Go to Post A FIRST adage: You can make an Offensive robot play defense more effectively, than you can make a Defensive robot play offense. - Enigma's puzzle [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-03-2003, 12:08
Richard Neese Richard Neese is offline
Registered User
#0147 (Deep Thunder)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 3
Richard Neese is an unknown quantity at this point
Rules of Engagement and "Unfair Competition"

I have seen the posts regarding "unfair competition" and "inflation of scores" at the UCF competition and am compelled to comment.

Team 147 did not initiate the strategy (and that is what it is, a strategy). We were approached by an adversary, who proposed the strategy in order to provide an opportunity for higher QP scores.
This is simply a matter of defining "rules of engagement" within the context of the rules of the game.

The rules of engagement are simple: violate any "no-touch" zone (e.g. a stack) either intentionally or accidentally and all offensive and defensive maneuvers are in play. Otherwise, the game is about jokeying for boxes this way or that way and asserting dominance on the ramp for a "chance" at a larger QP score.

To my knowledge during application of the strategy neither alliance ever agreed to "throw the match." Prudent teams protected their stacks, moved boxes into their scoring zone, moved boxes out of their opponents scoring zone, and tried to get on the ramp, and watched the score regardless of any pre-match discussions.

Of course, your opponents could lead you down the garden path and then this strategy could backfire.
Getting reliable agreements among people is an activity fraught with danger. This is something young engineers and technologists will discover the first time they encounter teaming agreements and non-disclosure agreements and work on teams with competitors to define "industry standards."

Also, even in systems sometimes your own components lie to you (I would encourage any students interested in Reliable Distributed Control Systems to look up the Byzantine Generals Problem).

Some teams will not agree under any circumstances. Some teams will pretend to agree. Some teams will agree and will accidentally violate the agreement.

I know that in 2 of 3 applications of the strategy, our alliance came out on the low side of the outcome. I am not a big fan of the strategy.

However, once the strategy is in play in a competition, you have to operate as though it is always in play, and that other teams will use it, until the referees say otherwise. To maximize your QP scores you have to explore the viability of applying the strategy in a given match with both your partner and your opponents.

Of course, such strategies are foolish in the elimination rounds. In those rounds, because of the context of the rules of the game (the sum of the EPs), the rules of engagement change: you must try to prevail over your opponent with a large enough EP score in the first match to make it difficult for them to "come back." That is the way the game is set up.

I have seen some very fine robots who can get to the stack, push large fractions of it to their zone, and dominate the top of the ramp. The "dominance" strategy tends to involve the wholescale destruction of all stacks on the field. That is a very effective strategy for elimination rounds, but it doesn't generate high QPs. It simply ignores that much of the game in qualification rounds goes on off the field in those discussions between partners and now opponents.

I for one am no great fan of this year's rules on scoring. I prefer the more straightforward approach of best score wins (where your score is a simple function of your score and not some convolution of your opponent's score) and two out of three decides who moves on.

Perhaps FIRST will make a ruling on this issue prior to the Nationals, but until they do, the cat is out of the bag.

Richard Neese
Team 147
Reply With Quote
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-03-2003, 12:28
pbarrett03 pbarrett03 is offline
Registered User
#0991 (The Dukes)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 15
pbarrett03 is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to pbarrett03
Re: Rules of Engagement and "Unfair Competition"

Quote:
Originally posted by Richard Neese
I for one am no great fan of this year's rules on scoring. I prefer the more straightforward approach of best score wins (where your score is a simple function of your score and not some convolution of your opponent's score) and two out of three decides who moves on.

Richard Neese
Team 147
I think that the current scoring system brings a much greater depth to the competition. It forces the driver to look outside the few feet surrounding his or her robot and make decisions on what to do based on constantly changing factors. It rewards teams who spend time mastering the strategy. It makes the two minutes we are out there into a game, rather than a sheer domination match. I think the multipliers and current scoring system bring an exciting element to the game and it should stay that way!
__________________
Pat Barrett
pbarrett@brophyprep.org
Team #991 - The Dukes
Phoenix, AZ
Reply With Quote
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-03-2003, 13:03
Andrew Andrew is offline
Registered User
#0356
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 393
Andrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to all
I have never been an advocate of the x times loser's score approach. I like this year's scoring better than last year's scoring, since there is some incentive to run up your own score.

The cooperative agreements are really no different than an alliance planning to leave up opponent's stacks or making room on the ramp without the agreement.

In other words, if you explain to an opponent that it is in their best interest to avoid messing with your stacks, but don't form an agreement, you have assured that they might actually play the game strategically.

The agreement approach leaves you in the unfortunate position of either creating hard feelings in the negotiation or in the aftermath of the negotiation when things go wrong on the playing field.

Also, the announcers are actively encouraging teams to score for their opponents.

This scoring makes the planning to move up the rankings more challenging. But, challenging is a good thing.

The teams which are nationally competitive have factored this scoring/tournement philosophy into their designs. Somehow, the "best of the best" end up on top no matter what.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:10.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi