Is FIRST Encouraging Uncompetitive Winners?

[Kris Verdeyen]

Norm, you broke two of your own rules there -

Originally posted by Norm M.
8. People who have not yet graduated from college are allowed to construct messages without capitalization, punctuation, or spelling considerations.

9. Adults are not allowed to post humorous messages.

10. All messages should be taken way to seriously.

But anyway, my take on the matter is that the rule sucks, to be sure. It's difficult to understand, but it can be learned. Is it "underhanded" to minimize points in a round that you know you're going to lose? Not at all. While I can see both sides of the debate on the fiery subject of collusion (please don't consider this mention an attempt to resurrect the rightfully dead discussion), I can't here. In an elimination round it is, simply put, really stupid for you to try to put your robots on top of the ramp when you're losing by 51 points. Every additional point you score is another one you have to make up later.

The question is though, is this what we asked for last year when the peanut gallery was crying to "make the finals and the elims the same game"? Well, it's a try. The fact is, as Tony said at the top, the elims are fundamentally different from the quals. This attempt to make them the same has not only failed, but exacerbated the problem, as well as making the finals less interesting to watch.

[sevisehda]

My main comment was to counter the first match is all that matters theory. Lets remember the communitive rule A+B=B+A. There have been a few instances where a alliance loses the first and wins the second and the round. My theory the better alliance normally wins the first match. So logically they win the second match. Or because they won the first match by 100 to 10 they know they could just kill both scores and win. The better alliance still comes out on top no matter how you play the game. If it were best 2 of 3 the better alliance would win just the same.


FIRST is about strategy and most veterans know that qualifying and finals are played very differently because the focus goes from scoring high to winning. Killing your own score isn't being uncompetitive its being strategic.

According to rules 4,8, and 11.

mentors should be encouraging ideas from students and then incorperating them into a final design then assist the student in building said design

back in the day before all these exotic materials and hoo haa existed teams were far more creative with what they built and how they built them teams calculated torque with slide rules not ti-89s the materials available to teams was a fraction of what is allowed to be used today and yet there bots were of the utmost quality and inginuity

[Nate Smith]

Originally posted by Jrmc
A simple yet elegant fix to the current rules would be to make the finals count only the score of your team.
None of this opponents score stuff, that way both teams would be struggling to get the most possible points, no matter if they had won the previous match or not. It would be possible to overcome the small deficit created in two matches....not the huge one that applies the multiplier.

As I believe has been mentioned in previous discussions this year about this very topic, the fact that the elimination matches are based on EP and not raw scores was not something that FIRST pulled out of the air, but rather at the request of many teams(during the team forums back in August) to develop a game in which the goals(in this case, win by 1 rather than a blowout) were consistant throughout the game, rather than having one goal in qualifying, and then a completely different one in the elimination tournament(as we saw last year)...

[Paul Copioli]

I admit it. I am the biggest offender of what I call the "descoring strategy". Ask 27, 322, 291, and 63 and they will tell you that I passionately pleaded with them to use this strategy in the elimination rounds.

Now for some facts:

1. We (I know not all of us) asked for the elimination rounds to be more like the qualifying rounds.

2. FIRST decided to use a 2 match total as the elimination scoring and make the loser's score worth more to the winner than to the loser.

3. FIRST mandated that all 3 robots must play at least one time, even if broken. Let's remember why the 3 robot team was started in the first place ... to help alleviate the disaster when one robot breaks.

Given all these rules, the descoring strategy is the smartest strategy to implement.

To Tony,

C'mon man, do you really believe it is unsportsmanlike to descore? If you do, then I apologize for being unsportsmanlike; but I just don't see it that way. By the way, your team did it in the semis against us and I thought it was a brilliant move. That move actually kept you in the game for the second match.

I know it is against the competitive nature in us to try to lose, but when your points are worth more to the other team than you; it is a solution that needs to be considered.

Here are the reasons I like the descoring principle:

1. If it is clear you are going to lose by a big margin, you descore (I.E. moving your robot off the ramp) in order to keep the score close enough to catch up in the second match.

2. Something goes terribly wrong in the first match and you are playing 2 v. 1. (Have you ever heard the saying 'Live to fight another day'?) You can descore to keep it close so you may win the second match.

3. You win big in the first match (my rule is at least 60 points) and you try to mathematically eliminate the other teams chance to catch up. The risky thing about this strategy is that if the other team realizes that you are trying to descore, they can score for you to keep them in the game (Game 2 of our semi-final match against 111, 292, and 548). This strategy makes it so your team does not have to worry about fighting on the hill at the end.

4. Number 3 is important, because if a robot does break and must be used in later rounds, the descoring strategy keeps you in the game. This happened to us in our Final round at Great Lakes. 322 broke its drivetrain in our tough semi-final match. Team 27 and us went in the 1st round of the finals to get a high score. We were going to use the descoring strategy in the second round in order to keep us competitive in what we knew was going to be a 2 v. 1 scenario. Unfortunately, we just couldn't pull it off.

I did not make the rules, but I am trying to keep my team competitve within the rules given.

I would like to apologize to anyone who thinks this strategy to be against gracious professionalism and unsportsmanlike, but I simply do not agree. Anyone who knows me can tell you that I take sportsmanship and gracious professionalism very seriously. I think the descoring strategy is a legitimate strategy that should be considered by all teams competing in the elimination rounds.

-Paul

[Chris Hibner]

I pretty much agree with Paul. If I were in that situation, I would do the same thing. Why is it considered shameful to do the smart thing? As the saying goes, "I don't make the rules, I just live by them."

I have to comment on what Nate Smith said a few posts above. I agree that FIRST changed the rule in response to everyone's cries of "make the eliminations and the qualifying the same game". The only problems is that I think FIRST missed the point.

I think the point was (at least when I was saying it), is NOT to make the eliminations like the qualifying rounds, but the other way around: make the qualifying rounds be like the eliminations. In other words, forget adding the losing score to your score and all that stuff. Use win/loss record with the tie breaker being the average scoring margin, or something like that. Therefore, in the qualifying rounds, what matters is winning, just like in the elimination rounds.

-Chris

[Dan-o]

The game is won in the first match and the second match is rarely anything to watch.

At the Chesapeake Regional, MOE had some interesting matches during the elimination matches. We lost our first match (2.1) by 120 QP's(The score was something like 90 to 21). During our next match, we pulled off a 69-68 victory and advanced to the semi's. Our first semi, 2.1 we lost 84-4 because our teammate descored after GeroniMOE flipped. This gave us the window to win the next match sixty something to forty something.

It is not ungracious to descore. It was built into the rules of the game. I feel that this year's competition involves too much contraversy. Good luck at your competitions, and do what you think is right.

[Joe Matt]

DEAR GOD PEOPLE!

This isn't a life or death issue people. Here we are complaining about how the rules are played or how FIRST threw something at you something you haven't practiced during the pre-season.

We have a war going on. Kids are starving. People hate other people. And all we can do is complain about a games rules?

The only thing that limits you is what you believe what your limit is. Just because you loose the first match dosn't mean that you'll loose the finals. Look at MOE.

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally posted by Paul Copioli
To Tony,

C'mon man, do you really believe it is unsportsmanlike to descore? If you do, then I apologize for being unsportsmanlike; but I just don't see it that way. By the way, your team did it in the semis against us and I thought it was a brilliant move. That move actually kept you in the game for the second match.

Tony doesn't speak for our team, as we definitely use the descoring method in our strategy. In my mind, it's the only smart thing to do. How is it unsportsmanlike to minimize the other team's score? Minimizing your own score if you're going to lose (and therefore lowering the opposite side's EPs by 2x) is no different than knocking down the other side's stacks to minimize their score directly. In fact, if we had done a better job of descoring at the end of our first semifinal match we may have had enough points in the second to overcome the loss in the first.

The way I see it, this strategy must be used to be competitive in the elims. If not you end up needing to make up 100+ points in your second match, which is very hard. Losing a match in elims has an effect on later matches this year - that didn't happen before, and it has to be taken into consideration.

[David66]

perhaps you all missed the GLR....there was more than one elimination match that went to three matches....

[Matt Reiland]

Originally posted by David66
perhaps you all missed the GLR....there was more than one elimination match that went to three matches....

I don't understand what you mean by this

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally posted by David66
perhaps you all missed the GLR....there was more than one elimination match that went to three matches....

Huh? I was at GLR. We made it to the Semi's, and the only matches I didn't watch in elims were when I was with our robot. I don't recall any 3 match rounds. I just doublechecked www.usfirst.org and there's no evidence of any 3 match rounds there either... Did I miss something?

You aren't by chance referring to the matches that were replayed due to FIRST equipment problems, are you?

[Matt Reiland]

I agree there was one match where the Martians robot was disabled the whole match and it had to be restarted.

[EStokely]

I tried to keep my opinion to myself but I have to add fuel to this.

If I am hearing correctly is that teams are complaining because the other alliance is doing what ever it has to, to win!. Instead of allowing their opponents to win.

Isn't there another thread complaining that the 4 teams are working together and thats unfair too?

Descoring is valid. It doesn't even bend a rule.
Its also been the rule from the start. So its not like FIRST dropped it on us after shipping.

I know alot of people will say I am wrong on this. I am willing to hear the arguments against descoring as being wrong/against the rules/against what FIRST stand for. But lets try and keep the discussion professional.

[DaveO'B365]

Originally posted by EStokely
Descoring is valid. It doesn't even bend a rule.
Its also been the rule from the start.

exactly... descoring helps you, but hurts your opponent, collaboration hurts you both. helping yourself in a match is the object of the game, you play a game without regard to what you do for your opponent as long as you advance yourself. i wish i coulda been more a part of it this year, but MOE was definitely exciting to watch in the finals because he essentially won by one box, there were many recounts and such, but it made for an interesting match, and i'd like to reiterate that the matches aren't won after the first round... by a long shot. stop using big words that us college students can't understand j/k

[Harrison]

Originally posted by EStokely
Descoring is valid. It doesn't even bend a rule.
Its also been the rule from the start. So its not like FIRST dropped it on us after shipping.

I think you're absolutely right.

To connect this to a different thread that discusses whats important to this game: The bot, The Driver, or THE STRATEGY. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=19536 )

Descoring is a legitimate strategy that just happens to work very well in the elimination rounds.

FIRST has given us these rules to work with, so should we complain about them, or do what we can to win within them? I think the answer is obvious.

Keep in mind its not our job to write an interesting game - thats up to FIRST. For us, we have to take FIRST's game, and play it, and play it in such a way so that we can win (and if that happens to be winning 150-0, and then 1-0, so be it).