The Update, it fixes nothing! (AKA: why is everyone so excited about Update #16?)

[Leav]

Hi,

So I was out of the loop since ship date and have just now read up and understood the implication of the seeding system (6v0 was a "Woah!" moment for me).

So basically, the old system (pre update #16) had a built in incentive for 6v0.
(both alliances colluding to kick all balls into one side, thus providing higher seeding points to both alliances).

Team update #16 address this partially by removing the symmetry that existed between the winning and losing alliance's score in the 6v0 scenario.

this address the issue when looked at from a single match standpoint.

However I think there is still a problem with this system:

Basically an alliance may decide to go for 6v0 if they feel losing is inevitable.
The losing alliance will still get 5 seeding points less than the winning alliance, but it would be more than they would have gotten by doing their best and losing.

Example Match:
Red alliance score: 2
Blue alliance score: 1

Red alliance seeding points: 7
Blue alliance seeding points: 2

Now Ignore that 6v0 removes alot of defense and just say you shift all scores to one side:
Red alliance score: 3
Blue Alliance Score:0

Red alliance seeding points: 8
Blue alliance seeding points: 3

(though obviously it would be much higher since there is no defense and only "coopertition")

The losing alliance obviously has no hope of improving it's position in the rankings with regard to the winning alliance's teams, but it could hope for improvement compared to other teams who are not participating in the said match.


Perhaps the title of this thread is worded too strongly (), but I still see this as a major flaw in the whole "coopertition" idea (or perhaps just the implementation chosen year after year).

Hopefully we will never see gameplay as described above.

-Leav

[Justin Montois]

The system is not perfect, but at least now at Championship I feel more comfortable telling my drive team and the teams we are playing with that we are going to play for the win. I understand there may be times where 6v0 is "smarter" but we're going to play to win instead of playing just for points. This makes our game simpler.

I'm worried now that even MORE defense will be played in quals and the matches will suffer. We'll see.

[hipsterjr]

Leav has a point. From the begging I have been wondering how long it would take people to realize this and start taking advantage of it.

[pfreivald]

The GDC has made it *absolutely clear* that the object and the spirit of the game is to play to win -- each match.

I am stunned that in light of this clarification there are still teams that are considering doing otherwise.

[Mike o.]

The whole intent of the seeding was to play for the win since the game was announced. The only thing is that this year the GDC wanted to reward those teams that worked to make sure the scores of the matches were kept close to each other. Let me remind you all that your Seeding Score is as follows:

1. For the Winning Alliance it is the sum of their penalized score PLUS 5 points PLUS twice the un-penalized score of the losing alliance
2. For the Losing Alliance it is the sumer of the winning alliance's un-penalized score
3. In the case of a tie, it is triple the amount each respective alliance's penalized score

Before Update #16, the case of the 6v0, yes they would be working together to maximize each alliance's seeding score, but it would ultimately defeat the whole purpose of creating a competitive atmosphere and really the whole intent of the game. Would you really want to sit there and watch a competition where everyone is just scoring on one goal or would you rather watch a competition that had scoring going back and forth on opposing goals and there was that excitement and anticipation of who would come out on tope because the scores are so close?

I personally like the change in how they are doing rankings this year, and I commend the GDC on coming up with such a different way of doing it than the conventional way.

[StevenB]

The update fixes several things. First of all, it should reduce the number of penalties. Combined with the additional 5 point bonus, the "always score for your opponents" strategy is no longer viable. That's a huge improvement.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

The GDC has made it *absolutely clear* that the object and the spirit of the game is to play to win -- each match.

I have to respectfully disagree. The GDC wants Breakaway to be a competitive game, but they have made it even more clear that there is more to winning than getting a higher score than your opponents.
If the GDC wanted us to play purely to win matches, they would have made the ranking system win-loss-tie. But they didn't, which means there's more to winning than "winning".

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by StevenB

I have to respectfully disagree. The GDC wants Breakaway to be a competitive game, but they have made it even more clear that there is more to winning than getting a higher score than your opponents.
If the GDC wanted us to play purely to win matches, they would have made the ranking system win-loss-tie. But they didn't, which means there's more to winning than "winning".

Originally Posted by Section 7, The Game

7.1 OVERVIEW
Breakaway is a game played on the FIELD (illustrated in the figure below). Two ALLIANCES, one red and one blue, composed of three FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC) teams each, compete in each MATCH. The object of the game is to attain a higher score than your opponent by shooting BALLS into a GOAL, climbing on the ALLIANCE TOWER or PLATFORM, or by lifting an ALLIANCE ROBOT off the PLAYING SURFACE.

There are more than one reason to consider why they made the ranking system the way they did. This system discourages defense far more than any other system FRC has had, in a game that can be crippled by defense. It also works in the coopertition patent that FIRST announces last year. But it does not mean you shouldn't play to win.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

The GDC has made it *absolutely clear* that the object and the spirit of the game is to play to win -- each match.

I am stunned that in light of this clarification there are still teams that are considering doing otherwise.

Folks,

I you were playing football, soccer or any other game that monotonicly rewards running up a higher score than your opponent, and that only rewards that strategy, then I would agree with statements like this one or with assertioins about "The spirit of the game"; but that is not this situation.

If you want to win the on-the-field competition, look at this tournament's rules - all of them - then do the math and maximize your chances of taking home a Tournament Champions trophy. Don't interject rules that simply aren't there.

I urge you to do that do that in the context of maximizing your chances to earn a Chairman's award, and to also avoid any notions of having to use "proper" or "correct" strategies that are not derived from THIS game's/tournament's rules. Do your best to do well in this tournament. Accomplishing that might require strategies that would be simply foolish in other tournements.

You aren't playing those other games right now, and sometimes the hallowed notions of those games don't apply to FIRST games/tournaments. All games and tournaments are not alike.

Blake
PS: I was growing tired of those green dots

[Molten]

Originally Posted by gblake

Don't interject rules that simply aren't there.

I may just be hard-headed on this issue, but I really don't know how I'd be able to sleep that night after throwing a match. Sure, scoring for an opponent(though I don't like it) I could live with. But throwing a match isn't something I'd be willing to do. I realize that sometimes giving up is the smart thing to do, but its just not in me. At least not in this regard. I guess what I'm saying is that the rules may not be in the manual depending how you read them, but they are still there. They are there because of the way we are pre-conditioned through society. I guess I'm just not smart enough to overcome this one.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Molten

I may just be hard-headed on this issue, but I really don't know how I'd be able to sleep that night after throwing a match. Sure, scoring for an opponent(though I don't like it) I could live with. But throwing a match isn't something I'd be willing to do. I realize that sometimes giving up is the smart thing to do, but its just not in me. At least not in this regard. I guess what I'm saying is that the rules may not be in the manual depending how you read them, but they are still there. They are there because of the way we are pre-conditioned through society. I guess I'm just not smart enough to overcome this one.

What the heck are you talking about while also quoting me?????

Don't insert statements, opinions or assertions into what I wrote that simply aren't there - What does throwing a match or giving up have to do with any single thing I wrote? - What vague and nebulous rules that are not written in THIS tournament/game's rulebook are you referring to?

If you are going to quote me, please just focus on what I what I wrote. If winning the tournament is your goal, I advocated doing your best to win the tournament. No where in that idea is there room for "throwing a match", and no where in the suggestioin to follow a contest's published rules in order to maximize your chances of winning the contest will you find the notion of "throwing a match".

Don't trot out that old canard - It simply does not apply.

Blake

[Molten]

Originally Posted by gblake

What the heck are you talking about while also quoting me?????

Don't insert statements, opinions or assertions into what I wrote that simply aren't there - What does throwing a match or giving up have to do with any single thing I wrote? - What vague and nebulous rules that are not written in THIS tournament/game's rulebook are you referring to?

If you are going to quote me, please just focus on what I what I wrote. If winning the tournament is your goal, I advocated doing your best to win the tournament. No where in that idea is there room for "throwing a match", and no where in the suggestioin to follow a contest's published rules in order to maximize your chances of winning the contest will you find the notion of "throwing a match".

Don't trot out that old canard - It simply does not apply.

Blake

I read what you posted just as it says. This is the part I was referring to in particular:

Originally Posted by gblake

If you want to win the on-the-field competition, look at this tournament's rules - all of them - then do the math and maximize your chances of taking home a Tournament Champions trophy. Don't interject rules that simply aren't there.

One of such strategies would be a 6vs0 match which has been discussed clearly on this forum. It is certainly "maximizing your chances"...but just goes against the rules ingrained into us. I'm not referring to constraints of the game. They are very clear. I'm referring to the constraints we place upon ourselves. I see 6vs0 as throwing a match and thus use them synonamously.

I make the same request as you. Take my words at face value. I didn't implicate you in any form of a crime as you seem to believe. We just see things differently. Let's discuss it civilly rather then being outraged over misunderstandings.

Jason

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Molten

I read what you posted just as it says. This is the part I was referring to in particular:

One of such strategies would be a 6vs0 match which has been discussed clearly on this forum. It is certainly "maximizing your chances"...but just goes against the rules ingrained into us. I'm not referring to constraints of the game. They are very clear. I'm referring to the constraints we place upon ourselves. I see 6vs0 as throwing a match and thus use them synonamously.

I make the same request as you. Take my words at face value. I didn't implicate you in any form of a crime as you seem to believe. We just see things differently. Let's discuss it civilly rather then being outraged over misunderstandings.

Jason

I remain as irritated as when I wrote the previous reply.

I think part of the intent of your original reply was to say that I was urging teams to "throw" matches.

I bristle because saying a team or person "threw a game" is an accusation of cheating/wrongdoing. I don't believe I urged anyone to cheat or to give anything other than 110% of their best effort toward winning a Breakaway tournament.

If purposefully playing a 6v0 match is throwing a Breakaway tournament, then intentionally walking a batter must be throwing a baseball game. Both can appear counterintuitive in the short run, but both can be exactly the right thing to do in the long run.

Blake
PS: I'll bet that winning tournaments has been ingrained in both of us, and that both of us would be properly upset if someone said we were urging teams to be deceitful or cheat. That "Throw a game" term is the sort of phrase that I think of as fightin' words. It must not be allowed to stick in contexts where it does not apply.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by gblake

I remain as irritated as when I wrote the previous reply.

I think part of the intent of your original reply was to say that I was urging teams to "throw" matches.

I bristle because saying a team or person "threw a game" is an accusation of cheating/wrongdoing. I don't believe I urged anyone to cheat or to give anything other than 110% of their best effort toward winning a Breakaway tournament.

If purposefully playing a 6v0 match is throwing a Breakaway tournament, then intentionally walking a batter must be throwing a baseball game. Both can appear counterintuitive in the short run, but both can be exactly the right thing to do in the long run.

Blake
PS: I'll bet that winning tournaments has been ingrained in both of us, and that both of us would be properly upset if someone said we were urging teams to be deceitful or cheat. That "Throw a game" term is the sort of phrase that I think of as fightin' words. It must not be allowed to stick in contexts where it does not apply.

6v0 isn't throwing the tournament. It is throwing a single game. If it helps you in the overall tournament and your ok doing it, go for it. I won't stop you. And I won't judge you for doing it. I also don't see it as being deceitful or cheating. 6vs0 is only deceitful if you deny it when asked about it. It should be painfully clear to everyone involved what is happening. As for cheating, I really don't think that applies either. It just doesn't settle with me. I'm not accusing you of wrongdoing. Far from it, I think it is a creative strategy that people should be free to use. Just don't expect everyone to be open to doing it. Some of us are just stubborn about these sort of things.

PS: I also get annoyed when someone walks a batter or runs down the clock in a game. Both acceptable, but I wouldn't do either. Nobody thinks its cheating, I just couldn't feel right doing it.

I apologize for the strong wording, but I stand behind every thought that was presented.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by gblake

If purposefully playing a 6v0 match is throwing a Breakaway tournament, then intentionally walking a batter must be throwing a baseball game. Both can appear counterintuitive in the short run, but both can be exactly the right thing to do in the long run.

The stated objective of a baseball game according to the MLB rules is:

1.02 The objective of each team is to win by scoring more runs than the opponent.

Walking a batter is a strategy used within the game to attempt to achieve the game's stated objective.

The stated objective of a game of Breakaway is:

The object of the game is to attain a higher score than your opponent by shooting BALLS into a GOAL, climbing on the ALLIANCE TOWER or PLATFORM, or by lifting an ALLIANCE ROBOT off the PLAYING SURFACE.

6v0 does not accomplish or help accomplish that objective. Choosing to attempt a 6v0 match is in fact a decision to not attempt to achieve the stated objective of the game, which would seem to me to be exactly what "throwing a game" is.

Personally I will not be offended, or look any differently at an opponent who chooses to use this tactic, but our team will be trying to win every match, no matter how bleak the outlook.

[gblake]

OK - So if you want to win games you do that by

... shooting BALLS into a GOAL, climbing on the ALLIANCE TOWER or PLATFORM, or by lifting an ALLIANCE ROBOT off the PLAYING SURFACE.

Now, on the other hand, if you want to win tournaments (become the event Champions) you do it through this process:

The purpose of the qualifying matches is to allow each team to earn a seeding position that may qualify them for participation in the elimination matches. The purpose of the elimination matches is to determine the event Champions.

With me so far? - I know I am stating the obvious.

Now let's check which of these is celebrated.

Hmmm, I can't find a won-lots-of-matches award for teams to earn at an event, but I can find a Champion award and a Finalist Award; and I can find a Highest Rookie Seed award. the path to all three of these awards seems to have more to do with Seeding points and Coopertition bonus than with Win/Loss stats.

So, enjoy winning games if that is what floats your boat, and enjoy trying to win the tournament if that is what floats your boat; but please don't use the phrase "Throwing a ___" to describe either circumstance.

People playing to win every match when their team is unable to do so well enough to win the tournament can be accused of "Throwing the tournament" just as easily as people playing to win the tournament can be accused of "Throwing a match". My point isn't that both statements would be equally right; my point is that both would be equally wrong.

Again, if you are playing baseball, soccer, bowling or similar games, I have never heard of a reason to purposefully lose a game that matters to the team's post-season play. But we aren't playing those games. We are playing Breakaway games during an FRC tournament.

I recommend banishing the phrase "Throwing a match" from the lexicon we use to describe the 6v0 strategy, and any related strategies. It was that phrase that got my dander up.

Blake
PS: I think Molten and I are on the same page or are close enough - I hope that is true for other readers too.
PPS: Vikes - You and I can reach a meeting of the minds if you are willing to join me in asserting that mid- and low-level teams attempting to win every match (and predictably failing to do so) are "Throwing the tournament"; or (preferably) join me in asserting that using 6v0 is not "throwing" anything.