TIEBRAKERS to prevent RIGGING THE MATCH

[Digo]

Please read this.

(this has already been a bit discussed before in the following thread:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=15969
but I wanted to post a poll, because if most people agree we can contact FIRST. <--

This is a bad part of this year's game:

If you win, you receive <edit>your points and</edit> twice the loser's points. But to do that you have to spend precious time worrying about making the opponent score less, and not letting the opponent bother you. That's maybe the biggest difficulty of the game: your two opponents.

If you talk to the "enemy" alliance before the match and set that you are going to tie in a very high score, then you don't have opponents anymore: you have 3 allies. Just like in 2001.
It will be easy to do an excelent score with half of the boxes and one robot at the platform, and you won't need to worry about the opponents bugging you: they will HELP you to do the same score. And then you get your score PLUS their score, wich will be A LOT of points and it won't be a very difficult thing to do.

When some teams realize that that's the best way to score points and start doing it several times, watching and playing the game won't be fun anymore.

Think about.

I can imagine people saying "they won just because they rigged their matches! that's not fair with us! that's not gracious professionalism!"
And the other people will say "there's no rule against doing that!".

To prevent us from this big problem, we could ask FIRST to set some tiebrakers through an update.

Examples of tiebrakers:

1-Highest stack
2-Most robots on the platform
3-Most scoring boxes
4-Most boxes on your side of the field
5-Flip of a coin

Or any other way FIRST wants.

If we don't do something before it's too late to change, the teams that manage to convince the other 3 teams will be in advantage of points, and the ones that are against that and in favor of "fair play" will be more likely to loose.

[Ben Mitchell]

Although this would raise the overall AVERAGE score, your potential score would be limited.

If you win, you have the potential to earn more points than if you tie.

Thus, there is little reason to tie, since you can get a better score by winning straight out.

[Clark Gilbert]

If you win, you receive twice the loser's points. But to do that you have to spend precious time worrying about making the opponent score less, and not letting the opponent bother you. That's maybe the biggest difficulty of the game: your two opponents.

I thought if you won the match, you got your score, plus 2 times the losers?

Originally posted by Digo
Please read this.

If you talk to the "enemy" alliance before the match and set that you are going to tie in a very high score, then you don't have opponents anymore: you have 3 allies. Just like in 2001.
It will be easy to do an excelent score with half of the boxes and one robot at the platform, and you won't need to worry about the opponents bugging you: they will HELP you to do the same score. And then you get your score PLUS their score, wich will be A LOT of points and it won't be a very difficult thing to do.

When some teams realize that that's the best way to score points and start doing it several times, watching and playing the game won't be fun anymore.

Excellent point.

FIRST was probably hoping that people behave and keep in the spirit of Gracious Professionalism in this issue. Unfortunately, I bet there is someone out there that is willing to attempt this. Hopefully this will be prevented.

[authgeek1218]

While it's quite true that it is possible to get more points by doing everything for your two teams instead of tieing with the most amount of points, it involves getting a stack of ~22 high which is HIGHLY unlikely since the boxes tend to get VERY unstable at even 8 or 10 high.

I think that earning both of your scores is a problem. Going away with your tied score (not added together) might be better since it's easier to score above that with just your one teammate.

[1337 /\/\4573|2]

Originally posted by Digo

If you talk to the "enemy" alliance before the match and set that you are going to tie in a very high score, then you don't have opponents anymore: you have 3 allies. Just like in 2001.

I believe i remember Dean Kamen saying that FIRST involves cooperating as much as competing. So, if you can win more by cooperating, then I say its fine.

[Alex Forest]

I really dont think he meant cooperating in quite that way..

[1337 /\/\4573|2]

Originally posted by Alex Forest
I really dont think he meant cooperating in quite that way..

You have a point, he didn't say collaborate.

[WakeZero]

Hmmmm, could this be a creative way on FIRST's part to demonstrate how cooperating is better than fighting? We will have to see if teams who cooperate to tie will do well

[Doug]

well i dont know about you guys but when you are talking about stacks and knocking bins around the scores could very easily be off by one especially when you cant see the other side easily so Im think there would be a whole lot of hurt feelings even if no one decides to backstab anyone

[Curtis Williams]

Although I really dont think the 4 teams would all agree to rigging the match, I would like to bring tiebreakers back. It causes strategys to become a bit more involved. The bad side of tiebreakers is the coin flip. I think then it should go to giving both alliances the match points.

Plus, remember the tiebreaker last year when the coin didn't land flat

[Alex Forest]

as i recall, tht was because it landed on a tether cable. this year that shouldnt be a problem!

[Gabriel]

If you use this strategy you decide that the best strategy is not to go after your competition but to work together and share the victory. I don't understand how that isn't gracious professionalism. It may not be pleasing to the spectators but it seems to embody the spirit of FIRST in every way.

In many occasions cooperation is better for everyone than competition: some scenarios

1) Red 50
Blue 10
= Red 70 QP's
= Blue 10 QP's

Red 50
Blue 50
= Red 100 QPs
Blue 100 QPs
in this case both alliances would want to tie

Originally I thought using this idea in every match, after some thinking I now feel thats a bad idea, this should simply be part of the playbook, and since (in my mind anyway) it does not violate the spirit of FIRST, but rather encourages it, I see no reason to enact rules prohibitting this style of play.

[DanLevin247]

Just like every other FIRST game of the past, there are loopholes in the rules that need to be patched up. This is one of those times, I say, contact FIRST and express your concern with this issue!


WHAT FUN IS A GAME IF EVERY OTHER MATCH ENDS IN A TIE?????

[1337 /\/\4573|2]

Originally posted by DanLevin247
WHAT FUN IS A GAME IF EVERY OTHER MATCH ENDS IN A TIE?????

As I recall, when you use Caps Lock, it makes what you say right.

Anyways, I know a few games that are fun when you tie your opponent.

My point is that the fun is playing the game, not necessarily the result.