301 points! and could have done more

[Nathan Rossi]

Our alliance (1492, 4183, & 2647) was also offered to put down defense (for just one match) to try and maximize both of the alliance's scores. The reason I was so skeptical about doing this was we had just spent all of our time during lunch beefing up 2647 for defense (adding 2 CIMs, extra weight, and ect.). Though, the offer was very tempting (and looking back I wish we had taken it).

We did end up losing due to 60's excellent defensive play (and 4183 unfortunately losing power in the last 40 seconds of QF4-3).

I would like to personally apologize for not taking the offer, as I was 1492's primary strategist and had a weighted opinion as to if we should've done it or not. I think both alliances could've easily gotten over 200 points.

After watching week one, I wondered if any alliances would try such a strategy (dropping defense for high scoring) I'm actually surprised we didn't see this strategy sooner.

Originally Posted by seg9585

Morality and consensual agreements between opponents aside, this was by far the most boring Finals match I've ever seen in any FIRST regional ever, considering how many points were actually scored. You really wanted to end a competition like this?

As someone who was watching in person, I can tell you it was far from boring (it was in fact very exciting!).

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by Nathan Rossi

Our alliance (1492, 4183, & 2647) was also offered to put down defense (for just one match) to try and maximize both of the alliance's scores. The reason I was so skeptical about doing this was we had just spent all of our time during lunch beefing up 2647 for defense (adding 2 CIMs, extra weight, and ect.). Though, the offer was very tempting (and looking back I wish we had taken it).

We did end up losing due to 60's excellent defensive play (and 4183 unfortunately losing power in the last 40 seconds of QF4-3).

I would like to personally apologize for not taking the offer, as I was 1492's primary strategist and had a weighted opinion as to if we should've done it or not. I think both alliances could've easily gotten over 200 points.

After watching week one, I wondered if any alliances would try such a strategy (dropping defense for high scoring) I'm actually surprised we didn't see this strategy sooner.



As someone who was watching in person, I can tell you it was far from boring (it was in fact very exciting!).

This right here is my problem with the kind of bet that requires a team to give up something. You should not have to feel bad for playing the game the way you designed your robot to do it. I believe this sponsor's heart was in the right place but it's still a very weird direction to move the game.

I also agree with the sentiment offered by seg9585. If the money is what makes it worth it, then does the amount matter?

[Answer42]

So, this was said earlier, but I didn't see it addressed. Why not just get a foul and raise the opposing alliances score? If you are serious enough to go no defense then why not give the other alliance the points they need "accidentally" when it was clear you had a 100+ point lead on them? that would be what baffles me most about this situation.

[Nirvash]

Originally Posted by Answer42

So, this was said earlier, but I didn't see it addressed. Why not just get a foul and raise the opposing alliances score? If you are serious enough to go no defense then why not give the other alliance the points they need "accidentally" when it was clear you had a 100+ point lead on them? that would be what baffles me most about this situation.

I would assume because it wouldn't be the GP thing to do? Both teams decided to play the game a certain way as a challenge, it would have been cheating that challenge to just foul up 500 points.

And as to people having an issue with this match, nowhere in the rules does it say that you must play with a certain strategy, if anything all the teams did was just Assist each other and have fun.

[Nathan Rossi]

Originally Posted by Nirvash

I would assume because it wouldn't be the GP thing to do? Both teams decided to play the game a certain way as a challenge, it would have been cheating that challenge to just foul up 500 points.

^ This. It was jokingly brought up before our first match but, it woudn't have been the GP thing to do.

[seg9585]

Originally Posted by Nirvash

And as to people having an issue with this match, nowhere in the rules does it say that you must play with a certain strategy, if anything all the teams did was just Assist each other and have fun.

Never said it was against the rules. I'm just thinking about external impressions. I compare FRC to a major sporting event. What if the primary sponsor of the NFL told all the players in the Superbowl they would get a financial incentive if both teams scored at least 10 touchdowns? Both teams agree and play no defense. No rules were broken but I guarantee you there will be very angry football fans, especially the ones who paid $1500/ticket to see it.

Originally Posted by falconmaster

It wasn't the money, it was the challenge!

In this case, I challenge your team to see how high you can get your scores via penalties. Have your human player run out onto the field. Let a drive coach take up the controls. I wonder how many G40 violations the refs would call if the rule was violated for the entire match duration. I won't give you any money for this activity, but it would be fun to see what point value the FMS is designed to max out at, huh?

[nixiebunny]

Originally Posted by seg9585

Never said it was against the rules. I'm just thinking about external impressions. I compare FRC to a major sporting event. What if the primary sponsor of the NFL told all the players in the Superbowl they would get a financial incentive if both teams scored at least 10 touchdowns?

The match in question was the last match of an event with 100 matches played. Your comparison to a sporting event would actually be the equivalent of the two teams making ONE PLAY without defense.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by nixiebunny

The match in question was the last match of an event with 100 matches played. Your comparison to a sporting event would actually be the equivalent of the two teams making ONE PLAY without defense.

Actually it would be a better comparison to the 2nd half of a Championship Game.

[nixiebunny]

Originally Posted by dodar

Actually it would be a better comparison to the 2nd half of a Championship Game.

