301 points! and could have done more

[Chief Hedgehog]

I am still on the fence with this whole ordeal...

There is no doubt in my mind this was all done with good intentions - nearly everyone directly involved has passionately stated this.

I do start to cringe at the thought that a monetary device was used to influence the decisions. I also don't like to think that a sole entity can impose such a challenge - even though I understand his intentions.

I had a few discussions at our parent meeting tonight, and I came away with a different thought...

What if in the future GDC actually set forth more of these types of 'challenges' throughout the game? Not tied to money - but in another way (like the bridge of 2012). What if both alliances reached certain goals and they were awarded with trinkets or even valuable goods (Batteries, DLinks, Battery Beaks, 3d Printers, etc.)? How much would that play into the coopertition or the game at hand? I think that there is value in this type of incentive-goal based challenge - it could lead to a whole other platform that FRC has dabbled with in the recent past (Coopertition Bridge 2012)

Back to the OP: No matter how it looks from the outside, I must trust the intentions of the other coaches and teams to decide to play in this manner. As a fellow coach, I must respect their decisions to do what is best for their respective teams. No one should ever question the motives of a coach/team... otherwise the spirit of FRC is in question.

However, I do know my team - and there is no way they would alter their gameplay in any way that would lessen our chances at winning a match.

All in all - everyone must realize that FRC is an evolving entity - an entity that is now worldwide. With that will come nuances and controversies that stem from localized events. Keep an open mind as this experiment known as FRC keeps evolving. Every team, every player, every coach will do what they see as the best for their respective teams. I will continue to respect these decisions as long as these decisions are kept with the spirit and goals of FRC in mind.

Just my 2 cents in a novel form.

[cglrcng]

Snipped from Libbys comment:

".....this thread is full of comments that this particular match's gameplay was astonishingly different from the rest of the season across the country."

About the only thing that was "astonishingly different" is that 6 bots went back in the bag fairly undamaged by taking the assumptions of many participants and non-participants alike of that designed in "Battle Bots" element out of the game. (I do not remember the GDC ever going over that defense angle in the game release, nor in the Kick Off videos, or the Game Animation, does any robot make contact...Well except for poor lil' Dozer getting smashed by that Big Ball so we would learn to make our Robots Robust!

Actually, Final-Match 2 was about as close to the Animation Video as possible, or we will probably see all year.....And you must admit, our Team 60 "The Thighmaster of War" or as we call her "Suzanne"...Looks a whole lot like poor little Dozer, on steroids pumped up for Aerial Assist...without the eyes and the blade of course).

And, absolutely nowhere do the words "must play a defensive strategy" appear in the rules. So, you play your game strategy, we are free to play ours.

As long as neither of us violate the published RULE SET.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by cglrcng

Snipped from Libbys comment:

".....this thread is full of comments that this particular match's gameplay was astonishingly different from the rest of the season across the country."

About the only thing that was "astonishingly different" is that 6 bots went back in the bag fairly undamaged by taking the assumptions of many participants and non-participants alike of that designed in "Battle Bots" element out of the game. (I do not remember the GDC ever going over that defense angle in the game release, nor in the Kick Off videos, or the Game Animation, does any robot make contact...Well except for poor lil' Dozer getting smashed by that Big Ball so we would learn to make our Robots Robust!

Actually, Final-Match 2 was about as close to the Animation Video as possible, or we will probably see all year.....And you must admit, our Team 60 "The Thighmaster of War" or as we call her "Suzanne"...Looks a whole lot like poor little Dozer, on steroids pumped up for Aerial Assist...without the eyes and the blade of course).

And, absolutely nowhere do the words "must play a defensive strategy" appear in the rules. So, you play your game strategy, we are free to play ours.

As long as neither of us violate the published RULE SET.

If both alliances had come to the conclusion that they felt going 3 offense/0 defense then that would have been fine. Instead, both alliances conspired together to alter the game purposefully to try and get all 6 teams the $500. That is the astonishingly different part.

Not playing defense is not an innovative strategy nor a unique one.

[TheOtherGuy]

I'm not even sure what to say at this point. Everyone on our team enjoyed the regional immensely, and the challenge had nothing but a positive effect on that experience. We're pumped and can't wait to come back next year to either (or both) of the Arizona regionals. Congratulations to the winning and finalist alliances, you've inspired us.

Everyone else, continue with civility, but please don't take away the Sanghi challenge - we like to have fun once in a while.

Sometimes there's more to life than winning. I wish we could realize this more often...

[ThunderousPrime]

My strategic opinions on what went down in Arizona;

Disclaimer: The $500 200-200 offer is not analyzed here; the strategy and theory in question is analyzed in regard to winning the match with the decision to go no defense is.

