high scored matches

[SGK]

Am I crazy or not?

I watched some of the last qual matches over the web and in listening to the commentators and looking at the clock it seem that the human player period was 15 seconds and not the 10 that we had at UTC and BAE. I know at the UTC scrimmage that FIRST was thinking about 15 for safety reasons but is this official now or just implemented locally in FL.

Seeing matches with stacks > 4 means that a human player had time to (and did in some of my viewing) cross the field to put 4 on 4, etc. Even with 15 seconds this is a tall task, but with 10 seconds, almost impossible.

Whether allowing 8-stacks to be created & standing on both sides is "decided" by opposing forces before the match, I do not know. Is it Graciously Professional to have both sides work together to get the highest scores?

Working together and getting 15 H.P. seconds, however, would allow for the extremely high QP scores in FL.

Just my 2 cents worth.


P.S. BUZZ likes to and will knock down any size stack!

[Keith Chester]

Originally posted by Paul W.
My team was at the Great Lakes Regional, and I only saw one match that looked like it had any collusion. It was really obvious - the final score was 102 to 101, and the winning team got 304 qualifying points. That was the only match like that, and I'm glad that most of the teams were noble enough not to stoop to that level.

Here's the results of the matches. It was Match #20:
http://www2.usfirst.org/2003comp/eve.../matchsum.html


Oddly enough, Chief Delphi, Team 47, was the winning team in the match with the 304 qualifying points...

Stop it! I care not what you mean by this, but no finger pointing! As I said earlier, no good can come of it. All it will do is insult the integrity of teams already established and start a witch hunt that will turn the FIRST community against itself.

These forums have witnessed the change of the FIRST spirit, examplified by few teams anymore. The "fixing matches" scandal is horrible, but no reason to EVER point someone out. Otherwise you're using good intentions to stab the spirit of FIRST.

[marlon_jbt]

How what that match FIXED??? Someone PLEASE TELL ME THAT!

I don't see it.

It was the only good match that we had, and it was only due to good luck... our drivers, and our coach dug us into that irremovable slump after that.

Hey, they should have an award for the highest scores... that way, we would have won SOMETHING.

However, I congratulate the winning teams, they truly deserved it.

[jasti@myself]

I KNOW THAT PEOPLE FIX MATCHES. AFTER BEING A MEMBER OF FIRST FOR TWO YEARS, I HAVE NOTED MANY OF THEM. IN FACT, IN THE CURIE DIVISION IN FLORIDA LAST YEAR, OUR ALLIANCE TURNED AGAINST US SO THAT THEY COULD BE SELECTED FOR THE FINALS.

I AM A MEMBER OF TEAM #519. WE HAD THE MATCH AT THE GREAT LAKES REGIONAL THAT HAD THE 304 QP POINTS.

I AM ASHAMED THAT ANYONE WOULD ACCUSE US, OR OUR ALLIANCE, OF CHEATING.

BEING AN MINORITY-BASED INNER CITY TEAM, I FIND THIS REALLY APPALLING BECAUSE WE WORK HARD, AND WE PLAY HARD. THIS IS SOME ABSOLUTE BULL.

AND AS FOR TEAM 818 COMMENTING LIKE THAT. THAT WAS TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR.

HEY PEOPLE, TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT WHAT F.I.R.S.T STANDS FOR. THEN, ASK YOURSELF, AM I TRULY EXPRESSING THE F.I.R.S.T SPIRIT, OR AM I A "WANNABE?"

[jasti@myself]

oh yeah, and by the way. for all you 'haters' out there: we have the second highest QP score in the nation.

[157#1Driver]

ok, I created this thread to see what others oppinions on this matter are. I DID NOT WANT ANY FINGER POINTING!! Sorry team 519 for any accusing. I heard about that match but didn't hit me cause it was the only high scored over 300. Watching the Central florida one with many high scoring matches made me wonder. Sorry again.

[DougHogg]

A quick way to get rid of all the controversy would be to change the scoring so that a team gets their score and thats it.

End of story.

We don't need the current aggravation.

Let's just score the competition the way these things are done in the sports world. I haven't heard of any baseball teams getting their score plus double the opponents.

I think it is time to put this particular turkey (scoring system) to rest.

In the meantime, let's all keep our cool, as the saying goes, and not make accusations.

Even if a team says they made agreements with the opposing alliance, the rules do not currently prohibit that.

The problem as I see it is that a few teams are playing a team of 4 game, whereas most are playing 2-on-2. That causes confusion which can lead players to suspect any high score as "arranged". However there can easily be a high score without agreements, so NO FINGER POINTING, okay?

Let us hope that we hear from FIRST concerning its original intentions for this year's game. Obviously there is no way to tell for sure if a high score is "arranged" or not, but if FIRST were to let all the teams know what their basic intention was for this year's game with regards to opposing alliances making agreements, that should help to get us all operating on the same basis, using the same rules. Without that basic agreement, it is hard to maintain harmony.

Then we need to get the scoring changed!

Wow! I am glad we didn't run into this last year.

[157#1Driver]

Originally posted by DougHogg
A quick way to get rid of all the controversy would be to change the scoring so that a team gets their score and thats it.

End of story.

You know, after all the years of complicated scoring, either way the scoring goes, your gonna score. Its gonna be the same. Its just the amounts change. Plus, changing it to just getting your scored would make it a lot easier for people watching for the first time.

Good simple thinking Doug

[Koci]

If each team gets their own score, that will only make matters worse. If you say "I won't touch your stacks if you don't touch mine," it is all the easier to say yes, and you will ALWAYS reap the benefits in that case. You no longer would even have to worry about winning the match.

The best idea I can come up with is to just go with a scoring system similar to all sports out there: 2 (or 3) points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for a loss. That way, maximizing points for both sides doesn't help both sides, and immediately stops any possibility for collusion. Then at the end of the competition, points are used as a tiebreaker (e.g. 3 teams are undefeated at the end of competition, and whoever has the greatest point differential is in first).

Of course, in the larger competitions where teams don't play as many matches, the number of teams tied at a certain position increases, placing more emphasis on points, but at least there is less emphasis than there is now.

Also, SGK, the 10 second human player limit is for autonomous mode. If you are not back in 10 seconds, your robot does not start its autonomous. If you get back within 15 seconds, then your robot does not start in autonomous mode, but DOES start in remote control mode. So, all of the teams who did not have an autonomous mode programmed in their robot did not have to worry about getting back in 10 seconds, and thus took their sweet time, and just make sure they got back before the 15 seconds were up.

[The Lucas]

I watched a couple of the super high QP matches of the Central Florida and they were incredibly boring. Teams carefully drove around their opponents delicate human player stack of 8 so as not to disturb it. They fought hard on the top of the ramp to fit everyone in.

The collusion in these matches is insanely blatant. At least pretend to compete by pushing each other around a bit. Watching fixed matches is like watching Professional Wrestling without the violence.

Not all the high scores were fixed but some certainly were. Replic is absolutely correct that finger pointing only makes everyone mad and defensive so no good comes out of it.

After one of the matches the announcer said something to the effect of :
"The 3 highest scores in the nation have been right here at the Central Florida Regional. That is because we have the best teams right here."
That statement was unbelievably disturbing. Manipulating the QP system was taking the spotlight off those who worked hard building great bots and putting it on those who could bargain their way to the top of the standings. Without fixing matches it would take a great deal of luck to achieve those high scores so the best teams with the best bots there were not necessarily getting that luck so they had reasonable lower scores that no one notices.

If FIRST wants to move into the realm where this event is televised on a commercial station, they needs to stop match fixing because no one wants to watch a sport where teams dont try their hardest to beat each other. FIRST needs to abandon the policy of giving the winner points based on the loser's score or go back to the 4 team alliances of 2001. Sure this QP system keeps more capable bots from blowing away less capable bots, which would discourage the less capable bot makers from competing. However, awarding QP's based on the loser's score has lead to the "chokehold" strategy (score 0 so the other bots get 0) of last year and match fixing this year. Koci has the right idea for a qualifing system. Unfortunately, it depends too much on the strength of schedule in your random pairings, but what are you gonna do? Please dont say BCS system. At least FIRST didnt make the same mistake as I-A College football.

P.S. Strange how quickly so many threads turn into ones about match fixing isnt it?

[Keith Chester]

Unfortunately, the simple solution of keeping your own score only complicates the matter. If you think about it, it makes fixing matches much more tempting. Not only this, but the amount of ties for posistions will be much greater. There may be, depending on the game (if similar to 2002), several exact ties for 1st.

Also, a team that dominates 100% of the game would gain more. Meaning- you can shut out the opponnent and get no reprucussion for it. This is the exact opposite of what FIRST wants. They do not want shut outs!

Sorry for my poor writing and spelling, for I am tired.

[Keith Chester]

Repubic

FOR THE LOVE OF.... LOL Can ANYONE get my name right on the first try? Geez, go type it in google and get a ton of hits (the first one being my web page).

[DougHogg]

Originally posted by Koci
If each team gets their own score, that will only make matters worse. If you say "I won't touch your stacks if you don't touch mine," it is all the easier to say yes, and you will ALWAYS reap the benefits in that case. You no longer would even have to worry about winning the match.

The best idea I can come up with is to just go with a scoring system similar to all sports out there: 2 (or 3) points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for a loss. That way, maximizing points for both sides doesn't help both sides, and immediately stops any possibility for collusion. Then at the end of the competition, points are used as a tiebreaker (e.g. 3 teams are undefeated at the end of competition, and whoever has the greatest point differential is in first).

Hm.. good thinking. That would be better. I hereby change my vote to your point system.

[Keith Chester]

Originally posted by Koci
If each team gets their own score, that will only make matters worse. If you say "I won't touch your stacks if you don't touch mine," it is all the easier to say yes, and you will ALWAYS reap the benefits in that case. You no longer would even have to worry about winning the match.

The best idea I can come up with is to just go with a scoring system similar to all sports out there: 2 (or 3) points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for a loss. That way, maximizing points for both sides doesn't help both sides, and immediately stops any possibility for collusion. Then at the end of the competition, points are used as a tiebreaker (e.g. 3 teams are undefeated at the end of competition, and whoever has the greatest point differential is in first).

Of course, in the larger competitions where teams don't play as many matches, the number of teams tied at a certain position increases, placing more emphasis on points, but at least there is less emphasis than there is now.

I can see where you're coming from. I still think this will make teams think about doing only the bare minimum to win a game. FIRST wants high excitement- high scoring close rounds that are constantly moving, fast, furious, and not fixed. In other words- they are trying to remove the domination team and level the playing field while bringing in more and more viewers.


Sorry about writing three messages in a row people. I simply did not see the messages before each sending.

[The Lucas]

Originally posted by Replic
FOR THE LOVE OF.... LOL Can ANYONE get my name right on the first try? Geez, go type it in google and get a ton of hits (the first one being my web page).

Sorry about that. I am a horible typer and rely on the spell check to correct that. It doesnt work for names. I actually noticed it and edited it before i read ur last post.