<G14> Shenanigans?

[Joe G.]

Here is how I think this one will play out, why I think it is here, and a couple more points:

Suppose that team A has a low end robot, with an amazing match draw. In their first match, they are partnered with 2 amazing robots, B and C, and in their next, with 2 fairly decent robots, D and E. They are carried to a dominant victory by their partners in the first match. Now, under the old system, if this happened enough, team A would seed fairly well, possibly even within the top 8. Justifiably, this can be argued as unfair, as team A was carried to this position more than anything else.

Teams B and C, meanwhile, proceed to win nearly every match they compete in. They are hampered slightly by their loss of empty cells, which happens in more matches than not. Team B has dominated the competition for years, and was fully expecting their robot to be one of the forces at the regional. Therefore, they wisely decided to not base their strategy on empty/super cells, and focus on other things. They place within the top 3 at the regional. Team C is a rookie sensation, and was not expecting to be doing so well. Their robot was designed more around empty cells, as they were not expecting to be hurt by <G14> much. They seed just outside of the top 8, and make a note to focus more on parts of the game not penalized by similar rules in the past. However, through good scouting and foresight, team B picks team C in the first round of picking. The eliminations are close enough that <G14> never affects a match, and team C is allowed to fully shine, and along with team B and their third partner, they win the regional.

Team A goes on to its second match carrying a heavy <G14> burden from its last match. Teams A, D, and E fight hard, but are unable to win their second match, arguably because they were short 2 empty cells. This same cycle occurs at least once more to team A, placing them out of the top 8. Scouts have noticed that most of their victories, such as those with team B and C, were not lead by team A, and they are not picked.

Teams D and E only are affected by <G14> occasionally, and when they are, it is usually due to another team. However, they are finding that, without team C's amazing combination of good robot, skilled payload specialist, and skilled driver, they rarely, if ever, score more than 2 super cells per match anyways. Not enough opportunities come for the payload specialists, and without exceptional robots, they are unable to both receive more than 2 empty cells without wasting a fair amount of time, not to mention time sitting still getting shot at, as well as receive more than 2 empty cells from the payload specialists, and score them all in 20 seconds.



So I guess I don't really think that losing 1-2 empty cells will hurt that much, and if it does, you must have a dynamite robot that will be taken in pretty quickly in the picking. If you really think that this is an unavoidable and harsh burden, then design around things other than empty cells.

I also don't think a score of zero will EVER occur. There will just be too many balls flying around to not have at least a couple score.


Finally, we all seem to forget the first bit of kickoff too quickly. Are we really going to be looking back, 20 years from now, and going "Gee, my life has been messed up. If only FIRST had let us win that match by letting us have another empty cell, then I would have learned so much more, been inspired to go into engineering, and come up with several things to make the world better."?

[Pat Arnold]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

FIRST likes making one rule that gets dumped in by the off season events.

I think dumping rule <G14> would allow for a better, more exciting competition (& explains why I've gone to watch IRI the last 2 years).

Seeing robots perform at the top of their game inspires. Spectators & parents shudder when scoring/penalties are difficult to understand or are inexplicably punitive. Record high scores amaze audiences, create benchmarks for others to try to break & create excitement. Lengthy explanations about the need to keep match scores close between competitors bewilders spectators.

A strategy that requires participants to do less than their best seems blatantly misguided even if its intent is to prevent hurt feelings.

Just my thoughts...

[Drwurm]

Originally Posted by Pat Arnold

I think dumping rule <G14> would allow for a better, more exciting competition (& explains why I've gone to watch IRI the last 2 years).

Seeing robots perform at the top of their game inspires. Spectators & parents shudder when scoring/penalties are difficult to understand or are inexplicably punitive. Record high scores amaze audiences, create benchmarks for others to try to break & create excitement. Lengthy explanations about the need to keep match scores close between competitors bewilders spectators.

A strategy that requires participants to do less than their best seems blatantly misguided even if its intent is to prevent hurt feelings.

Just my thoughts...

Agreed. Presumably, the main goal of the game (not of FIRST, but of Lunacy) is to win. You win by having the highest score. Why discourage having high scores?

[johnr]

team mentor-Hi. Welcome to the team.
new parent- Thanks. So, what are you going to teach my kid?
tm-Well, this years game is blah,blah ,blah and if we do to good we get penalized.
nw- WHAT???
That is the reaction i got all meeting today. How do you tell a new parent that his/her kid can't do his /her best.

[Cyberphil]

What happens if by some random event, your opponent scores 0, because of penalties, or just robots not working. Than you are a hue dis advantage in the next match.

[Team1710]

Originally Posted by Cyberphil

What happens if by some random event, your opponent scores 0, because of penalties, or just robots not working. Than you are a hue dis advantage in the next match.