1. You won't see this strategy of stationary robots with no obvious attempt to help their alliance (ie setting up for assists, catches, defense, counter defense) at regionals, distict champs or anywhere else this season. Exceptional defense whas won and will continue to win matches in Aerial Assist. At TVR the second and third seeds (250, 5030) were teams that specialized in targeting 1 team and locking them down during that match.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkdWLP7qrzc

This is the Finals 1 of TVR where 250 completely dominates 1126 the whole match. No exaggeration.

Granted the blue alliancein Arizona might not have been able to execute such a strategy but other posts suggesting that this might become a trend are completely absurd when defense can be played like this against some teams.

I haven't even mentioned zone defense which continues to be powerful as long as the defender is effective and still assumes a healthy balance between offensive and defensive responsibilities.

2. Part of the reason why many are appalled by AZCL F2 is the amount of defense applied in other regionals esp when you compare vastly different fields of defenders and attackers across events. The defense played in F1 was ineffective; it lacked any sort of hard ramming during shots and blocking passes and inbounds which have caused the game to be dubbed "Aerial Assault".

3. I disagree with the blue alliance's strategic (bolded for emphasis, this is a strategic analysis only) decision to participate in a no defense shoot-out as the best route for winning the match. It has been stated and also heavily assumed that the blue allianced was "outgunned" and not favored to win the match or a shootout senerio based on the robots and chemistry involved. Following F1 instead of going for less defense I would have tried more: a more physical and aggressive defense would have at least pushed Red to adapt or play through it to accumulate assists and score them. In addition to breaking red's rhythm a lower score which comes with defensive based matches favors blue who needs to catch up after auton. Putting 2 robots on defense has the potential to the MOV much more than emgaging in a shootout.

Just my opinions. I would like to hear what others thing in regards to the all offense strategy and my post.

Arizona is a hotspot right now. I advise everyone think twice before posting esp. when GP is called into question.

~Nick

[Gemmendorfer]

Originally Posted by ThunderousPrime

My strategic opinions on what went down in Arizona;


2. Part of the reason why many are appalled by AZCL F2 is the amount of defense applied in other regionals esp when you compare vastly different fields of defenders and attackers across events. The defense played in F1 was ineffective; it lacked any sort of hard ramming during shots and blocking passes and inbounds which have caused the game to be dubbed "Aerial Assault".

This isn't fully related to the ethics questions going on in the thread, and was just an observation from a side station as human player, but I am pretty sure the lack of hard ramming was partially due to the Head Ref making sure the drivers understood the new ramming rules (the update to G27 on the 20th), and how they were going to call it.

I remember just in a practice match, 812's bot hit ours at mediocre speed (they were going just fast enough that when they hit us, they tipped a small, but our bot didn't really move much), and it was still called a ramming foul.

Pretty much just think you didn't see the heavy ramming in large part due to drivers definitely not wanting to get that foul.

(Just an observation)

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Gemmendorfer

This isn't fully related to the ethics questions going on in the thread, and was just an observation from a side station as human player, but I am pretty sure the lack of hard ramming was partially due to the Head Ref making sure the drivers understood the new ramming rules (the update to G27 on the 20th), and how they were going to call it.

I remember just in a practice match, 812's bot hit ours at mediocre speed (they were going just fast enough that when they hit us, they tipped a small, but our bot didn't really move much), and it was still called a ramming foul.

Pretty much just think you didn't see the heavy ramming in large part due to drivers definitely not wanting to get that foul.

(Just an observation)

That... doesn't sound anything like the new ramming rule?

But really, this discussion should take place somewhere else...

[cglrcng]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxp4dkMQ1Vo

There is the game animation link above....If not found there (the other game release videos, or in the published rules and updates, or the Q & A). Then, it does not exist except in our minds.

All the rest is conjecture and assumptions is all I was attempting to say. And are someones "opinions only," on how each team, alliance, or opposing alliances, "should" be playing the game. All parties played to win every match and every second. Lessons learned hard.

There was no malicious intent to taint the game is all I'm saying. People need to just lighten up on all parties. The game is supposed to be the fun part.

[cglrcng]

Originally Posted by bduddy

That... doesn't sound anything like the new ramming rule?

But really, this discussion should take place somewhere else...

__________________________________

No, that may have just been a part of the equation. Some suffered from that new rule earlier in the competition, and doubts linger in the students minds easily even today. What is "too hard" a hit now? Will you break them and cost you & your alliance the match...or worse, the eliminations?

60 has never backed down from a hard hit on anybody before...ever (the drivers love hard hitting defense and always have).

Well, until the new rule was introduced Thursday and in the earlier tied Q-match on Friday, when fully surrounded by 3 robots and backed against the side wall, though not actually legally pinned, w/ absolutely nowhere to go except very hard through a bot or 2, and needing only 1 point to win and a ball already in the bot.

I asked why not drive right through them....The answer was...that new rule. Risk a huge penalty and a loss for a possible but possibly improbable goal, or take the tied game. (The clock was ticking very close to the end).

Then there was another in a later match "Stopping the alliance from scoring call" against one of their alliance partners that happened at least 8-9' as far as we can tell from the low goal. His question was...."Say What!?!" Attempting to stop them from scoring? Really? Since when?

I could not even attempt to explain that call to him while reviewing the videos except to say maybe something happened we cannot see. We reviewed that video over & over. And the 2 situations were nearly identical as to placement or position on the field.

I have inserted my $3.25 and then some & will be stepping away from the thread.

[indubitably]

Competitions are widely enjoyed and rewarding because of the ingenuity and clever strategic planning necessary for a team or alliance to win whatever game they are playing. While FRC is about much more than just the competition, regional events and even more specifically, finals in eliminations rely on the inherent intrigue of competition. Building a strategy that does not have the
focus of winning diminishes the competitive integrity of the match, especially when it is known that money is an influence.

Qualification matches as a whole can be played strategically by considering being set up best for elims as the challenge, which is why the 6v0 in 2010 can be considered competitively respectable. However, the goal of each match in eliminations is solely to win, there are no seeding factors, only winning and losing.

This is still no reason to not be graciously professional as that would impede others' opportunity to grow, this is an opportunity to see how effective your team's strategic and engineering decisions throughout the season are and simply agreeing to an exhibition match during what is the supposed to be a match-up of the most competitive teams at a regional is a missed opportunity.

[Saberbot]

This has become a wall of text over the past hour, I hope that my thoughts can add something to the discussion.

Everyone here is assuming that people's actions are impeccably thought out and teams are being judged as if their robots performed perfectly, their drivers are flawless, and they can instantly calculate the strategically optimal course of action for any given situation under the pressure of eliminations. I am in no way trying to insult the teams or put down their abilities, but the truth is that the teams don't have superpowers.

Originally Posted by ThunderousPrime

3. I disagree with the blue alliance's strategic (bolded for emphasis, this is a strategic analysis only) decision to participate in a no defense shoot-out as the best route for winning the match. It has been stated and also heavily assumed that the blue allianced was "outgunned" and not favored to win the match or a shootout senerio based on the robots and chemistry involved. Following F1 instead of going for less defense I would have tried more: a more physical and aggressive defense would have at least pushed Red to adapt or play through it to accumulate assists and score them. In addition to breaking red's rhythm a lower score which comes with defensive based matches favors blue who needs to catch up after auton. Putting 2 robots on defense has the potential to the MOV much more than emgaging in a shootout.

The team's drivers aren't perfect. If they know that they can reliably do all of the steps required for their alliance to score, and might possibly be able to do it faster than the other alliance, then there could be a justification for wanting to do what you know your drivers were capable of rather than relying on their ability to defend against the other drivers. Even if a detailed strategic analysis proves otherwise after the fact, the blue alliance still could have acted based on that analysis, thinking that they would have a better chance of winning. Truly they could have acted on any strategic analysis that made sense to them. Even if the view is deluded, it is still the basis for their strategic decision, not an ulterior motive. Members of the blue alliance drive teams speaking here today have claimed that their analysis told them that they would have a better chance with no defense. If they believed that to the best of their knowledge, then that was a justified decision regardless of what seems like it would have been best upon closer review. This is my response to the "It was wrong of the blue alliance to give up" controversy.

It seems that the main focus of the conversation now is that it was wrong for Mr. Sanghi to give a monetary incentive that could cause teams to play in a way that is inconsistent with the GDC's intent. I think we can all presume that Mr. Sanghi did not wish to drive teams away from the GDC's intent, but to add a level of excitement to the event. I know that in the stands, before the final match, I heard people all around me discussing the challenge, making predictions about whether or not it would ever be achieved. So it did succeed in this goal.

Operating under the idea that we should hold the GDC's intent for gameplay as being inline with the mission of FIRST, and that deviation from that intent results in a failure to comply with FIRST's mission:
The problem that arose from the challenge was that it could lead to an alliance manipulating their strategy in a way that results in worse performance according to the the measurements of performance inherent to the Tournament as described by the GDC (win vs. lose). While I do not believe this particular case involved that kind of manipulation, I do see that this type of reward could easily cause problems in other situations. I presume that Mr. Sanghi did not evaluate all of these possibilities on the level that we have in this thread, and I can't see how it would have been practical for him to. It is close to impossible for anyone to consider all of the possible ramifications that could occur as a result of a monetary reward for a specific type of action in an FRC game.