I think we all knew where the second match would have gone if it was played with defense. You weren't there, we were.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by nixiebunny

I think we all knew where the second match would have gone if it was played with defense. You weren't there, we were.

Video works pretty well.

[nixiebunny]

Have any of you watched the 1984 movie Revenge of the Nerds? It was filmed in Tucson AZ, where I live.

The relevant scene shows the nerds vs the jocks in a tug-of-war contest. The nerds all let go of the rope simultaneously, causing all the jocks to fall backwards over each other. The lead nerd then says calmly, "You win."

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by seg9585

Never said it was against the rules. I'm just thinking about external impressions. I compare FRC to a major sporting event. What if the primary sponsor of the NFL told all the players in the Superbowl they would get a financial incentive if both teams scored at least 10 touchdowns? Both teams agree and play no defense. No rules were broken but I guarantee you there will be very angry football fans, especially the ones who paid $1500/ticket to see it.

My response to your first part: We are not paid athletes and the audience was not upset, on the contrary they got more excited. Plus there was no admission fee. Your analogy is not accurate. The money was not there to get us to give up competing, just the method of competing under the GP umbrella. Steve Sanghi is on the board of directors of FIRST.


In this case, I challenge your team to see how high you can get your scores via penalties. Have your human player run out onto the field. Let a drive coach take up the controls. I wonder how many G40 violations the refs would call if the rule was violated for the entire match duration. I won't give you any money for this activity, but it would be fun to see what point value the FMS is designed to max out at, huh?

I don't understand the point of this avenue of discussion. I can't respond to this one.....If you can't see what we were trying to do then I can't help you.

[seg9585]

Originally Posted by falconmaster

I don't understand the point of this avenue of discussion. I can't respond to this one.....If you can't see what we were trying to do then I can't help you.

I see what you're trying to do -- you're adding a Home Run Derby to World Series Game 7. Home Run Derbys are very exciting for the spectators.

I'd be fascinated to go to an event specifically designed to see how many legitimate points you can score in the game. Maybe as a scrimmage type thing.

I have been a FIRST mentor for 7 years and last year was the first time a team I've mentored made it into the Finals matches of regional elim (and won it) -- an experience I will never forget but something the team worked incredibly hard to achieve for many years while also getting lucky and having a strong alliance.

Some teams win a Regional every year and take it for granted, and I feel like an exhibition in Finals like this kind of makes a mockery out of the situation. I'm specifically talking about the fact that the "best" robots chose to sit there for 90% of the match while their teammates handled the ball rather than making any attempt to improve their chances of winning by playing the game.

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by seg9585

I see what you're trying to do -- you're adding a Home Run Derby to World Series Game 7. Home Run Derbys are very exciting for the spectators.

I'd be fascinated to go to an event specifically designed to see how many legitimate points you can score in the game. Maybe as a scrimmage type thing.

I have been a FIRST mentor for 7 years and last year was the first time a team I've mentored made it into the Finals matches of regional elim (and won it) -- an experience I will never forget but something the team worked incredibly hard to achieve for many years while also getting lucky and having a strong alliance.

Some teams win a Regional every year and take it for granted, and I feel like an exhibition in Finals like this kind of makes a mockery out of the situation. I'm specifically talking about the fact that the "best" robots chose to sit there for 90% of the match while their teammates handled the ball rather than making any attempt to improve their chances of winning by playing the game.

We have a 117 OPR before going into the finals. I think that speaks for itself. Everyone was that could was playing defense on us then. Ask them...When you are on an alliance, you play what ever role helps your team and not your ego. Bottom line is, as Woodie and Dean say, its not about the robot, its about the people and the people here are all thrilled at what transpired.

[iVanDuzer]

There's an underlying tone to the posters where someone says that the two alliances decided to be "GP" and play "in the spirit of coopertition." I'm sure this is not the intention, but the overall effect of these statements makes it seem as though any strategies that are NOT run-and-gun-offence-no-defence are by extension un-GP and not in the spirit of coopertition. And that's not cool for me. I've been taught from day one that coopertition is competing like crazy on the field, while helping each other off of it. It's giving your all and then shaking hands and mending bots after. It doesn't exclude defence. Furthermore, implying that playing defence is "un-GP" is wrong as well. As long as you aren't actively trying to tear robots apart, nothing your robots do on the field has any reflection on GP. Clean D is professional - I see it all the time in the NHL.

Speaking of the NHL, I don't think the original players ever thought the game would evolve strategies like the NJ Devils' famous "trap" defence that won them a bunch of Stanley Cups or the Left Wing Lock that made the Soviets a powerhouse. We are given the game, but the game is defined by how we play it. Last year the game changed drastically depending on what robots were on the field: you had cyclers and climbers and dumpers and full-court-bombers. It was a different game every match. And that was cool. Every (cleanly executed) strategy was just as much in the spirit of coopertition as the next. No one was "superior" to others, and nobody implied that the "proper" way to play the game as FIRST intended it was for every robot to climb the pyramid, or to have three cyclers, or whatever. They were just simply different ways to play the game.

Maybe I'm being too worked up over nothing. Maybe I'm being pedantic. Maybe I'm just way too tired. Or maybe everyone needs to take a deep breath and really consider what we write about each other and ourselves. Worry about the implications. This thread is a great example of what happens when we don't.