[FTC]: Scoring points for the opposing alliance

[Whatever]

This came up at a state qualifier event.

A team that was already qualified for the state tournament was changing beacons to their opposing alliance color in order to increase their rank points during their last match. This was not a case of an alliance not contesting the beacons but was a team tailing their alliance partner and switching beacons after their alliance partner had changed them. I see nothing in the rules against this behavior but it has caused quite a bit of debate among the students/mentors/parents. I wanted to get a feeling for whether or not the community believes this would be considered gracious professional behavior or not.

[Ringo5tarr]

So I suppose I don't completely understand, but what was the team changing the beacons trying to do? Raise the other alliance's ranking points or their own?

[Whatever]

Originally Posted by Ringo5tarr

So I suppose I don't completely understand, but what was the team changing the beacons trying to do? Raise the other alliance's ranking points or their own?

They were trying to increase their own rank points. They were ahead by more than 40 points after autonomous so the outcome of the match was not really in question.

[bobbysq]

But why have the first alliance partner switch them in the first place if they were seemingly throwing the match, I assume, in a variation of the infamous "6v0" to help out the other alliance?

[Whatever]

I was not in the discussion (for the record, I am not associated with any of teams involved - we were there as spectators). My assumption is the alliance partner did not agree with the plan and were trying to maximize their match score. They may have been just filling the 2 minutes though.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by bobbysq

But why have the first alliance partner switch them in the first place if they were seemingly throwing the match, I assume, in a variation of the infamous "6v0" to help out the other alliance?

Sounds to me like the team doing the switching was going rogue.

This was a philosophy debate years and years ago in FRC, before the ranking systems shifted to other tiebreakers. Some (myself included) will argue there's nothing wrong with playing the big-picture game and maximizing your own ranking. Others will argue that it's not in the spirit of the game not to maximize your alliance's score.

[wgardner]

My opinion is that there's nothing wrong with scoring for the opponents when you're way ahead to maximize everybody's ranking points. All 4 teams in the match benefit from this.

However, I think you should talk about it with your alliance partners ahead of time so they understand what you're doing.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Whatever

This came up at a state qualifier event.

A team that was already qualified for the state tournament was changing beacons to their opposing alliance color in order to increase their rank points during their last match. This was not a case of an alliance not contesting the beacons but was a team tailing their alliance partner and switching beacons after their alliance partner had changed them. I see nothing in the rules against this behavior but it has caused quite a bit of debate among the students/mentors/parents. I wanted to get a feeling for whether or not the community believes this would be considered gracious professional behavior or not.

Some suggested reading:
Game Theory
Nash Equilibrium

[BSV]

With only 5 matches in qualification at most FTC events, the RPs become really important. At our event last weekend there were four teams who were 5-0 (and other teams who could have been 5-0 if not for the luck of the draw). There were active conversations before qualifying match alliances between partners about how to maximize RPs. I know beacons were given up, but I don't know of any particles scored in opposing alliance goals or beacons intentionally switched to the wrong color.

I personally don't like RPs as a tiebreaker and would prefer something else, but until it changes then this strange behaviour is an acceptable part of the game encouraged by the way the rules are written.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by BSV

With only 5 matches in qualification at most FTC events, the RPs become really important. At our event last weekend there were four teams who were 5-0 (and other teams who could have been 5-0 if not for the luck of the draw). There were active conversations before qualifying match alliances between partners about how to maximize RPs. I know beacons were given up, but I don't know of any particles scored in opposing alliance goals or beacons intentionally switched to the wrong color.

I personally don't like RPs as a tiebreaker and would prefer something else, but until it changes then this strange behaviour is an acceptable part of the game encouraged by the way the rules are written.

I second this opinion. Outside of the ridiculousness of calling someone out as un-GP in general, teams are given a game, which includes the ranking rules, to play. For the robotics competition part of FTC, it would be absurd to expect teams to not play the game to them and their partners' maximum benefit (within general constraints of sportsmanship and fairness).

RPs are not my favorite mechanism for tiebreaking, but that's the game. Hopefully we can move to autonomous score or something else in the future.

[Whatever]

This is unrelated to the thread but Nick, I wanted to say from the stands it looked like you did a great job as field manager.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Billfred

Sounds to me like the team doing the switching was going rogue.

This was a philosophy debate years and years ago in FRC, before the ranking systems shifted to other tiebreakers. Some (myself included) will argue there's nothing wrong with playing the big-picture game and maximizing your own ranking. Others will argue that it's not in the spirit of the game not to maximize your alliance's score.

But the one thing just about everybody agrees on is that if you're going to play big-picture, and playing big-picture isn't the same as playing to win the match, you need to make sure your entire alliance is on the same page, and agrees to play that way. Otherwise, you look really bad to potential elims partners ("can we trust them to follow the strategy?").

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Whatever

This is unrelated to the thread but Nick, I wanted to say from the stands it looked like you did a great job as field manager.

Thanks, it helps when we have such a fantastic group of volunteers!

[Whatever]

I wanted to thank those that voted.

The reason I started the poll is my daughter is helping with scouting/strategy across 6 teams at the middle school. At least 3 of these teams are going to the state tournament where this strategy may come up. She needed to come up with some suggestions on how to handle the situation to make sure they are prepared. Obviously if it was going to be viewed as unGP that would be a major consideration. That appears to not be a significant concern.


Based on some of the other points they have come up with over the past week I think they are going to avoid the strategy in general though.

[Nemo]

If one wants to score for the opponents under some circumstances, it would make sense to at least talk to the alliance partner about it prior to the match.