Therefore, I agree that it would be best to not have monetary rewards like this set. While it did increase the level of excitement in the arena, the possibility for the corruption of gameplay outweighs the benefit.

This has been one of the most interesting threads I have ever read through on Chief Delphi. It has been interesting to learn so much about people's paradigms about GP, Coopertition, and the overall mission of FIRST. Though I screamed out of frustration while reading this several times, I welcome the discussion and hope to see more of the people I respectfully disagree with explain their thoughts in a thorough and objective manner.

TLDR: If the team believe they aren't giving up and are gaining an advantage, then they are still playing to win, regardless of what is theoretically most strategic. I believe that the way things played out, the challenge added to regional. I also believe that the harm caused by strategies that contradict the GDC's intent would outweigh this benefit if the blue alliance agreed to full-field play thinking that it would lessen their chance of winning.

[Frank Neuperger]

The red alliance had evolved a high performing cycle, complete with effective defense. 2403 was part of the highly reliable and very fast assist to 842. More so pivotal in the assist cycle than as a defender. The process was well rehearsed and refined including control settings in the time between alliance selection and start of quarter finals. It further evolved leading up to F1 and F2.

Blue recognized there was no way out of the box continuing to play the same way and there was only one match left. The agreement still allowed either alliance to win. It simply changed an oval track race into a drag race.

Red (highly confident) thinking they could drag race as well as oval track race.
Blue thinking they could drag race better than oval track racing.

Both alliances thinking that drag racing is the only way to knock off the Sanghi challenge while remaining in the hunt against each other.

I am not going to try to apportion the weighting of any of the factors because from the discussion above, the actors directly involved had some individual variances in this. The bottom line is that there was consensus. A consortium of sorts where competitors came together effectively for both individual and common goals.

All of the above pressures and constraints in this situation are not unlike the dynamics of the small high tech start-up that this program has been often said to emulate. That is why I personally gravitate to this program .... to expose the kids to the technology as well as the strategic and tactical realities of a high tech business in a competitive environment. The Sanghi challenge being not much different catalyst than a government incentive to be taken advantage of if it makes sense to everyone.

Hats off to Steve Sanghi for making this more real. I hope the challenges can continue.

Karthik's comparative scenario about agreeing to not use minibots in 2011 was thought provoking in that it seems to weave in an element of responsibility for the alliances to play in a way that achieves a level/style of entertainment for the viewing audience. Perhaps, before the match, a note passed to the event announcer regarding any consortium activity would help in this respect.

Back to the game:

From where I was standing Blue performed better without defense in that they were outscored by a less of a percentage in F2 than in F1. Red's "production" of goals was really impressive with the audience going wild on that final truss shot that got it to 301 in the last couple seconds of the match. I (seeing red was ahead by a good cushion) was also rooting for blue to get to 200.

In hindsight the only change I would perhaps recommend is a note to the announcer before the match to clue in the spectators.

Also, in the case of a challenge with a payout, consider a structure it so that the winner gets more.

Just my personal opinion.

[mwtidd]

This interview comes to mind.

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/video...ag/riley-crane

It seems to me that the teams' own selfish desires were aligned to encourage all six of them to work together.

[MrForbes]

A few points after a good nights sleep.

The challenge offered by Mr. Sanghi was to donate money to FIRST. The donation was in proportion to the number of matches where both alliances scored over 200 points in a match. There was a separate, larger donation offered to FIRST for each team in the winning alliance. There was no money ever going to any person or team, under any conditions, for any action. The incentive was a way to leverage several teams' fundraising, by reducing the amount of money they need to raise to participate in the Arizona regional next year.

The concept of match fixing, or "taking a dive for money", never crossed my mind. It troubles me to think that members of the FIRST community, whom I respect so highly, would even consider such a thing.

The matter of our strategic decision to play no defense in the final match....when we saw the first final match score, we knew we had been slaughtered. That's my euphemism for getting fewer than half as many points as the winning alliance. In the paraphrased words of some famous guy, trying the same thing again and expecting different results would have been insane. We tried something else instead.

All six teams in the Arizona finals built robots that were designed to score. We managed to play one match where the robots got to do what they were designed to do. They did it within the game rules. We almost achieved a secondary challenge while doing it. Our team knows we did all we could do to win. We didn't leave anything on the table.

The best alliance won. It's that simple.

[falconmaster]

I hesitate jumping back into this, but just wanted to point out that both alliances were so fixated on the pure scoring potential of their own alliance that we did not even think of committing a human foul to give the other alliance the points needed to break 200. We were only focused on out scoring each other. I too am done with this thread. It has been an eye opening discussion....I am writing a book about education and I think some of this experience might influence some of the book. Thanks to everybody for the lesson.