Go to Post We have donut eating contests to see who has the best legs. We paint our pigs. We argue about which time zone we are in. About 400,000 of us gather together to watch cars go around in a circle. We also build robots.Yep, our cultural norm is a bit different. - Andy Baker [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2010, 20:24
SteveGPage's Avatar
SteveGPage SteveGPage is offline
Mentor - Scouting and Strategy
AKA: Steve
FRC #0836 (RoboBees)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Hollywood, MD
Posts: 523
SteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery View Post
Say team X is on the red alliance and team Y isn't playing. Team Y is done playing matches and has 100 seeding points. Team X has one match remaining and has 80 seeding points. In a competitive match, the red alliance might win 6-5 and get 16 seeding points (not enough for Team X to catch Team Y). In a colluded match, the red alliance might win 21-0, and Team X could pass Team Y. Or they could attempt to tie 7-7 and earn 21 seeding points for both alliances, in which case Team X passes Team Y as well.
True, but I think with X, Y, and Z playing against A, B, C the motives of the individual teams gets a little messy! The hardest part of this concept is keeping all 6 teams in the match honest with the "agreement" made, when each may have a very pressing reason to defect from the agreement.
__________________
FRC 836, The RoboBees www.robobees.org
growingSTEMS www.growingSTEMS.org
2017: Southwest VA, Northern MD, Chesapeake District Championships, Championships
  #47   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2010, 20:41
mathking's Avatar
mathking mathking is offline
Coach/Faculty Advisor
AKA: Greg King
FRC #1014 (Dublin Robotics aka "Bad Robots")
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 643
mathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

The colluded shutout agreement runs some significant risk for the "winning" alliance in that if they get any penalties, they will actually come out behind the "losing" alliance in seeding points for that round. You could argue that if they two alliances cooperate they might still score more points than they would have scored if the match had been played with both alliances trying to get the most points. But I suspect that a lot of teams will be unwilling to risk what they might view as an unfair result.

One thing I think is clear is that in most unbalanced matches without any collusion, there will be a point at which the sides start trying to score for each other. If there are 30 seconds left and you are up 12-1, you have more incentive to put in balls for the opponents than for yourself. Furthermore, unless you have a reasonable chance to overtake the other side, you have no in-game incentive to try to hang from the bar if you are the losing side. All you will be doing is giving twice as many points as you earn to the winning alliance, while giving none to yourself.

Again I will say that this is a REALLY interesting game theory problem. I wish I were still teaching discrete math, because I would love to have a test question asking students to devise and justify a good strategy for the game.
__________________
Thank you Bad Robots for giving me the chance to coach this team.
Rookie All-Star Award: 2003 Buckeye
Engineering Inspiration Award: 2004 Pittsburgh, 2014 Crossroads
Chairman's Award: 2005 Pittsburgh, 2009 Buckeye, 2012 Queen City
Team Spirit Award: 2007 Buckeye, 2015 Queen City
Woodie Flowers Award: 2009 Buckeye
Dean's List Finalists: Phil Aufdencamp (2010), Lindsey Fox (2011), Kyle Torrico (2011), Alix Bernier (2013), Deepthi Thumuluri (2015)
Gracious Professionalism Award: 2013 Buckeye
Innovation in Controls Award: 2015 Pittsburgh
Event Finalists: 2012 CORI, 2016 Buckeye

Last edited by mathking : 09-01-2010 at 20:50.
  #48   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2010, 20:45
SteveGPage's Avatar
SteveGPage SteveGPage is offline
Mentor - Scouting and Strategy
AKA: Steve
FRC #0836 (RoboBees)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Hollywood, MD
Posts: 523
SteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathking View Post
Again I will say that this is a REALLY interesting game theory problem. I wish I were still teaching discrete math, because I would love to have a test question asking students to devise and justify a good strategy for the game.
So true! I think an alum at my very, very, very small college in Southwestern Virginia (John Forbes Nash, Jr) would love this game, too!
__________________
FRC 836, The RoboBees www.robobees.org
growingSTEMS www.growingSTEMS.org
2017: Southwest VA, Northern MD, Chesapeake District Championships, Championships
  #49   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2010, 21:17
StephLee's Avatar
StephLee StephLee is offline
Deadlines? What are those?
AKA: Stephanie
FRC #0639 (Code Red Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 796
StephLee has a reputation beyond reputeStephLee has a reputation beyond reputeStephLee has a reputation beyond reputeStephLee has a reputation beyond reputeStephLee has a reputation beyond reputeStephLee has a reputation beyond reputeStephLee has a reputation beyond reputeStephLee has a reputation beyond reputeStephLee has a reputation beyond reputeStephLee has a reputation beyond reputeStephLee has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to StephLee
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Has anyone pointed out that perhaps you COULD benefit from giving your opponent more seeding points by scoring for yourself, even in a no-win situation at the end of the game?

