|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Agree to Disagree Agreement?
|
|
#32
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Quote:
TL;DR Strategic depth is not incongruous with games that encourage simply playing with your alliance and against the other one. We don't need other nonsense to get our fill of lateral thinking. |
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Quote:
Here's a good Wikipedia article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_t..._(game_theory) |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Just to roll this back around to the original question, after a couple of years as a field resetter standing behind the driver station, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that human players would ignore the overflowing bins, forget to replace bins, drop fuel all over the place, ... in other words, you think it, it's been done or not done. Not in any agreements, not in malice -- just "because".
Well, not really. Because the HP wasn't trained in their job. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
IMHO, C02 and C03 should be a simple rule that there shall be no discussions/agreements between alliances, except regarding coopertition points (if available in that game).
FYI: The fuel use agreement should also include a Gear agreement - Alliance transfers gears from their Loading Lane to the Alliance Station. C03 presents an interesting problem. Let's say you are a Surrogate Team, and you figure out yourself that you are better off throwing the match so that one of your alliance members doesn't get Raking Points. I think it is bad GP not to play to your ability. Last edited by rich2202 : 27-01-2017 at 10:53. |
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Quote:
The war to end all wars? Impossible to regulate. |
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
To be totally fair, so are C02 and C03. Rules don't have to be enforceable to have a purpose. They can be instructional - show clearly that the "right" way to do things is not to do the behavior outlined in them.
That said, I don't think rules are necessary to prevent this behavior. It's clearly not in your interest to do this. It would be more arguable if you weren't already crossing the field to get gears, but your robot will already be at that side of the field regularly during a match. So you're going to want those balls! The alliance that scores more frequently will want this possibly, but the underdog alliance would like more "free" chances to load fuel into cycling robots, so it's hurting a strategy that can be used by them to come back and win the match. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Quote:
Always play to the best of your ability. |
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Quote:
|
|
#40
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Seems appropriate.
This particular agreement states "ignore any discussion about match strategy around fuel which would gain your alliance a competitive edge in winning the match". IMO, it inherently violates C03/C04. |
|
#41
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Quote:
. |
|
#42
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Brilliance. And if BOTH alliances do that, we get a match like the match that settled the National Champion in 1997: 1.5 minutes of standoff followed by sudden offense.
|
|
#43
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Going to derail for a second here, but I just watched a video of the match. Why was waiting for the very end deemed the most effective strategy?
|
|
#44
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Just an observation: a clear majority of the posters on this thread were mentors/college students/alumni/not current student team members. I saw a few students posting, but they were overwhelmingly a minority.
As far as agreements go, I think that this one is pretty benign and beneficial, more in the spirit of coopertition that in trying to undercut the rules to get ahead. 1. Any team can participate in this, regardless of ability, and the benefits are likely to be proportional to both alliances. If one alliance is much stronger, they will likely benefit more in raw score, but in terms of a percentage increase from an average, non agreement score, both alliances will probably see a roughly equal benefit. 2. Both teams benefit. This one is pretty clear, there's no match-throwing, or rankings conniving, or a more capable alliance trying to dupe a less capable alliance into doing something not beneficial to them. 3. It does depend on both sides, but that's no different from coopertition in past years. If one side pulls out of this agreement without warning, the other side will likely be hurt if they were counting on participation from both sides during the match. However, I don't see this as much different than two alliances agreeing to focus on getting the coopertition points, and then one side realizing they can't/won't, and the other side then having wasted time they could have spent scoring points for themselves on trying to complete their end of the (now-failed) coopertition. Ultimately, drive teams will probably make a match-by-match decision if this agreement is still viable/worthwhile by the time competition season comes along, but I don't think it's obviously either wrong or right to choose one way or the other. |
|
#45
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Quote:
I think agreements like this effectively go against the intent of how it should be played. At this point, we've seen that if FIRST wants coopertition in a game, there is a very explicit coopertition objective. Just like other game mechanics (high/low scoring, end games, etc.) some years it is there, some years it is not. With this specific agreement, there is risk of one side breaking the agreement, where with now 3 different places team members can be stationed, it is difficult to communicate this effectively. Additionally, unlike games with specific coopertition objectives, there is nothing to guarantee teams will benefit anywhere near equally from participating in this agreement. Even if there were, this would inherently be putting teams who chose not to do this agreement at a disadvantage, as 2nd order ranking is determined by the cumulative sum of match points. I honestly wish agreements like this would stop popping up. We saw what happened in 2015 with the noodle agreement. Spend more time building a robot that plays effectively and undoubtedly better than your opponents, and less time tying to exploit inter-alliance game mechanics to inflate match scores. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|