Go to Post I'm thinking they subscribe to the thought that "the best offense is a good defense". They are from New England, after all. - Travis Hoffman [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Championship Event
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 21-04-2003, 21:01
Pin Man Pin Man is offline
How you doin'?!
AKA: Dave Kingsley
FRC #0088 (TJē)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Bridgewater, Massachusetts
Posts: 1,003
Pin Man has a spectacular aura aboutPin Man has a spectacular aura aboutPin Man has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via AIM to Pin Man
The Techno Ticks and Buzz are just two really great teams... I am positive that they would never do anything like that...


On Newton I saw one match that look a little odd but I don't think they did any planning on it...
__________________
AIM SN: ThursdayCambria

Attending Bridgewater State College

Shirt collection- 25, 47, 69, 140, 173, 191, 213, 303, 365, 461, 836, (2)862, 885, 888, 1027, (2)1073, 1156.
Shirts in the works-
Shirt Wish List- 45, 48, 61, 67, 84, 86, 95, 103, 111, 126, 175, 190, 233, 236, 716, 870, 871, 1114, and any other team basically
  #32   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 21-04-2003, 21:50
DougHogg DougHogg is offline
Robot-A-Holic
FRC #0980 (The ThunderBots)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: S. California
Posts: 324
DougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud of
Actually a number of "great teams" discovered "opponent agreements" this year. (I have no personal knowledge of any teams doing so at the Championships. I was way too busy.) Some very helpful people thought it was great. In fact in my survey (flawed because I mistakenly allowed multiple votes), about 30% of votes were in favor of the idea. The fact is that the rules favored it. The answer is to change the scoring so that we are all operating on the same rules.

When I was a kid, I remember adults sometimes letting the kids win at Monopoly so they wouldn't get upset. Of course, later when the kids realized this was happening, they didn't like it--they wanted to win for real. Well a scoring system that rewards dominent teams for giving points to the loser, is like letting the kids win at Monopoly. Sooner or later they realize that they didn't really get their points on their own merits. Then the whole practice becomes patronizing and a not-so-subtle slam on the capabilities of the newer teams.

Hey, yeh, I am part of a newer team, but I am grown up now, so I can take it if we lose. In fact I will use that experience to learn and to make our robot better next year.

If we want to see the end of "opponent agreements", then we need to get rid of a scoring system where you get double your opponent's score. Otherwise, don't be surprised if some teams "discover" this "hidden layer" in the game again next year.
__________________
FIRST Team 980, The ThunderBots
2002: S. California Rookie All Stars
2004: S. California: Regional Champion,
Championship Event: Galileo 2nd seed,
IRI: Competition Winner, Cal Games: Competition Winner
2005: Arizona: 1st seed
Silicon Valley: Regional Champion (Thanks Teams 254 and 22)
S. California: Regional Runners Up (Thanks Teams 22 and 968)
  #33   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 21-04-2003, 22:41
Jared Russell's Avatar
Jared Russell Jared Russell is online now
Taking a year (mostly) off
FRC #0254 (The Cheesy Poofs), FRC #0341 (Miss Daisy)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,080
Jared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond repute
...but at the same time, it is this "cooperative scoring" that keeps matches interesting; otherwise, I guarantee that most matches will be close to shutouts.

The problem with this particular game is that it is entirely possible - even quite common - to come away from a colluded losing match with a higher score than that from winning a lower scoring, more competitive one. Last year, there was almost no point in collusion - a losing team rarely got over 60qps, whereas winners most frequently did. This year, teams were losing with 80-100qps where others were winning with 40-50...it is this that causes collusion to become such a "desirable" option for some teams.
  #34   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 21-04-2003, 23:19
Matt Brinza Matt Brinza is offline
Registered User
#0016 (Baxter Bomb Squad)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Mountain Home, AR
Posts: 15
Matt Brinza is an unknown quantity at this point
Collusion in Curie?

The most likely candidate match for collusion would probably have to be 81 in Curie, based on score. 304 QPs were awarded to 16 and 87, the highest QP total throughout the entire competition, I believe. To start, I must say that the drive team (as well as the rest of the team) never expected such an outcome.

I figure it would likely be best to state our standing on the match before being accused of any collusion. To start, 87 proved to be a rather resilient alliance partner (we were paired with them twice throughout the qualification matches). 66 and 291 had previously been damaged in preceding matches, thus minimizing any strong opposition. Near the start of the match, one of our opponents was knocked over, further limiting our opponents' abilities.

At the end of the match, there were 4-bin multipliers left in both scoring zones, as well as numerous other bins. Ours was threatened once, but quick defensive maneuvers by our driver helped protect it (so yes, it was threatened). As for theirs, our overwhelming advantage provided no reason for knocking it down. Our alliance's robots were on the ramp at the end of the match, as well as one of theirs.

No collusion was involved, simply a good deal of luck through alliance pairings and match outcome.
  #35   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 22-04-2003, 01:23
DougHogg DougHogg is offline
Robot-A-Holic
FRC #0980 (The ThunderBots)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: S. California
Posts: 324
DougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud of
Quote:
Originally posted by Abwehr
...but at the same time, it is this "cooperative scoring" that keeps matches interesting; otherwise, I guarantee that most matches will be close to shutouts.
[/b]
True, this year's scoring tended to keep teams involved to the end of the match.

However I think that we could achieve an even higher level of interest with a game where your qualifying points were based on the point spread. A score of 60 to 53 would only be worth 7 qualifying points. Teams who wanted high qualifying points would really have to earn them. Rather than letting your opponents up on the ramp to get extra points, teams would be pushing opponent robots off for an extra 25 points each.

Also with a somewhat different field setup, stacking could have become a big part of the game. QP's based on point spread would have a been a further incentive to make really high stacks (and knock them down).

If we want our game to be popular with audiences, we need a genuine competition.
Quote:
Originally posted by Matt Brinza
The most likely candidate match for collusion would probably have to be 81 in Curie, based on score. 304 QPs were awarded to 16 and 87, the highest QP total throughout the entire competition, I believe.
...
No collusion was involved, simply a good deal of luck through alliance pairings and match outcome.
Matt's post suggests another very good reason for changing the scoring to eliminate any way to benefit from "opponent agreements". We wouldn't be wondering if every high score was the result of "collusion".

When we see a post claiming the highest score in the country, wouldn't it be nice to know, with no doubts or wondering, that the team didn't get it through an "opponent agreement".

Basically we are talking about establishing a firm footing for the game, so everyone knows where they stand in the rankings and why.
__________________
FIRST Team 980, The ThunderBots
2002: S. California Rookie All Stars
2004: S. California: Regional Champion,
Championship Event: Galileo 2nd seed,
IRI: Competition Winner, Cal Games: Competition Winner
2005: Arizona: 1st seed
Silicon Valley: Regional Champion (Thanks Teams 254 and 22)
S. California: Regional Runners Up (Thanks Teams 22 and 968)

Last edited by DougHogg : 22-04-2003 at 01:27.
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2004 Championship Eligibility Criteria!!! dez250 General Forum 214 28-12-2003 20:11
Championship Qualification - Constructive Criticism Andy Baker Championship Event 7 29-10-2003 16:48
A report on off season competitions Ken Leung Off-Season Events 2 17-10-2003 13:30
Disney Extortion! K2unit General Forum 62 29-03-2002 11:16


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:02.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi