|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My case against <G14>
Quote:
Quote:
And I'm a little disappointed that no one so far has responded to what I think was my most important point. FIRST has apparently assumed that blowout games are somehow bad and need to be eliminated. In my opinion, not only can a blowout loss be a valuable learning experience for a team, but an false close loss will certainly be no better. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My case against <G14>
I am starting to see a good lesson to teach the kids. Peaceful,civil disobedience., he says half jokingly. Perhaps a quiet agreement with every team at a comp to play as hard as you can and not care about g-14
|
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: My case against <G14>
When I first heard about this rule, I was rather confused. Even after reading various threads about it, I'm not sure I have formed an opinion about it.
However, there are a couple of things that concern me. 1. It seems like FIRST is encouraging you to do well, but not too well. While I understand that losing a match by an obscene amount can feel lousy, it can also bolster one's team to do better in the next match or spark a change in one's strategy. The world is not a fair place--it is more competitive than words can express. Perhaps FIRST is implementing this rule to encourage students to change the view of their peers; that we should be concerned with others and not just ourselves. This is a valid lesson people should learn. However, I'm not sure if this rule is the way to do it. For some reason, I parallel this to school. Do well on a test, but don't do too well, otherwise you'll be penalized on your next test. 2. Perhaps what confuses me the most with this rule is the way it interferes with other teams who were not a part of the high-scoring match. (I.E. Teams A, B, and C are penalized in their next matches, making their future alliance partners also penalized). If the mission of this rule is to show concern for other people, it seems a tad bit hypocritical. Teams D and E of the future alliance now are disadvantaged by something they have no control over. This has been previously discussed in this thread, so I'll try not to repeat much more other than it seems wrong to penalize teams for something beyond their control. Even though I might not agree with the rule, FIRST has deemed it important and wouldn't institute such a rule change without wanting the best for all teams. Perhaps the purpose of the rule will be more evident once we see some matches played. Maybe it won't. Either way, I'm looking forward to an amazing season. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My case against <G14>
It'd be great if you could, but unfortunately, you can't without compromising your own position in the game. Not unless you can convince everyone to throw away their own cells in response, or the referees to hand you the taken cells behind your back.
|
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: My case against <G14>
i, also, must disagree with this rule.
For several years the qualifying rules have make the opponents score the tie breaking element after wins/losses/ties. This has made many teams more aware of not trying to blow out other teams. In reality, I think that this qualifying rule is more to reward close, big score, wins as being an indication of a better teams and NOT to stop blowouts..but in practice it was thought of as a NO BLOW OUT rule.. Aside from the very relevant question of why blowing out other teams is a bad thing...we have to question the very realistic issue that in many regionals we may have 3 rookie teams on the same alliance. Having helped many rookie teams build kitbots over the weekend, I can tell you that the kitbot, even with a four wheel drive refit, will NOT be able to handle this surface very well. It could be a very long, and frustrating season for rookie teams that use the kitbot drive system. Our team is going to try and develop some limited slip software that we will share with everyone to help alleviate this, but nonetheless, the kit bot drive system, which in year's past allowed rookie teams to at least be a box on wheels and play defense and have fun, will not be as useful this year... The result of this is the very real chance that alliances will not be able to score...a match like this could consist of a single veteran robot with better control pushing a rookie robot in a corner... and dropping a ball into their hopper for the win... the rest of the time... no one moves much...and the veteran team is afraid of scoring so they hang around... This will not be pretty to watch... I also think we must get clarification of what a zero score means... If one team scores 1 and one 0... is that an infinite difference? 2x? 3X? Zero needs to be clarified. The rule should be changed to reflect some reasonable minimum score... like 10 points or so... that can be scored with no penalty for the alliance team members in the next match. Example...with this approach... If Blue Alliance Scores less than 10 points... then there would be no penalty on Red Alliance teams unless they scored more than 20... or more than 30 OR even better... If Blue Alliance Scores less than 10 points... then there would be no penalty on Red Alliance teams no matter what they score. With this modification, teams could go ahead and score and have fun even though they were playing a really poor-scoring alliance and not have to worry about creating a penalty situation unless it got WAY out of hand.. I really do not like the idea of making teams score on themselves in order to go out and have fun scoring in a game. Last edited by Bob Steele : 05-01-2009 at 19:42. |
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: My case against <G14>
The thing that bothers me the most about G14 is that there is no language indicating that it doesn't apply to elimination matches as well. Consider this scenario:
Your alliance is up against an alliance of similar or better strength in the elimination rounds. You narrowly win the first match. During the second match, it becomes apparent that your alliance is losing, so you throw a couple of super cells in before the 20-second mark, causing 40 points in penalties and dropping your score down to zero. Now you have an advantage in the third match, since the other alliance can't score two of their super cells. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My case against <G14>
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by dmlawrence : 05-01-2009 at 20:25. Reason: Added an additional comment |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My case against <G14>
I don't like the rule partially it will make seeding inaccurate (well, in some cases, it already is, but this could potentially make it worse). In essence what this is doing is giving a handicap to a future opponent if you outscore an opponent by given multiples. This makes little sense in a seeding standpoint (given that handicaps will usually mess with those anyways), and unless this disadvantage is taken into account in seeding, the "ladder" will be almost pointless to look at other than to determine who picks alliances for elimination matches.
