Scoring For Your Opponents

[Jack Jones]

I'm curious as to how others feel about this? Would you be insulted if your opponent scored for you during a blow out?

Of course not! It's all in the spirit of Cooperatition. The way the hen cooperates with the fox by being tasty.

[Bharat Nain]

As long as the rules are like they are, people have to accept it and live with it. Unless it was intentionally rubbed in their face that their robot is not good enough and you are going to show them how it's played, there is no reason to be insulted or embarrassed. They just had the chance to play against a greater robot and it should be fun. The competition is not about getting embarrassed or insulted, it is about having fun and that's what everyone should do. Now go have fun!

[Corey Balint]

Originally Posted by M.O.R.T.

At NJ team 25 did it quite often, due to the fact that they had to be loaded by HPs...so they would push balls through their opponents goal so they could get loaded up...basically sacrificing 1 point for the opprotunity to get 3. I'd take that trade any day of the week.

Yeah we did that numerous times. We also scored in their center goal, and had a whole alliance go on their ramp.
As long as there is no rule against it...i am completely fine with any team doing this. Heck if we were getting pulverized in a match, and the other team started scoring on our own goals, no way would i get in their way of scoring or be insulted. As said before, its more of an embarassment with how your own team performs, not that the other team is doing something wrong.
Besides, the other team could always miscalculate and put you over for the win...
In the match that we put up 137 points, we actually scored about 15 points for the other alliance.

[Andrew Blair]

Surprisingly, I've never seen this strategy used on our own alliance before (Lucky?), though we have used it many times. I can see both sides of the argument, though it is beneficial to both teams. I may put a loss in, but with enough ranking points, I will seat higher than others in my win category. Its a very effective qualifying strategy.

*A story about scoring too many points for your opponents: At championships, 2003, 306 decided to get greedy. They scored up both sides as high as possible, intending to pull a win by a couple of points. However, by some cruel hand of fate, somebody miscounted, and though we scored the highest match in our championship division that match, we lost, and somehow by that, we stopped moving on, even with a robot that could've made it all the way. So just remember, play whatever strategy you want, but don't get greedy!

[Starke]

this system of scoring is very interesting to FIRST. Besides seeing teams letting their opponents score more points, I have also witnessed losing alliances give up points. For example, at the Finger Lakes Regional there were a couple of times that losing alliance robots jumped off the ramp at the last second to not give the winning alliance more points.

[Lil' Lavery]

First off, 116 has a long and storied history of high scoring matching. In just the last 2 years (and only counting our first competition this year) we have had 4 "high scoring" matches, won 2, lost 2.
2005 Chesepeake: 120-0, 0 side
2006 VCU: 86-34, 34 side
2006 VCU: 99-24, 99 side
2006 VCU: 76-18? (cant remember)-76 side

I wish that the opponents had scored some points for us, and I highly regret not scoring some for them.

The thought that opponents are scoring for you to "rub salt in your wounds" is looking at it the wrong way. It's not a matter of insulting pride, it's a matter of placement (for both you and them), and in truth, gracious professionalism. Consider for a moment the alternatives. If this thread doesn't exist about The Triplets scoring for the opponents, instead it would be a thread complaining about why the triplets beat them 300-10. "Why not simply stop at 100 and gather up all the balls so you can win decently, and have no chance at losing at all because you are denying us any points? Instead you went and tormented our loss even further by running the score up!"
Let's look at the previously mentioned sports analogies. Sure, they don't score for the opponent, but niether do they run up the score, and when they do, they are critisized (especially in college athletics). And if scoring for the opponent somehow benefitted them, I'm sure they would score for them.
I beleive this rule exists for a few reasons. To eliminate, or at least reduce, blowout matches; and to promote cooperation without reducing competition (thus the W/L being the first ranking determination) between opponents.
It is not only beneficial to raise your RP by scoring for the opponent, it is in favor of GP. You're not blowing them out, which IMHO is just as insulting as scoring for them -if not more- and you're helping raise their rank as well.
As mentioned many times during kickoff events, the message FIRST is trying to convey by using this rule is that "Your opponent today, may be your ally tomorrow". Therefore, you should aid them whenever possible (though obv not hurting yourself).

[LPaton716]

Ranking points help you and your opponent do well. After all you might be with one of the teams in your next match. It's all part of strategy.

Speaking of strategy...if there is an alliance with robots that cannot handle(pick up) balls well it would be a good idea to put balls in their opponents goals when you are on offense. That way your opponent can't possibly score those balls and now your human players have control of them. You can then throw them to your side of the field or save them to fill up a robot.

It's a rather back wards strategy but it might work really well if your shooter mechanisms weren't working that match or you could only push balls.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by LPaton716

Speaking of strategy...if there is an alliance with robots that cannot handle(pick up) balls well it would be a good idea to put balls in their opponents goals when you are on offense. That way your opponent can't possibly score those balls and now your human players have control of them. You can then throw them to your side of the field or save them to fill up a robot.

It's a rather back wards strategy but it might work really well if your shooter mechanisms weren't working that match or you could only push balls.

Nothing backwards about it, and I've already seen teams do it. It is actually quite an effective way to load up "top loaders".