I highly doubt that will happen but it will be interesting if it happens.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by johnr

team mentor-Hi. Welcome to the team.
new parent- Thanks. So, what are you going to teach my kid?
tm-Well, this years game is blah,blah ,blah and if we do to good we get penalized.
nw- WHAT???
That is the reaction i got all meeting today. How do you tell a new parent that his/her kid can't do his /her best.

To quote the great movie The Incredibles:
"It's psychotic! They keep creating new ways to celebrate mediocrity, but if someone is genuinely exceptional... "

[AdityaD]

I feel the need to bring up something that was stated on the first page:

What's preventing you from scoring on your own robot? You could have the payload specialist keep a watch for a totally lopsided score, and have him/her switch targets to your own robot..You could even make your trailer a sitting duck....

So I think this rule forces you to be more creative, and that outwieghs the disadvantages to better teams.

[Jim E]

G14 makes perfect sense to me.

Why blow out an opponent just to get their low point total as a score? Hypothetically, if my marginal team was on an awesome alliance and we won by a large margin, that means my alliance (and team points) are lower even though we are credited with the win.

It just makes more sense to keep the actual score close as part of the strategy of the alliance. If an alliance can score 100 points, they can surely give a little back to the opposition to improve their own standings and not hurt their alliance partners. It's about working together as a team.

Shenanigans? NO! It is just part of the strategy of the game and makes it more exciting for the spectators (and potential sponsors).

[Ironstorm]

My biggest problem with this rule is the playoff rounds. Lets say one of your robots is out of commision. Why not keep your score to less than one third of the other alliances to give you an advantage in the final match. Bottom Line this will add minimal strategy to gameplay and honestly, makes me pretty mad. I understand that nobody feels good when they get blown out I certainly don't, but guess what how much would I learn from FIRST if I thought that everyone in the outside world would want to score for me even they were the compitition. Not to mention if the other team starts scoring for me I would feel a lot worse than if they just beat the crap out me. I hope and expect this to be dropped in update 1.

[Pat Arnold]

Originally Posted by Jim E

It is just part of the strategy of the game and makes it more exciting for the spectators (and potential sponsors).

Sorry Jim, I disagree. It just confuses spectators when a high score alliance gets punished for excelling at the task (scoring points) for which they are created & cheered on to achieve. Sure, some sports use a handicap system to "even the playing field", but none I can think of create a handicap for team players mid-tournament.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Cory, what happens when you then run up against another team that built a robot that doesn't need the fancy pants super cell to win? When you're facing a team as good as you are, suddenly it becomes important again...

Well they'll probably have beaten their previous opposing alliance so badly they've lost their super cells as well, so you'd be on equal footing

In all seriousness it seems like a ridiculous rule to me. Everyone should always play their best and hardest. This encourages not doing your best. It's also just a politically correct move on FIRST's part. They're saying "we know we will have teams who will kick the snot out of everyone they play, so we'll try to penalize them in an attempt to make them win, but just less convincingly so". This doesn't actually help the weaker alliance, it's just a pity rule.

It seems even more ridiculous if you penalize an alliance than won 10-0, or something of that nature. As mentioned before there should be some minimum point threshold before this rule is in effect.

[R.C.]

Originally Posted by Cory

Well they'll probably have beaten their previous opposing alliance so badly they've lost their super cells as well, so you'd be on equal footing

In all seriousness it seems like a ridiculous rule to me. Everyone should always play their best and hardest. This encourages not doing your best. It's also just a politically correct move on FIRST's part. They're saying "we know we will have teams who will kick the snot out of everyone they play, so we'll try to penalize them in an attempt to make them win, but just less convincingly so". This doesn't actually help the weaker alliance, it's just a pity rule.

It seems even more ridiculous if you penalize an alliance than won 10-0, or something of that nature. As mentioned before there should be some minimum point threshold before this rule is in effect.

Cory I agree with the threshold rule. Kinda like little league baseball there is a ten run rule. Maybe there should be limit. How would you decide it, after week 1 or before?

[synth3tk]

Originally Posted by rc_cola1323

Cory I agree with the threshold rule. Kinda like little league baseball there is a ten run rule. Maybe there should be limit. How would you decide it, after week 1 or before?

Hopefully before. I would like to play without this crazy rule, as we only attend one regional per year.

[Jreed129]

The only time i see this rule working is during finals when the same teams are against each other... other then that with everything being "Random" during qualifications i don't think that they can really penalize you because of a alliance partner you didn't have in your previous match.

apart from that there really are only 2-3 penalties this year:
~Intently wedging or flipping and opponent (they disable you i think)
~throwing the Super Cell before the last 20 seconds of match(20 points off)
~and then this rule which would only allow you to score 2 points per ball in match if you do really well in previous match

I think this rule will be the deciding factor in a lot/all of the finals