Also, if you go by the team-by-team basis, if there is a 3x score in eliminations rounds, there won't be much left. While I can see that it is attempting to make the matches "even," I think that it fails at doing so by making the erroneous assumption that the future opponents are of the same caliber as the past opponents (unless of course, they happen to be the same). In a competitive view, it also makes little sense as it will not necessarily let the best team win, although it doesn't seem likely in eliminations that a team would score 3x then lose twice in a row since they'd have their cells back on the third match |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My case against <G14>
Quote:
Or just ban human players from scoring altogether; I think that might actually make this game a better engineering challenge, although that's another subject altogether. |
|
#40
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: My case against <G14>
Quote:
I agree with just about all of your reasoning and especially this point. Let me share an example of just how a blowout game can be inspiring, a good learning experience, and certainly not inherently bad.Two years ago at the Milwaukee regional, team 1736, Robot Casserole's alliance scored all along the top row (i think they did that singlehandedly, too, but i'm not positive). This meant they had 250 points. (Here is video, courtesy blue alliance: http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv...hp?matchid=679) This got everyone's attention and I think motivated our team to do better the next year and got us pumped up, because we wanted to be like that time one year. Now, imagine this rule was in place then. They would have secured maybe 4 around the top and then gone to play defense, ensuring a victory. They would have still won, and they wouldn't be penalized the next round. However, i would have lost something i could point to as an awesome achievement. It would have made that game average and not interesting or inspiring. I personally think this rule does (accidentally) discourage reaching for the stars both in the design phase and during each and every game. Obviously everyone still is going to try hard during games, but who will try to make a statement if it means losing an advantage next game? Nobody who is reasonably sure of a spot in the tournament will try to dazzle, just focus on winning. Especially when there are 15 point swings with a single ball. I imagine there will be close, low scoring games when someone dumps a super cell and ends up winning, but doubling the other team in a close game. That's the biggest problem, in my opinion. Perhaps if they made certain adjustments (like a minimum difference for the rule to take place, removing the zero score problem, and accounting for penalties) it would be better. But I too am at a loss for a concrete reason why this was needed. I think the tiebreaking score based on opponent's performance already does enough. |
|
#41
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: My case against <G14>
in general i dont have a terrible problem with this rule.
It gives an extra sense of strategy. Now this would be cool, if the drivers/coaches are unable to see the live score on the screen so teams would have to calculate scores in their heads. Plus it would give the crowd a bit more anticipation for the final score. one thing i just thought of, if it’s been already mentioned i apologize, say your an insane scorer and your paired against other strong teams you'll be able to score high numbers of points, but say that same team is paired against not so great teams, then they will not be able to show their full potential to scouts which may lead to being overlooked at finals unless their strategy does not involve heavy use of super cells. FIRST may have also added this rule for another reason. Say Alliance A goes ahead really quick, so now Alliance A goes on defense to insure a win. The score at the final 20 seconds is 60-46. Alliance A is holding their supercells and not using them, but Alliance B just needs to score one supercell to get an upset. |
|
#42
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: My case against <G14>
Unlike most games, where the goal is to get as many points as you can while denying as many points as possible to the opponent, LUNACY seems to be taking a different approach.
I'm not really sure what the intent of <G14> is, especially considering that the ranking score that both teams receive at the end of the match is based on the score of the LOSING alliance. Running up your alliance's score while your opponent ends up with very few points will get you the win, but will hurt your ranking within whatever tier you end up in. Why would you want to have such a blowout, when it doesn't really do you any good? 9.3.5 All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive ... ranking points equal to the un-penalized score ... of the losing ALLIANCE. All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive ... ranking points equal to their final score. I agree that one main effect of the rule, and scoring, will be to discourage defensive strategies and focus on the offense. And that's what the crowds like, right, lots of action with lots of scoring? |
|
#43
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'm just trying to visualize how a judge would keep an accurate track of the number and types of balls in the trailers.... |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My case against <G14>
Quote:
As far as why FIRST might want to eliminate blowouts, I suppose that's a matter of opinion. I was on the field for my 4 years as a student and towards the end, I felt like there was quite a bit of pressure on me to perform well. When did I perform my best? Right after competing well against another group of robots. I suppose some people could pull inspiration from a 70-12 loss but I am not him. The best match I ever had the privilege of being the driver for was a tie in 2006. It was incredibly thrilling. As far as the crowd goes, who enjoys a 50-10 football game? It's boring and the crowd often leaves early because of the lopsided difference in team caliber. I suppose getting beat badly is something people do have to deal with in their lives, but I have never heard that FIRST wants to show people what it is like to get blown out of the water. I'm sorry but this rule IMO just adds another dimension to the strategy and is a good one from FIRST. |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My case against <G14>
I, too, take issue with this rule. It just seems so contradictory to FIRST in so many ways. For one thing, it's FRC, FIRST Robotics Competition, and we're not supposed to compete, or we'll be punished? It is against the very fundamentals of the idea. Also, FIRST: For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. Where's the inspiration when if a team has a good idea and implements it well, they will be penalized for it? Recongition? Of what? How well a team can hold back? It should be the inspiration for students to do their absolute best, with anything less being a disadvantage. The recognition should be of the most innovative or most effective ideas, not of how close the matches can be made when one side is given a handicap.
I, for one, don't understand why they put this rule in. Is this the new idea for "Gracious Professionalism"? I hope not... |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| <G14> Shenanigans? | Team1710 | Rules/Strategy | 123 | 12-01-2009 12:42 |
| Rule G14 | KE5WGE | Technical Discussion | 3 | 03-01-2009 17:36 |
| G14 & a difference between start & end of match | Elgin Clock | Rules/Strategy | 6 | 09-01-2008 20:26 |
| G14 - ball on rack at end | ericand | Rules/Strategy | 5 | 09-01-2008 08:00 |
| Unsportsmanlike conduct. 3 against 1 | angryyoungnpoor | General Forum | 16 | 14-03-2004 08:42 |