[JAlpert]

1) Sports analogies do not apply here. There isn't a single major sport (involving a ball, at least) in which your playoff seeding is entirely based on your opponent's score. This is because win/loss records usually suffice (i.e. there is no incentive for a basketball team to blow the other team out, because all that matters is the win). FIRST plays few games with many teams, resulting inevitably in lots of W/L ties. Thus, in FIRST, the tiebreaker is a key strategic element, where in most major sports, nobody cares about this rare event.

2) Every team is at this competition to win. Period. Teams do what they have to do to win. If it is possible, within the confines of match play, to advance your position by scoring for your opponent, it would be a brutal mistake not to do so. The system is there for you to use.

3) This topic comes up every year. In 2003, elimination rounds were set up such that the alliance with the highest point total at the end of two rounds won. The points an alliance received were a multiple of the loser's score (I believe the multiple was 1 for the loser, and 2 for the winner). The dominant strategy was to win the first round no matter what, collecting 2x your opponent's score, and then lose the second round as badly as possible. If you lost with a score of zero, you were in the best position possible, because neither alliance received any points in the second round, and your alliance won by default (because you won the first round). It was a terribly broken scoring system, but the teams that won used what they were given to the best of their ability. Teams complained it was "unsportsmanlike" to lose intentionally. Teams said FIRST didn't intend the game to be played that way. But the fact of the matter is, whether FIRST intended the game to be played in that manner or not, they set the game up that way. De-scoring that second match wasn't losing. It was winning within in the confines of the system. Just like scoring in your opponents goal isn't showing off. It's advancing your position (winning) in the confines of the system. And that is all that matters when you're out there playing a match.

Jeff

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Starke340

this system of scoring is very interesting to FIRST. Besides seeing teams letting their opponents score more points, I have also witnessed losing alliances give up points. For example, at the Finger Lakes Regional there were a couple of times that losing alliance robots jumped off the ramp at the last second to not give the winning alliance more points.

Thats not very nice. It could also hurt you even though you lose it will also lower your average points. Just think you tied for eight in wins but are ninth because of your QP's and then you do not get picked.

[Bill Moore]

PreNote: This is not directed toward any of the triplets, but is made as a general statement.

Two points of truth keep getting repeated in this thread:

1) Scoring points for your opponent is a good strategy when you will win by a blowout, and
2) It is embarrassing to have an opponent so self-assured of victory that they begin to score for you.

My question would be "Why did the other alliance not have the ability to score many points?" Was their robot not working correctly? And, did you do anything to help them get it working properly?

If a team is struggling to get their drive system to do more than run in circles, and you are sitting in your pit polishing the chassis of your bot, then you don't "get it".

The FIRST competition isn't just about beating your opponents at YOUR best, but it is also about beating your opponents at THEIR best. If you have made no move to help them fix their robot, when you have had ample time to do so, it isn't the lowly scoring alliance that should be embarrassed for their play, it is the dominating team that should be embarassed for their unwillingness to help fellow competitors.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

The FIRST competition isn't just about beating your opponents at YOUR best, but it is also about beating your opponents at THEIR best. If you have made no move to help them fix their robot, when you have had ample time to do so, it isn't the lowly scoring alliance that should be embarrassed for their play, it is the dominating team that should be embarassed for their unwillingness to help fellow competitors.

Repped.

You just have to be sure your offer to help is made graciously and professionally. That's a careful balancing act as well.

[Beth Sweet]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

My question would be "Why did the other alliance not have the ability to score many points?" Was their robot not working correctly? And, did you do anything to help them get it working properly?

If a team is struggling to get their drive system to do more than run in circles, and you are sitting in your pit polishing the chassis of your bot, then you don't "get it".

In many of the matches that I've seen, it's not that the robots weren't working properly. A few times, the robots tipped, making scoring very difficult without very original strategies. Other times, the machines had basic design flaws which made it difficult for them to do things quickly (I remember last year, we scored maybe 1-2 tetras per match, if that).

To the credit of the Triplets (or at least 1114), I was in 1114's pit's a bit at GLR and whenever anyone asked for anything, they were eager to help. Yes, they were sitting down, but they are probably one of the classiest teams that I've seen based on their actions.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Starke340

this system of scoring is very interesting to FIRST. Besides seeing teams letting their opponents score more points, I have also witnessed losing alliances give up points. For example, at the Finger Lakes Regional there were a couple of times that losing alliance robots jumped off the ramp at the last second to not give the winning alliance more points.

You saw a robot jump off its ramp at the end of a match, OK

but how can you possibly know why that happened, unless the driver told you the reason after the match?

There seems to be a lot of mind-readers on CD this year. Reporting events you witnessed is good information.

Conjecture on what was going on in someone else's mind is not good.

As Sargent Friday would say, "just give us the facts!"

[Starke]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

You saw a robot jump off its ramp at the end of a match, OK

but how can you possibly know why that happened, unless the driver told you the reason after the match?

There seems to be a lot of mind-readers on CD this year. Reporting events you witnessed is good information.

Conjecture on what was going on in someone else's mind is not good.

As Sargent Friday would say, "just give us the facts!"

i agree with you 100%. only say something if you know it for a fact. this is why i actually went and researched what i said about the robot getting off the ramp at the last second for myself. it turned out to be true that they did get off of the ramp on purpose on the end of the match to give the winning alliance less points.