Collusion at the championship event?

[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...

[DougHogg]

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.

[Jared Russell]

...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.

[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. 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.

[DougHogg]

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.

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.