the floor by another robot. We saw the potential for a match where a robot might not be able to play. We also saw the potential for a team to place one robot on top of another prior to the match start. We asked the Q&A if that was legal and the response was a firm "yes". When faced with a match in which two alliance partners were unable to drive, we placed one on top of the other for the bonus. We took a lot of heat for that decision just like the teams discussed above. I can tell you right now that the discussion that has transpired so far is more ungracious (to the teams involved) than the original decision itself. We don't have to like it but it was a legal strategy. They used the rules and they succeeded. Yay!

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

Al,

I apologize if my statements seemed ungracious (believe me, I have massive respect for the teams involved).

My statement was because I tuned in to the webcast to specifically watch Curie 100 as it was shaping up to be a titanic clash of some of the best robots in FRC this year. I was very disappointed to see, not a competition, but instead an exhibition on shooting.

Again, I understand that the rules allow for the strategy they chose, and because of that it is a valid strategy ... but from a spectators point of view, watching on the webcast, it was ... well ... less than inspiring.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

Daniel,
I wasn't pointing fingers at specific people, simply giving a view from the other side of the fence.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

Let me play what if here for a minute.

Recall that at that moment in time, there were 4 matches left. 1114 was ranked #1, 111 was ranked #2 but the difference between them was pretty small. After this match there would be only 3 more matches for things to settle out.

As back ground let me define three "edge conditions":

1. a blow out but high scoring: this is what we had. Both 1114 and 111 put distance between themselves and the rest of the field but they continue to duke it out amongst themselves for primacy.
2. a close high scoring match: Whomever wins this match is #1 seed because the 2X the losers score + 5 points for winning would be very unlikely to be overcome. This is the outcome 1114 wanted to avoid because they would likely be the loser in this case (or at least you can argue that on paper that was the likely outcome)
3. a low scoring close match: Both 1114 and 111 fall out of the race for #1 seed (and the right to pick 469)

It is the 3rd case that I would like to explore a bit.

• Suppose that 469 prefer 1114 to be #1 seed (I don't know this to be the case, but let me make some assumptions to explain why I think the GDC should revisit their seeding calculation).
• Suppose further that whomever was in 3rd place in the rankings was not so good but had made it clear that they would draft 1114 over all other teams (because they didn't like the style of play of 469 or because they were a fellow Canadian team or because their scouting team has a collective crush on Karthik, whatever -- again, give me my assumption for the minute).

Now, under this condition, 111 could easily think, this way. Option 1 is what 1114 wants. Option 2 is what I would prefer, but I can't have that option if 1114 and company don't try. What if I can force option 3? Then what? Well, 1114 and us are still closely duking it out but we are duking it out for 2nd at best. BUT... the team that is likely to become 1st place will draft 1114 if they are not in 1st place, which means I get to draft 469 after all. So... Heads I win, Tails I win.

Now... ...Would it be right for 111 to decide to play against 469 and 1114 (and presumably the 888, WildStang's other partner, who would want as many seeding as they could muster) by actively defending 469?

You can argue with my scenario, but you have to give me that it is completely possible for teams on the alliances to want other outcomes based on how the seeding is going to settle out.

If you take the position that the job of qualification matches is to seed in the position you believe will maximize your chances of doing well after lunch on Saturday, and that as long as you do not violate any of the rules of the game, do whatever it takes to seed where you want to, then you will ALWAYS be able to put together a scenario that has moral side effects you are not going to be happy about if you really think things through.

SO... ...I think the GDC should make a general statement (or a rule if you'd rather) that says that it is bad for the game, and for FIRST generally, to have teams gaming the system in this way, that it is corrosive to the FIRST community, puts teams in ethical paradoxes, confuses the general public, causes lice to thrive and rats to over run the castle, etc. (insert your bad outcome here)... ...Therefor, it is the desire of the GDC that teams try to win every match that they are in. Even if they are in a hopeless cause, they should be trying to accomplish the game objective. Strategies aimed at deliberately losing a match or losing it in a way that provides a seeding benefit are not in the best interest of the game and are not to be employed or encouraged. Specifically, if ever optimizing seeding strategies are at odds with trying to accomplish the game objectives, teams are to favor accomplishing the game objectives over seeding considerations.

I know that this is not an enforceable rule in many cases. BUT it is a clear statement of principle that will give teams that care about such things guidance as to the path they should pursue.

Joe J.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I will agree with all the discussion that YES, the 6v0 strategy does not break any rules. Although, the ultimate thing to look at is that it does not lie with the spirit of the game and does not induce a fair and fun competition.

Many of pointed out that 1114 worked with 469 in the match so that they could boost up in the rankings and ultimately ended up the #1 seed. Also, many of us knew that put into the position, 1114's first pick would undoubtedly be 469. With all that said, if we are going to have teams know what teams they are already going to pick AND these teams are going to game to system to ensure that they are put in the positions that give them that power, then why have the qualifications matches. Also, I spent my whole time at Champs up till Einstein volunteering on Curie, and I can tell you that this was the only time that a match like this happened.

I know that on Galileo my team was playing their hearts out and were rewarded with being the #1 seed. We also talked several nights about who we would like to pick, but always kept in mind that at any moment we could be knocked out of our comfortable position.

I feel that teams just need to let the game play out the way it is intended to and let those rise to the top that work hard. Gaming the system just shows that you are willing to do anything and everything to ensure that you get what you want and to not let the situation play out. It also in my opinion isn't very gracious or professional.

I was on the floor watching the finals, and it was really interesting seeing how many teams were cheering against the Curie alliance, from all the other divisions, not just those from Archimedes. It was clear that a lot of teams felt the same about this powerful alliance and did not really agree with the ways on which they went about handling it.

Again, these are just my observations, thoughts, and comments. I just would have liked to see a little more class and sportsmanship from these teams in how they handled the game and let the games play out and not have gamed the match. Overall though, I would have to say I really liked the game, the seeding system, and the quality of play that was a result of many hard working teams.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I would prefer a ranking system that doesn't incentivize scoring for your opponent in the first place to an imperial edict from on high that tries to browbeat competitors into a certain mode of play.

I like coopertition, but next year's version needs some tweaks:

First, if you don't want the losing alliance scoring for the winning alliance, give them ownership of their own score. This year the losing alliance received nothing for their own efforts at the end of the match. They were awarded the winner's score in seeding points. Once they knew they were going to lose, there was no reason to keep scoring points for themselves as those points wouldn't be theirs anymore once the match ended. Solution: Give the losing alliance their own score in seeding points. Additionally, you may want to add a portion of the winner's score to the loser's seeding points to factor in strength of schedule. One possible formula for the loser's seeding score is S = L + 1/2*W.

Second, if you don't want the winning alliance scoring for the losing alliance, don't make the loser's score more valuable to them than their own score. This year the winning alliance received twice as many seeding points for points the loser scored than for points they scored themselves. Once they knew they were going to win, there was no reason to keep scoring for themselves as those points were worth half as much as points scored for their opponents. Solution: Make sure the winning alliance isn't rewarded better for the loser's score than they are for their own. One possible formula for the winner's seeding score is S = W + L.

If you run an off season event, try to tweak the ranking system a bit instead of making a knee-jerk switch back to the W-L-T method. I think FIRST is on to something here, it just needs some refinement.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

You make a good point. I think it running in the off season could show FIRST that it is a good ranking system (if it works). I liked this years system (ignoring the 6v0 problem) because it places winning as a priority but focuses scoring and competition more than W-L-T record. Getting one bad match up would completely ruin your record previously and this year helps reduce that impact. Not to mention the system is much easier to understand. before this year I didn't know what we needed to do in a match to rank up, this year its clear cut. We need to gain x# of seeding points in this match in order to move up a rank.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I don't think there is any evidence that supports your claim that 1114 worked with 469. Yes, they may have scored for their alliance, but that doesn't mean they worked together to ensure 1114 would be #1 and then pick 469. According to Karthik, 1114 never discussed the strategy with 469 or the other alliance.

Maybe we are thinking of diferent things, but 6v0 and scoring for the other alliance occured several times on Curie, including match 17 and I believe in match 8.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

If the GDC wants me to play the game a specific way they should make that the smart way to play. This is much more effective that a statement of purpose saying "we want you to do this, even though it isn't the smart thing to do..."

Is it that hard?

-John

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I guess I am in the minority but I only see one behavior that I consider against the principles of the scoring rules. That behavior is colluding with the opposing alliance before the match to establish a strategy. I believe the GDC answered a Q&A and said that was against the spirit of the rules.

I think the seeding score rules are perfectly clear and was surprised to see more alliances not trying to take advantage of earning the most seeding points available by scoring for the opposing alliance. Granted, the Field Management System had to be relied upon to give the correct scoring but I saw a lot of opportunities that teams could have increased their seeding points but chose not to in favor of winning big. It seemed it was very difficult to break the "win-loss" culture of sporting events but those weren't the qualifying match scoring rules this year!

I do not think that the game objectives were the same during the game as they were at the beginning of the game. That was the whole basis of the Nash equilibrium. If it becomes obvious that 2 of your alliance partners are completely stopped and the other alliance is scoring at will, isn't it the right thing to do for your team and your alliance to score the most seeding points for the alliance that you can?

I would never criticize, and in fact expect, alliances to change their strategies at any point they decided it would benefit the whole alliance. Isn't that the point of an alliance working together....to achieve the maximum benefit for the alliance?

It was a great game for strategy and I'm sure many will continue to believe that winning is most important but I just didn't find that in the rules for playing the qualification rounds.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

For a person who's not a part of our team, you sure seem to "know" a lot about our thought processes. First off, we did not make up our mind about 469 until late Friday night, long after match 100 took place. Anyone who actually knows our team, knows that we put a large emphasis on data analysis and scouting. We never make a decision without putting a huge amount of thought into it.

The 6v0 strategy played out in numerous matches, it was just never as effective and noticeable as it was in Match 100. I know our opponents actively scored for us in matches 8 and 17.

And I would have liked to have seen more class and sportsmanship in your post, but I guess that didn't happen either.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of our team, our alliance and others being insulted and dragged through the mud on these forums. We've had to deal with people advocating throwing matches when playing with 1114 or 469, 469 has had to deal with people calling their design "cheating", and now we apparently lack class, sportsmanship and gracious professionalism. I really wish more of these people would have the courage to try and say these things to our faces, as opposed to doing it while hidden behind the curtain of the internet.

It's one thing to disagree with someone's strategy it's another thing to be downright insulting. Ah well, just time to add another one to the list.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

Courtesy of MT from the snoop thread;)

People love to bash the ones succeeding, don't they? Karthik, at least you can take comfort in the fact that there are more people that admire your strategies and robots than those who love to bash a team.

.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

Wow, it is posts like these against teams I look up to recently that make my wonder why I am even a member on these forums. I've heard a ton of long time members mentioning the good ole' days from early 2000, but I have noticed things changing around here since I first started reading in 2006. But, there will always be haters in any form of competition but just remember that you are representing yourself and your team!

I just think I'm going to logout and return back for kickoff to check out all the game rule threads.:rolleyes: Off-season just might be getting dramatic with the recent activity in the past few weeks!:ahh: Wait, where are those 1902 kids to make a new reality T.V series! ;)

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I don't understand why people even bother to hate and complain. Your seriously just wasting your time. Simbotics went 66-3-2. I'm not gonna lie, that is an amazing record/season. One day I hope to get to that point, but until then I'll just admire awesome teams such as 1114 and work harder to reach that point.

I think we as FIRST robotics team should move on and create stronger teams. Personally I admire how much effort teams such as 1114/217/148/254 and there are others put out year to year. I'm sure there were a ton of roller and lift changes when 148 tossed out their promo vid. But didn't that help teams? I know we took a good look at our roller and we didn't switch to the "pinchy" roller but we did make ours loads better.

Instead of calling their designs and strategies cheating, shouldn't we be striving to create better robots, teams and programs? Through out the years I've learned, that because of teams such as the IFI group that my team has gotten better. We have more sponsors, more resources and a better program due to these elite teams. I for one hated this group earlier cause they were unfair to the rest of us, but how wrong I was. For once, I'd like to say thank you for making FIRST more competitive.

Just food for thought.

-RC

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

If I've learned anything this year, especially with regards to our "cheating" design, our ungracious gameplay, and being "the most hated team in FIRST" is that the number of people who actually come up and talk to us in the pits with words of encouragement, excitement, and say they were inspired by our season and design FAR outweigh the few noisy cowards that choose to hide behind their keyboards and preach their narrow minded viewpoints and opinions here on CD.

And I've also learned that most of the people that I care about in this program know this as well, so I don't care....preach away...most of us are laughing anyway...

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

Karthik,

I have a few things I'd like to say about this:

1> As far as 469 'cheating'. Many people did not fully read the rules this year (as was evident at the regionals with uncompliant robots). Because of this they made assumptions about what the rules said. 469 built one of the most dominant alliance bots I've seen in years, and their detractors couldn't beat it. 'Nuff said.

2> As far as people advocating 'throwing matches'. Well, thats exactly what 1114 did in Curie 100. You made a strategic decision to 'play the match to lose big' (the definition of throwing a match). That being said, I have no issue with that (from a strategy point of view) because the rules do not specifically prohibit that strategy and the Nash Equilibrium for the seeding system actually encourages it if you believe you will lose the match. It's not your team that I'm disappointed in, it's the (seeding) system that promotes that strategy.

3> 1114 and 469 have shown nothing but class and gracious professionalism throughout this (and many other) season. Keep setting the example, and maybe those detractors will eventually come to see the light.

4> I do not fear stating anything I say here to someones face. I put my name to each of these posts because I believe in the content I put here.

My disappointment with Curie 100 was because I was hoping for a competition, and I got an exhibition instead. This is not the fault of any team that was in that match, but because the system dictated that that is the best way to improve your seeding points.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I think what he meant were people posting about purposely taking penalties when they are aligned with 1114 just to keep them from getting the #1 seed.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

My point was that Karthik should not get upset for others 'throwing matches' when his team did as well. Again, the circumstances may have been different, but the action is the same.

Plus, penalties do not affect the other teams seeding scores, as the winner got the losers unpenalized score doubled (plus their own) and the loser got the winners unpenalized score.

Again, my issue is not with any of these teams, they made a strategic decision based only on quantitative values. It's the game that I'm disappointed with, in the fact that it not only allowes this, but encourages it through the Nash Equilibrium (Best outcome vs any strategy played against it).

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

They are absolutely not the same.

"Throwing" a match is intentionally getting a negative outcome for yourself and everyone on your alliance. This is extremely selfish and hurts your partners. People were advocating intentionally aiming for low seeding scores just to disrupt 1114.

1114 sought to maximize their seeding points for them and their partners in one match. The strategy that did that was to not win the match. The result was beneficial for the entire alliance, just a different strategy than is intuitive.

So no, 1114 did not do the same thing as everyone else advocated on Chief Delphi. They played to maximize their seeding points, not to bring down their alliance partners. Please stop pretending they are the same thing.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

My definition of 'throwing a match' is to intentionally lose the match for the benefit of an individual or group (consider Pete Rose). 1114 benefitted from intentionally losing the match, therefore it is 'throwing the match'.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Again, my issue is not with the teams involved, but with the system the promotes this.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

They are still two different things completely. 6v0 is completely different than, say, while you are partnered with 1114, your human player purposely hides a scored ball in the corral so that the entire alliance gets a bunch of dogma penalties causing the alliance (and 1114) to score 0.

6v0 to maximize your seeding score (and losing the match) vs. purposely getting penalties to cause your alliance partners to lose and score low are completely different things...

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

Agreed. I have major issues with the system as well. My angry tone was not directed at those who were upset with the system. My angry tone was directed at those who were hurling insults at our team.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

a great match indeed!
I was there in person, this was the only match in the curie division, that not one of my team members was willing to miss, we were waiting for this match to come!
when we saw this match on the "match schedule" we marked it as a "must to watch" match almost immediately!

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

Semantics aside, you said Karthik / 1114 / whomever had no right to get mad at people advocating throwing a match to bring down 1114 because his team played a 6v0 match. No one can honestly say those two things are anywhere close to the same level of "bad".

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I'm gonna elaborate on this if you don't mind Chris.

6v0 (regardless of my personal feelings) hurts no one. In fact, it was a viable strategy this year. 1114 decided to place itself in the best possible position from which to win the event. (Something all teams should do) This match left them with an awkward decision. They could gamble or they could take a lower payout. If they played their best they could lose and give 111 a massive boost in the rankings. They could also win and get a massive boost. Or they could take the assured payout. Say what you want about 1114 but you cannot say they are not logical. They decided, along with their partners, not to gamble.

A team throwing a match to hurt another team's standings is unsportsmanlike. There was talk about intentionally drawing penalties when playing with 1114 so they get losses so that they would not be #1. That is sick.

This isn't even comparable. One is a strategic move so that everyone at least gains. The other is a rude move that I feel should warrant expulsion from the competition. If you intentionally draw penalties to hurt another team you don't deserve to be competing.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I posted the following on my Blog (the post was originally from a Curie Thread) but I feel it serves more purpose in this thread:

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

Thank you Karthik.

Now I understand that some people are annoyed at Curie match 100, but the rules left it open. I am sure [after talking to our drivers] that this was not our favourite option. I believe, however, that it was not cheating, we were not throwing the match, or playing badly. We were playing with strategy in mind.

1- A close tie wouldn't do good for the losing team. I know ties were a killer to 288's rank at multiple competitions.

2-A close match, high also would be bad for the losing team. With many highly ranked teams on the field, this would be rather devastating to lose. .

3- A close, low scoring match. Devastating to both winner and loser's rank, no matter where they were in the system.

4- A huge loss. If one side scored a ton, and none for the other, both teams can get large amounts of seeding points.

I personally think 4 was the best option for both alliances. It didn't hurt either side. maybe it wasn't the clash of the titans everyone seemed to want, but it was a crazy match anyhow.

As a side note, I congratulate 469 for having a robot that had thoughts that were outside the box and maybe outside of the normal configuration ^.-

Thank you to 1114, 231, 111, 469, and 888 for an exciting and unforgettable match 100 at my first time to Atlanta!

~Abby Wilson, 288/216~

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

I understand the point of the statement - but I don't think we need to add any more unenforceable rules to the book. Just tweak the system so that the losing team gets their own score and this all becomes academic.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

This has pretty much been said in past posts, but this is where I stand.

The game and competition both have rules, I would imagine the ultimate competitive goal of the competition for just about all teams is to win the competition. 1114 followed the rules and pursued their goal, to win the competition. They did what they had to do to seed first, and give themselves the best chance possible to win. It's hard to have a problem with that. Let' be honest, we all want to win, it just happens 1114 is really good at it. If you have a problem with the system that is something different, there is no fault in following the rules, and giving yourself the best chance to win.

Re: Curie Match 100, 28-0
 

When a team or alliance pursue a tactic there are consequences that impact the rest of the field. For example, had the 1114 alliance scored just three points in match 100, then 2612 would not have won the Coopertition Award on Curie.

So 2612 could look at it like we took home some hardware because of the 6v0 match :) which some would say is like being run out of town on a rail - if it weren't for the honor of it, they'd just as soon pass. :rolleyes: Or, we could look at it like we won the award because we were in shoot-outs all weekend, and 1114 was in the one situation that could help them seed first. However, we choose to see that it was what it was, which was a whole lot of fun, an honor just to be part of the action, and certainly nothing to get bent out of shape over.