What do you think about <G14> in eliminations?

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by EricH

Think about it. All the Week 1 teams played under one set of rules. If you remove a rule that hurts teams (or add one that hurts teams), you WILL get the Week 1 teams OR the non-Week 1 teams "screaming" at you that you're unfair, biased, that everyone should play under the same rules, the other group has it easier, etc., etc. And there's a fair chance that half the other group will join in to complain with the complainers.

Do you really want that? Do you think the GDC really wants that?

I don't think it is particularly unfair to tweak this rule, since the match results from Week 1 don't carry into Week 2 and beyond. Winners in Week 1 were determined with rules that applied to all the teams in those competitions.

If the GDC decides to modify a rule, it would apply to all teams in subsequent regionals. This is far less frustrating for teams than changing the game pieces for Championship versus what was used in the regionals (remember the much softer Poof Balls for Aim High in Atlanta?)

[Alan Anderson]

I refuse to answer a poll with such biased questions. I do not believe that mere consistency is the strongest reason for keeping <G14>, and I do not believe that <G14> prevents teams from playing to the best of their ability.

And can some of you please just stop using the words "violation" and "penalty" when discussing <G14>? You shouldn't have to resort to disingenuous emotional arguments in order to state your opinion.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I refuse to answer a poll with such biased questions. I do not believe that mere consistency is the strongest reason for keeping <G14>, and I do not believe that <G14> prevents teams from playing to the best of their ability.

And can some of you please just stop using the words "violation" and "penalty" when discussing <G14>? You shouldn't have to resort to disingenuous emotional arguments in order to state your opinion.

What would you call it, then? G14 is clearly, as I see it, a rule that is attempting to create a certain behavior by teams. If this behavior is not properly adhered to, that team suffers a consequence. Other than the fact that the consequences apply in the next match, how is that different than any other rule, where I presume you would have no problem with those terms?

I do agree with your initial sentiments, though. People, please, when creating a poll, just post answers and perhaps "other". Posters here are perfectly capable of justifying themselves, and they may have reasons you didn't think of.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by bduddy

What would you call it, then? G14 is clearly, as I see it, a rule that is attempting to create a certain behavior by teams. If this behavior is not properly adhered to, that team suffers a consequence. Other than the fact that the consequences apply in the next match, how is that different than any other rule, where I presume you would have no problem with those terms?

Perhaps we shouldn't use those words because they're not the correct words. A "penalty" is a 10-point deduction - <G14> is most decidedly not that. "Violation" certainly doesn't apply, because there is no rule violated. <G14> merely provides an adjustment to be made based on circumstances.
I think it's presumptive of us as a community to guess what intent the GDC had in creating <G14>. Honestly, I don't think it had anything to do with blowouts, creating GP, or anything like that. Perhaps the GDC merely wanted to see if coaches are capable of calculating scores on the fly, making decisions based off that data, and communicating those decisions to people who may be posted dozens of feet away.
I think it's been pretty widely accepted that Lunacy is the most strategically intense game we've had for many years. <G14> adds complexity to that strategy and forces the human players to be more than hurlers.
That being said, I personally don't agree with <G14> carrying over from quals to elims, I'm not sure I like it in elims, and I'm sure the 2009 CAGE Match (and possibly IRI) will reflect these views. But when we go to the BMR, I'll happily play by the rules the GDC has instituted.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Taylor

I think it's presumptive of us as a community to guess what intent the GDC had in creating <G14>. Honestly, I don't think it had anything to do with blowouts, creating GP, or anything like that.

It seems pretty obvious that by penalizing teams for beating an opponent too badly FIRST wants to keep scores close.

For the same reason the winners always have some multiplier of the loser's score contribute to their ranking score.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by bduddy

What would you call it, then?

The simplest word that seems to carry an appropriate meaning is "handicap".

Originally Posted by Taylor

Perhaps we shouldn't use those words because they're not the correct words. A "penalty" is a 10-point deduction - <G14> is most decidedly not that. "Violation" certainly doesn't apply, because there is no rule violated.

That is a perfect explanation of my complaint.

Originally Posted by Cory

It seems pretty obvious that by penalizing teams for beating an opponent too badly...

Why do so many people choose to interpret <G14> as saying overpowering your opponent is a bad thing? Being denied a potential 15-30 points at the end of your next match because you significantly outscored the other alliance is no penalty. I perceive it as a clever attempt to help make the rankings at the end of relatively few matches better represent the performance of the robots.

If you can consistently double or triple your opponents' score, I still don't see that the loss of a super cell or two is a big deal, even in the quarterfinals.

[MasonMM]

I think FIRST has taken the idea of coopertition to an absurd level with the introduction of <G14>. I do not see the correlation between punishing teams who are successful in a match and developing a future with more engineers. I want <G14> removed from the rule book in it's entirety, but I especially think that during the eliminations, alliances should not have to think about taking their foot off the gas.

At the very least, the rule should be tweaked for eliminations so that the loss of empty/super cells does not carry from the qualifications to eliminations or from quarters to semis to finals. Having an alliance enter the next level of the bracket with a handicap, does not contribute to effectively crowning the deserving winner of an event.

FIRST should remember this is FRC, the FIRST Robotics Competition not the FIRST Robotics Coopertition.

Coopertition is something that should be practiced in the pits and at all times off the field. But when a team is in a match, it should be about playing to your maximum potential and ability.

[Jeff Waegelin]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I perceive it as a clever attempt to help make the rankings at the end of relatively few matches better represent the performance of the robots.

I think this is the most interesting description of <G14> that I've heard yet. In essence, what you are saying is that it should penalize the teams that are "riding the wave", so to speak, with good partners. A team that can put up enough points to double (or triple) their opponents' scores will be largely unaffected, but the teams that they're paired with will get a larger impact. Some may say that is unfair to the partner teams, but it might indeed help to have the rankings better represent individual performance.

That being said, I think this effect may be rather small, but it's certainly an interesting way to look at things.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Jeff Waegelin

I think this is the most interesting description of <G14> that I've heard yet. In essence, what you are saying is that it should penalize the teams that are "riding the wave", so to speak, with good partners. A team that can put up enough points to double (or triple) their opponents' scores will be largely unaffected, but the teams that they're paired with will get a larger impact. Some may say that is unfair to the partner teams, but it might indeed help to have the rankings better represent individual performance.

That being said, I think this effect may be rather small, but it's certainly an interesting way to look at things.

It might actually be what was intended by the rule in the beginning. A while ago, I looked at the effects of <G14> on individual teams, sorted into 5 categories by performance. Interestingly enough, only 2 of the 5 would affect themselves seriously. Those are just the type that would have to use SCs a lot. But, when you factor in alliance pairings, there can be a huge impact.

[raceteen48]

Originally Posted by excel2474

G14 is Socialism.

that is the first thing i thought of when i heard it, let's punish the people who succeed! yay liberalism! (did Obama and his congress made the rules for this years game?

I do think it stops people from getting lucky with alliance pairings, a little bit, but I think it should be thrown out in the elimination matches, if that were why it was designed

[Daniel_LaFleur]

First off, <G14> is not a penalty, <G14> is not a punishment, <G14> is a conditional effect.

Originally Posted by MasonMM

I think FIRST has taken the idea of coopertition to an absurd level with the introduction of <G14>. I do not see the correlation between punishing teams who are successful in a match and developing a future with more engineers. I want <G14> removed from the rule book in it's entirety, but I especially think that during the eliminations, alliances should not have to think about taking their foot off the gas.

Absurd level? I want? ...

As future design engineers, our students will see specifications from customers that will not make much sense to us because we've not been given all the information (and will not because of intellectual property). Consider <G14> as one of those specifications, and a soft specification at that since you only have a consequence if you violate the condition.

Also, who said anything about taking your foot off the gas?!? <G14> is a condition, and therefore a decision if it is right to violate the condition and accept the consequences, nothing more.

Originally Posted by MasonMM

At the very least, the rule should be tweaked for eliminations so that the loss of empty/super cells does not carry from the qualifications to eliminations or from quarters to semis to finals. Having an alliance enter the next level of the bracket with a handicap, does not contribute to effectively crowning the deserving winner of an event.