I know in the past, we have ended up with excellent alliance partners based on our performance against them in qualification matches. Giving a likely top-8 team a run for their money is, in my experience, a good way to get them to notice you, and such a game played without nastiness is a good way to get them to notice you favorably. If the primary overall goal during the qualification matches is to seed highly yourself, the secondary should be to put on a good showing for the teams that do seed highly enough to impact your fate for the elimination rounds.

Not to mention, if you have the choice between helping your opponent at no cost to yourself or not helping your opponent also at no cost to yourself (as in, you wouldn't win either way)...well, it'd be within my personal definition of GP to help my opponent.
__________________
Proud alum of FRC Team 1629 and mentor of FRC Team 639
Cornell Engineering class of 2012!!
  #50   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2010, 21:25
SteveGPage's Avatar
SteveGPage SteveGPage is offline
Mentor - Scouting and Strategy
AKA: Steve
FRC #0836 (RoboBees)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Hollywood, MD
Posts: 523
SteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by StephLee View Post
I know in the past, we have ended up with excellent alliance partners based on our performance against them in qualification matches. Giving a likely top-8 team a run for their money is, in my experience, a good way to get them to notice you, ...
I remember that well ... but, trust me, our scouting had all ready noticed you that year!

This year we get to see each other's teams at both the Chesapeake and Buckeye Regionals ... maybe this year, we will get you to notice us!
__________________
FRC 836, The RoboBees www.robobees.org
growingSTEMS www.growingSTEMS.org
2017: Southwest VA, Northern MD, Chesapeake District Championships, Championships
  #51   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2010, 22:09
Tom Line's Avatar
Tom Line Tom Line is offline
Raptors can't turn doorknobs.
FRC #1718 (The Fighting Pi)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Armada, Michigan
Posts: 2,569
Tom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathking View Post
The colluded shutout agreement runs some significant risk for the "winning" alliance in that if they get any penalties, they will actually come out behind the "losing" alliance in seeding points for that round. You could argue that if they two alliances cooperate they might still score more points than they would have scored if the match had been played with both alliances trying to get the most points. But I suspect that a lot of teams will be unwilling to risk what they might view as an unfair result.

One thing I think is clear is that in most unbalanced matches without any collusion, there will be a point at which the sides start trying to score for each other. If there are 30 seconds left and you are up 12-1, you have more incentive to put in balls for the opponents than for yourself. Furthermore, unless you have a reasonable chance to overtake the other side, you have no in-game incentive to try to hang from the bar if you are the losing side. All you will be doing is giving twice as many points as you earn to the winning alliance, while giving none to yourself.

Again I will say that this is a REALLY interesting game theory problem. I wish I were still teaching discrete math, because I would love to have a test question asking students to devise and justify a good strategy for the game.
You may call it interesting. I call it insanity. I have to wonder that since entertainment and audience inclusion was a big part of kickoff, what part of this system makes it:

#1 Easier for the audience to understand
#2 More entertaining for the audience

I'm pretty sure that if half way through the game the teams start scoring on themselves, the audience is going to go "what the <insert word>". If then someone explains to them that the teams on the floor are artificially manipulating the scores to obtain a result rather than simply competing against one another, I'm pretty sure most of the "audience" are going to wonder exactly what type of competition their watching.

Simple it isn't. Entertaining.... I don't think so. I certainly hope they fix this quickly. Though at this point it doesn't really matter - we're all still going to design robots to score as quickly as possible.
  #52   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2010, 23:09
leafy leafy is offline
Registered User
AKA: Jacob Greenleaf
FRC #0166 (Chop Shop 166)
Team Role: Programmer
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Merrimack, NH
Posts: 11
leafy is on a distinguished road
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Everyone seems to be missing two key factors:

1. If the two alliances are not colluding, then the best strategy for the alliance planning to score 0 is to block both goals with its robots and push the balls into the other alliance's zone.

