Throwing the game.

[defied]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

Sometimes I wonder if these loopholes in our games are left somewhat intentionally to give our teams - under the guidance of mentors - an opportunity to demonstrate such Gracious Professionalism, despite the temptation to clearly violate GP and "win."

This. I like this.

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

So... I would hope that our community as a whole would reject this potential temptation as a "cheap" way to game the system for a silly trophy. I felt the same way about the Noodle Agreement.

I would hope so as well.
The noodle agreement is getting a rule made to prevent this from happening, which brings me to the point of my post: Should there be a rule made/altered to ensure this can't happen?

On a positive note, I'm loving that the responses tend to lean towards the optimistic side. That gives me good feelings for this season.

D

[MooreteP]

It's not like it hasn't happened in the past.

I think this is the 2010 Breakaway match that was "thrown" for seeding advantage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9EG...U&spfreload=10

In this game, your opponents score contributed to your ranking.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by MooreteP

It's not like it hasn't happened in the past.

I think this is the 2010 Breakaway match that was "thrown" for seeding advantage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9EG...U&spfreload=10

In this game, your opponents score contributed to your ranking.

There is a big difference between a whole alliance deciding to score for your opponent in a game that rewards all 6 teams for such an action, and one team going rogue to sabotage another as is being discussed here.

[bobjones227]

So, if a team that was on the edge of being a picking team were to receive this offer, would they accept it? Hopefully not. That would violate the code of GP and even then, if the opposing team made the picking, they would most likely choose the robots that fit their strategy best.

[Marc S.]

In 2012 a team that was partnered with 1717 at the Central Valley regional caused over 40 pts in penalties which caused them to barely lose the match (1717's only loss at that event). Whether it was intentional or not they were ("accidentally") not picked.

There have been times where teams were accused of doing similar actions, 217 on newton 2013, 973 at cvr 2014, etc. where the team actually had success in elims and it caused many to complain publicly.

In those instances no foul play was ever proven. In your scenario, foul play would be obvious and the outcry would be even greater. You may win that event but teams (and volunteers) will remember it and come to dislike you.

[defied]

Originally Posted by Marc S.

In your scenario, foul play would be obvious and the outcry would be even greater.

Will it, though? There is of course the obvious "Let's knock these crates over" maneuver when one would just slam in to the crates with intent.

But then there is also what was mentioned earlier; where someone would get close and perhaps sideswipe it. Or the team would say their robot went straight and became unresponsive for a moment (Which is known to happen [many times last season] and the robots were rarely disabled) but afterwards they regained control (just to lose it again?).

A lot of this can be explained away as accidental, and shoot, could very well BE accidental.

So, if one could create stacks and have the points awarded upon completion of said stack and not end of game, wouldn't that be partially effective? Of course that would then open up the possibility that someone could build a stack, score, destroy the stack and rebuild it, mobius strip.

D

[bobjones227]

Originally Posted by defied

So, if one could create stacks and have the points awarded upon completion of said stack and not end of game, wouldn't that be partially effective? Of course that would then open up the possibility that someone could build a stack, score, destroy the stack and rebuild it, mobius strip.

D

Wouldn't a top ranked team in a regional or at world's want a teammate who is always effective at what they do, instead of being just partially effective?

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by defied

Or the team would say their robot went straight and became unresponsive for a moment (Which is known to happen [many times last season] and the robots were rarely disabled) but afterwards they regained control (just to lose it again?).

The RoboRio will hopefully reduce at least some of the underlying cause of issues like this.
Seeing as turning your robot into an obstacle on this field without warning could cause your alliance issues I would hope that the RoboRio's ability to recover from low battery voltage situations will at least put robots a little more in control.

I watched Team 11's robot run around a competition field dropping FMS packets left and right and still remain drivable using the beta RoboRio. They did nothing to gain that capability in their code in fact the code in the robot at the time was allowing the drivetrain to place heavy drain on the battery. Had that robot had a cRIO it would have had a radio reset that would have made it stop.

[RunawayEngineer]

It's strange that this would be a topic this year. The lack of Win/Loss/Tie system makes this year the one with the lowest incentive for sabotage in qualifications.
Individual teams have way less influence on each other's rankings than in previous years. Last year - a couple points swung in a single match determined the top seedings. This year - a couple points in a single match is almost meaningless because it is averaged out over all of them.
A scenario like described could exist between 2 close rival teams - but the same incentive has been in almost every regional previously, with teams having more influence to act on it.
Resilience to this particular brand of politics is one of the things that I like about this new structure.

[ScottOliveira]

Originally Posted by RunawayEngineer

It's strange that this would be a topic this year. The lack of Win/Loss/Tie system makes this year the one with the lowest incentive for sabotage in qualifications.
Individual teams have way less influence on each other's rankings than in previous years. Last year - a couple points swung in a single match determined the top seedings. This year - a couple points in a single match is almost meaningless because it is averaged out over all of them.
A scenario like described could exist between 2 close rival teams - but the same incentive has been in almost every regional previously, with teams having more influence to act on it.
Resilience to this particular brand of politics is one of the things that I like about this new structure.

I would strongly disagree, if anything I would believe sabotage would be far easier this year than previously (not that I advocate that strategy). While points are averaged, it is very easy to knock over a few 3-4 tote + container stacks and take out a hundred points or more (easily potentially dropping their average score by 10% or more if you are looking to effect a dramatic change). And the larger number of discrete ranking levels means it can be easier to knock a (perhaps threatening) team down (possibly out of a captainship) while maintaining your own position.

[JesseK]

Maybe my hand slips and hits the offending bot's E-stop. Maybe.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Maybe my hand slips and hits the offending bot's E-stop. Maybe.

:-) I know I can be clumsy that way.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Maybe my hand slips and hits the offending bot's E-stop. Maybe.

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

:-) I know I can be clumsy that way.

I almost made a comment about how coaches are not allowed to touch the controls. However, after searching the manual, I cannot find a 2015 rule that says so.

Slap away!

[Logan Byers]

Sorry Taylor, coaches still should not touch controls.

"G32: During a MATCH, the ROBOT shall be operated solely by the DRIVERS and/or HUMAN PLAYERS of that Team.
VIOLATION: Offending ROBOT will be DISABLED."

[Thromgord]

There's a point that I think that a lot of people are missing: even if knocking over a set of totes could improve your ranking, it still means that you have to deal with other teams at the competition.

Personally, I think I can speak for my team when I say that we wouldn't join an alliance that achieved its position by underhanded means, even if it was our only chance at getting to Nationals. I wonder what would happen if nobody accepted an alliance with the dirty (mumble-mumble) teams... is there a rule for this?