Again, why? It is nothing more than a strategic decision to make whether or not to violate the conditions of <G14>. If you choose to violate those conditions then you must accept the consequences. If you violate those conditions in the elimination rounds then you have chosen (maybe by not thinking) to accept the consequences in the next round.

Originally Posted by MasonMM

FIRST should remember this is FRC, the FIRST Robotics Competition not the FIRST Robotics Coopertition.

Coopertition is something that should be practiced in the pits and at all times off the field. But when a team is in a match, it should be about playing to your maximum potential and ability.

This has very little to do with 'coopertition' and much more with strategy and decision making.

The product that each team is putting on the field is more than just a robot. The product is the robot and the drivers/Human player/coach. It is the sum of the machines capabilities and the decisions of the team. Y'all need to accept that and deal with the consequences of the decisions (and, maybe, non-decisions?) that your team makes.

The above is, as always, JM(NS)HO ... good luck all.

[raceteen48]

yes, but also, there a points where especially in low scoring games, that score on the screen could be ten to 15 points off, and that could be enough to make it double, or if you stop, could cause you to lose

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by raceteen48

yes, but also, there a points where especially in low scoring games, that score on the screen could be ten to 15 points off, and that could be enough to make it double, or if you stop, could cause you to lose

All that means is that you need to make a decision.

Do you risk losing the match? or do you risk losing a EC/SC in your next match?

Decisions, decisions, decisions .....

[Greg McKaskle]

I don't normally post on nontechnical issues, but here are the similar systems G14 reminds me of...

Handicapping in golf. (From Wikipedia) --
A golf handicap is a numerical measure of an amateur golfer's playing ability based on the tees played for a given course. It is used to calculate a net score from the number of strokes actually played, thus allowing players of different proficiency to play against each other on somewhat equal terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_handicap
Handicap systems are not used in professional golf.
----
Maybe professional FRC would drop G14? But maybe not.

NFL draft system. (From Wikipedia) --
The draft order is determined by first generating the order for the first round. That order is based generally on each team's regular season record, with the exception of the two Super Bowl contestants, who are placed at the end of the draft order. Tiebreakers and specifics are as follows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_draft
----
If great teams have the most money and great players want to play for great teams and make great money, how else do you keep the league from shrinking to three or four teams?

Sales quotas. (Not from Wikipedia)
Compensation based on derivatives. Your compensation is scaled based on your sales excellence, but also your ability to improve over your results from last term. If sales don't grow, your salary will often shrink even if your sales numbers are high in absolute terms.

And because April 15th is near -- income tax. (Not from Wikipedia)
Not a flat tax. Not a simple system. Lots of handicapping rules. Lets the government acquire the funds it needs to operate and influence peoples behaviors all at the same time.
Maybe this isn't a good example, but in case you think FRC rules are too complex or the penalties too harsh, it will give you a point of comparison.

Greg McKaskle

[Paul Copioli]

I haven't been paying much attention to this thread lately, but I was just the MC for Kettering (at least sharing the duties with Eric Peterson). Steve Chism, the VP of programs for FIRST watched every match of the entire district event and was taking copius notes. I made it very clear to him just how silly I thought G14 was. I also complimented him on the functionality of the new field control system (it is pretty cool) and other items, but I digress.

Earlier in the thread EricH stated that I wanted my team to get G14 penalties and also went on to say that we used SCs a lot as if somehow wanting to get G14s precluded us from using Super Cells at all. Our team had the most G14s at Midwest (if you count the triple score as 2 G14 penalties) so I kept my word. The use of the SC is prudent in this game and there are various ways to use them. However, if you get a G14 penalty in every match then you are guaranteed to win every match (I know, very Yogi Berra of me)!

In eliminations, when you get more than triple your opponents score, that will hurt in the next match and at Ketttering one team lost the next match due to the G14.

In principle I do not like G14 and absolutely think it is absurd in the elimination rounds. With that said, we all have to work our strategies around that rule as it will not change.

That is my #2 rule change proposal at IRI (if you are paying attention at all, you should know what the first rule change proposal is).

Paul