2. Competition should lower the maximum amount of points a given alliance can get, given competency on the part of both alliances. If we both get 6 of the balls, then that's a 6 point margin that's being taken away. If one alliance plans to get 0 points, then the other alliance gets 12 points plus however many they can put back onto the field.

Some say that the cooperition bonus "is for this purpose", while shying away from the stronger statement that the cooperition bonus would compel both teams to compete. This simply isn't true; they fail to factor in the heightened maximum points you can gain from not scoring any goals.

For instance, take the numbers that have been thrown around. Say the score is 8-8. That means that 4 balls have been re-entered into the field. A total of 16 balls. The winning team in kirtar's scenario is 8-8, or 8-7, or something close to a tie. The winning alliance gets 12 seeding points minus penalties, while the losing team gets 8 points.

Compare this to the strategy of scoring 0: using the same number of active balls, one alliance scores 16 and the other 0. The final seeding points distributed is 16 points to each team. 4 points higher for the winning alliance, and double the losing alliance's potential score. It is simply not the case that it is always beneficial to tie a game.

In fact, the original scenario assumes that 8-8 is the score, assuming that the number of active balls is 16. The two teams fight for the 16 balls, making sure that they are not efficiently delivering goals and re-entering balls into the play field. If they did, by teaming up to score the most points, they could increase the number of balls higher, thus making their score even higher.

Why does everyone think this strategy is counter to the spirit of FIRST? It's not counter to the spirit of the rules, since Dean Kamen himself foresaw this use of the rules in his patent. Second, it effects an environment in which both teams work together in order to maximize their benefits. Is this not more close to gracious professionalism than competing to make sure you beat the other team just hard enough to get the win, but just soft enough to get the most cooperition bonus? Surely once you have established the win, it's almost manipulative to behave this way. If you are at 1 minute left with your alliance at 8 points and the other alliance at 4, a team looking for seeding points (and who isn't?) would wait for the other alliance to score up to 3 points to gain that extra 6 seeding points. The losing team knows this. They know it, and they know that they're going to lose and any attempts to win would just increase the other alliance's seeding points at the end of the match. What hopelessness. Scoring for yourself actually drags you lower relative to the mean seeding points.

I'm not advocating this as a main strategy; when I presented it to my team our mentors repeatedly said that it would probably be changed, it might be entirely eliminated, and that we shouldn't use it as our main strategy. The strategy we could use, if this isn't changed, is determine whether we're going to lose or not beforehand. If we are, then convince our alliance partners to not score. If they won't be convinced, score like mad. If they will be convinced, don't score and block the goals, helping the other team while preventing them from lowering our score relative to them.

Again, most teams will likely examine this strategy and find it too risky. What if the other team scores on us - then we actually lose points. I'm just pointing out that this is a legal, effective strategy, and worthy of discussion, even as a matter of pure game theory. Questions of fairness or fidelity to our foundations are tangential at best.
  #53   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-01-2010, 10:07
Enigma's puzzle's Avatar
Enigma's puzzle Enigma's puzzle is offline
Strategery
AKA: Matt Brechting
FRC #2075 (Enigma)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Sparta MI
Posts: 261
Enigma's puzzle is a splendid one to beholdEnigma's puzzle is a splendid one to beholdEnigma's puzzle is a splendid one to beholdEnigma's puzzle is a splendid one to beholdEnigma's puzzle is a splendid one to beholdEnigma's puzzle is a splendid one to beholdEnigma's puzzle is a splendid one to behold
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

I believe that these seeding rules were actually implemented to encourage offensive teams that tried to accomplish scoring instead of just going for the defensive approach. And actually i think that this will do a more accurate job of calculating the most potent scoring robots, and actually in an effort to raise the score of the match many teams will not put someone on the "defensive" end to encourage scoring and quick ball recycling. This strategy would benefit both sides because hopefully the score by both teams will increase.
__________________

  #54   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-01-2010, 12:23
PhilBot's Avatar
PhilBot PhilBot is offline
Get a life? This IS my life!
AKA: Phil Malone
FRC #1629 (GaCo: The Garrett Coalition)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 756
PhilBot has a reputation beyond reputePhilBot has a reputation beyond reputePhilBot has a reputation beyond reputePhilBot has a reputation beyond reputePhilBot has a reputation beyond reputePhilBot has a reputation beyond reputePhilBot has a reputation beyond reputePhilBot has a reputation beyond reputePhilBot has a reputation beyond reputePhilBot has a reputation beyond reputePhilBot has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathking View Post
One thing I think is clear is that in most unbalanced matches without any collusion, there will be a point at which the sides start trying to score for each other.
Yes, this seemed like the "missing" conclusion to me too.

At some point of imballance BOTH teams are better off scoring on each other.

Of course, at that point, the whole "This 1020 game is easier for the crowd to understand." concept goes out the door.... Will it make sense to anyone not on this forum that the red is now scoring for blue and that blue is now scoring for red?

It will be interesting if the term "Tipping Point" starte getting applied to matches.....

Annoucer..... "Looks like we've hit the tipping point. Teams are starting to score in each other's goals."

You read it here first

Phil.
__________________
Phil Malone
Garrett Engineering And Robotics Society (GEARS) founder.
http://www.GEARSinc.org

FRC1629 Mentor, FTC2818 Coach, FTC4240 Mentor, FLL NeXTGEN Mentor
  #55   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-01-2010, 12:32
Daniel_LaFleur's Avatar
Daniel_LaFleur Daniel_LaFleur is offline
Mad Scientist
AKA: Me
FRC #2040 (DERT)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Peoria, IL
Posts: 1,984
Daniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via MSN to Daniel_LaFleur
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveGPage View Post
So true! I think an alum at my very, very, very small college in Southwestern Virginia (John Forbes Nash, Jr) would love this game, too!
You're right.

This is a great example of 'Nash equilibrium', which is why I don't believe we'll see as much collusion (but we will see some) as is being posted here.

Each team will work to their own benefit ... which will mean that they will be very motivated to break their 'agreements' when the crucial time comes.
__________________
___________________
"We are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. "
- Tennyson, Ulysses
  #56   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-01-2010, 12:37
leafy leafy is offline
Registered User
AKA: Jacob Greenleaf
FRC #0166 (Chop Shop 166)
Team Role: Programmer
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Merrimack, NH
Posts: 11
leafy is on a distinguished road
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur View Post
You're right.

This is a great example of 'Nash equilibrium', which is why I don't believe we'll see as much collusion (but we will see some) as is being posted here.

Each team will work to their own benefit ... which will mean that they will be very motivated to break their 'agreements' when the crucial time comes.
The nash equilibrium refers to a strategy which, when all players are aware of it, is the optimum strategy while accounting for any changes other teams may make in their strategy. No player has any reason to change, since the strategy they have is optimal, and any change would lead in a decrease in benefits.

The nash equilibrium of this game is not every team working to break agreements; An alliance has much more to gain if they score 0 than if they work hard, given that the other alliance is at least somewhat similar in scoring ability.

I made a long post that never appeared; expect this post to be edited ~6:30pm EST.

Last edited by leafy : 10-01-2010 at 12:40.
  #57   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-01-2010, 13:06
mathking's Avatar
mathking mathking is offline
Coach/Faculty Advisor
AKA: Greg King
FRC #1014 (Dublin Robotics aka "Bad Robots")
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 643
mathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond reputemathking has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

This game does not really have a Nash equilibrium. With the "n to 0" strategy the side with the n points has an incentive to unilaterally change strategies to score for the opponent. This incentive increases if they have received (or think they received) any penalties. If the sides are playing for an "n to n" tie they both have an incentive to score n+1 and end up with 3n +1 points instead of 2n points. I would guess that the game designers looked at all this when they designed the game.
__________________
Thank you Bad Robots for giving me the chance to coach this team.
Rookie All-Star Award: 2003 Buckeye
Engineering Inspiration Award: 2004 Pittsburgh, 2014 Crossroads
Chairman's Award: 2005 Pittsburgh, 2009 Buckeye, 2012 Queen City
Team Spirit Award: 2007 Buckeye, 2015 Queen City
Woodie Flowers Award: 2009 Buckeye
Dean's List Finalists: Phil Aufdencamp (2010), Lindsey Fox (2011), Kyle Torrico (2011), Alix Bernier (2013), Deepthi Thumuluri (2015)
Gracious Professionalism Award: 2013 Buckeye
Innovation in Controls Award: 2015 Pittsburgh
Event Finalists: 2012 CORI, 2016 Buckeye
  #58   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-01-2010, 02:51
Koko Ed's Avatar
Koko Ed Koko Ed is offline
Serial Volunteer
AKA: Ed Patterson
FRC #0191 (X-Cats)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Rochester,NY
Posts: 22,954
Koko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond reputeKoko Ed has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

FIRST really wanted to make sure that we're all winners this year.
__________________
  #59   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-01-2010, 03:54
waialua359's Avatar
waialua359 waialua359 is offline
Mentor
AKA: Glenn
FRC #0359 (Hawaiian Kids)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Waialua, HI
Posts: 3,324
waialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

The way I see it, seeding points is just like W-L, except in the way you can position yourself higher/lower than another team.
In the W-L method, the only way you can overcome a team with a better record, is if they start losing matches, and often times is out of your control.
In the seeding system, you have more control to a certain extent, of positioning yourself with higher seeding points vs. other teams.
Penalties in the past sometimes was the difference to a W-L. The same situation this year would be a loss of coopertition bonus points. That's pretty substantial in a high scoring close match, where the penalties were a difference maker.
__________________

2016 Hawaii Regional #1 seed, IDesign, Safety Award
2016 NY Tech Valley Regional Champions, #1 seed, Innovation in Controls Award
2016 Lake Superior Regional Champions, #1 seed, Quality Award, Dean's List
2015 FRC Worlds-Carver Division Champions
2015 Hawaii Regional Champions, #1 seed.
2015 Australia Regional Champions, #2 seed, Engineering Excellence Award
2015 Inland Empire Regional Champions, #1 seed, Industrial Design Award
2014 OZARK Mountain Brawl Champions, #1 seed.
2014 Hawaii Regional Champions, #1 seed, UL Safety Award
2014 Dallas Regional Champions, #1 seed, Engineering Excellence Award
2014 Northern Lights Regional Champions, #1 seed, Entrepreneurship Award
2013 Championship Dean's List Winner
2013 Utah Regional Champion, #1 seed, KP&B Award, Deans List
2013 Boilermaker Regional Champion, #1 seed, Motorola Quality Award
2012 Lone Star Regional Champion, #1 seed, Motorola Quality Award
2012 Hawaii Regional Champions #1 seed, Motorola Quality Award
  #60   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-01-2010, 08:38
Daniel_LaFleur's Avatar
Daniel_LaFleur Daniel_LaFleur is offline
Mad Scientist
AKA: Me
FRC #2040 (DERT)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Peoria, IL
Posts: 1,984
Daniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via MSN to Daniel_LaFleur
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by leafy View Post
The nash equilibrium refers to a strategy which, when all players are aware of it, is the optimum strategy while accounting for any changes other teams may make in their strategy. No player has any reason to change, since the strategy they have is optimal, and any change would lead in a decrease in benefits.

The nash equilibrium of this game is not every team working to break agreements; An alliance has much more to gain if they score 0 than if they work hard, given that the other alliance is at least somewhat similar in scoring ability.

I made a long post that never appeared; expect this post to be edited ~6:30pm EST.
I believe you are incorrect here.

Both alliances benefit better in a high scoring tie (the reason for this, over your 'x to 0' strategy is that coopertition points are the tiebreaker ... therefore teams would wish to maximize them), so early on in the competitions they are well motivated to do just that (high scoring ties).

But as the competition goes along and rounds will score differently, teams will become more motivated to change that strategy so that they will move up in the seeding.

Applying the Nash Equilibrium to game strategy will mean that teams will change their strategy towards scoring based upon their seeding position as the regional goes on, and therefore the Nash Equilibrium must be re-evaluated each match.

... it's going to be a fun year
__________________
___________________
"We are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. "
- Tennyson, Ulysses
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Match Ranking Points Daniel Bathgate Rules/Strategy 3 06-01-2008 00:25
pic: QF match that set new record score = 220 points CD47-Bot Extra Discussion 3 29-03-2004 15:34
Seeding System Koci Rules/Strategy 23 25-03-2004 15:27
pic: YMTC: 150 points or 100 points? CD47-Bot Extra Discussion 4 25-03-2004 01:53
Seeding Calculations archiver 2000 50 23-06-2002 21:57


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 14:17.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi