Playing two different games this year?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Laaba 80

I cant believe people are actually considering this. What is the point of a competition if all you are going to eliminate the competition. Now I can understand scoring for your opponent when you are up big to get some extra coopertition points, but to score only for them, come on. Why would anyone want to do this?

Yes, you may move up, but where if the satisfaction in knowing you did well to earn your position. At the end of the day, I like to see where I am ranked and think about how I got there, what I did well and what I could have done better. If I followed this strategy and was ranked #1, I would not feel accomplished, I would feel I achieved "success" by cheating the system.

I have fun before, during, and after every single match, why would someone give that up in order to get ranked higher? Qualification matches are matches you are guaranteed to play. Would I give up 10 guaranteed matches to play maybe more than 2 matches in eliminations? Never.

People complain about the ranking system in the past, FIRST tries to do something new, and instead of going along with it, people try to find ways around it, and ruin the system. This is meant to encourage high scoring by both alliances, not lopsided for one. If people wouldnt come up with things like these, I think the new ranking system may have worked.

People say the crowd will be confused when the undefeated robot is not number 1. Try explaining to them why they are watching robots scoring in the wrong goal instead of competing. Good luck.

What is teaching the kids on your team? If you dont think you can win just give up and help your opponent. Some say if their drivers wont do this they will find new drivers. Let them get new drivers, dont give up your fun in because people on your team want to win with no dignity.

If you actually try this, good luck. One of the teams on the other alliance will begin to score for you. They wont pass up this opportunity. When they score for you, you just became the losers, big time.

I will never follow this strategy, I actually enjoy playing the game.

As a disclaimer, I think the coopertition bonus is really dumb.

I think you're entirely off base here though. You ask what the point of a competition is. The point is to win. If executing a strategy that requires you to intentionally lose in order to maximize seeding points is what it takes to win, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

You can be sure that the GDC full well knew what they were doing when they introduced the coopertition bonus. They had to know it invited scenarios to occur where both alliances will score for only one alliance. They knew that it invalidated wins and losses.

If you know that wins and losses are unimportant, winning the match becomes irrelevant. The only thing that matters is maximizing your seeding score. There are a number of ways to do that. The system allows you to be rewarded for intentionally losing and scoring for the opposing alliance. I find this highly counter intuitive and think it will be a nightmare for the casual observer to understand, but it makes perfect sense when you consider the intent of "coopertition".

I don't see anything shameful about executing this strategy. Nor do I feel that if you seed first by doing so, you somehow didn't earn it. You still have to score the points on the field to earn the seeding points to rank first.

[Laaba 80]

Originally Posted by Cory

I think you're entirely off base here though. You ask what the point of a competition is. The point is to win. If executing a strategy that requires you to intentionally lose in order to maximize seeding points is what it takes to win, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Having the most seeding points does not mean you win. If you do this and lose in the quarterfinals what do you have to show for your weekend? No wins.

Also IF you get to elims, your drivers will have no experience. They practiced scoring away from them with no defense. Now try to have them score toward them while being defended.

[Pjdaley13]

We built a pretty solid robot and found ourselves in last place by playing defense well. I personally don't like the scoring system, confusing and anti competition. We will definitely look at working across alliances at the next regional. At the end of day one, with a winning record, we found ourselves near last place because we shut out the opposing teams a few times playing good defense. Good defense in qualifiers returns bad rankings and no selection.

It is a little difficult to convince the teams that are selecting that your rankings are bad because you played defense well. As an example we went up seven ranking points in a loss at one point. Doesn't make sense at first, but now we know.

Just an FYI.

[Laaba 80]

Originally Posted by Pjdaley13

At the end of day one, with a winning record, we found ourselves near last place because we shut out the opposing teams a few times playing good defense.

2-3-1 is not a winning record. You got ranked so low because there was almost no scoring for either alliance.

[Pjdaley13]

Oh by the way sorry to the teams we played defense for, didn't mean to cause harm.

[Pjdaley13]

Originally Posted by Laaba 80

2-3-1 is not a winning record. You got ranked so low because there was almost no scoring for either alliance.

Sorry not exactly at the end of the day towards the end, we had most of our matches late and close together. Didn't figure out the coopertition effect until late in the day. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Stephen of REX]

Fear not defensive bots! 1727 Was number 1 seed at DC, and this is how we chose our alliance. We chose no. 2 seed 3123 for their amazing offensive robot. Then when we needed to choose our defensive robot, we completely ignored the rankings and went to our scouting data. The top of our list was 176, because of their 6wd articulated traction wheel chassis. They turned out to be perfect for defending the goals due to their superior pushing power. They hadn't ranked as high due to their defensive playing. This alliance went on to win the eliminations!

[rwood359]

Originally Posted by Pjdaley13

It is a little difficult to convince the teams that are selecting that your rankings are bad because you played defense well.

Not always.
In San Diego, we chose 294 because they played a good defense. The disconnect between qualifying and elimination strategies does create a problem for defensive robots. Play your game and hurt your alliance's ranking or play for ranking and hurt your chance of being selected, if you don't make the top 8.

[Integral]

The absoult worst thing about a 6v0 stradgy is that it does NOT maximize the seed points. In fact it minimizes them.

Consider a 16-0 score each teams get 16 seed points. Not to bad, right?

Now consider those same 16 goals split evenly for a 8-8 tie, Here each team gets 24 seed points!

Looks to me like a tie is the way to maximize seed points. Why in the world would you want to leave one side scoreless? The alliance which through strong defence skunks the other alliance hurts only themselves.

Play no defence and strive for a tie.

[Tknee]

Originally Posted by Integral

The absoult worst thing about a 6v0 stradgy is that it does NOT maximize the seed points. In fact it minimizes them.

Consider a 16-0 score each teams get 16 seed points. Not to bad, right?

Now consider those same 16 goals split evenly for a 8-8 tie, Here each team gets 24 seed points!

Looks to me like a tie is the way to maximize seed points. Why in the world would you want to leave one side scoreless? The alliance which through strong defence skunks the other alliance hurts only themselves.

Play no defence and strive for a tie.

I think with TU 16, it is generally agreed that the mutual 6v0 strategy is no longer a preferred option (though it may still occur for reasons I will list below). Let me be clear that I was not a big fan of 6v0, but understood there may be times when it may have been appropriate.

First of all while I fully agree that 6v0 does not maximize seed points, it does not minimize them. In a match, points scored for the losing alliance do not benefit the losing alliance. With 6v0, every goal helps both alliances. Further the argument was that under 6v0, more goals could be scored than under a 3v3 situation.

I also grant that a tie is the best outcome to maximize seeding points betwen two alliances working together. However a tie is much more difficult to engineer than simply scoring all your goals on one side. I believe to properly execute it, you almost need to predetermine the final score, which I feel is one step too far in the argument of collusion. There was also the argument that when engineering a tie there is a much larger incentive to backstab. I didn't like this argument because I feel that is definetly unprofessional and that one's reputation is far more important than seeding points.

Lastly, I think most of its advocates understood that 6v0 does not maximize your score but reduces risk. It's the question of whether you would prefer to have $2, or play a game where a die is rolled that paid $6 if the result was even. The $6 pays better; even the expected value $3 pays better, but there may be situations where all you need is the guaranteed $2.

As an aside, strong defence has its place in qualification matches. Not all teams are aiming to be in the top 8 seeds. For some teams, the qualification matches are there to showcase their abilities which may include impressive defensive capabilities. For others, the win resulting from strong defence may score better than the loss that results without it. Sweeping generalizations on what is the optimal strategy are rarely correct in complicated games.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Integral

The absoult worst thing about a 6v0 stradgy is that it does NOT maximize the seed points. In fact it minimizes them.

Consider a 16-0 score each teams get 16 seed points. Not to bad, right?

Now consider those same 16 goals split evenly for a 8-8 tie, Here each team gets 24 seed points!

Play no defence and strive for a tie.

If you mess up a tie, one team gets screwed over. If you mess up a shutout by missing a ball or something, no biggie. Well, back then. now with the update, predetermined matches won't happen, just occasional bailouts and throws.

[JamesCH95]

This strategy reminds me of when a number of NHL players threw a post season game because they got to play more consolation games and make more money, because they got paid by the game, rather than continue through the post season as far as they could.

Sure it maximizes your seeding score, but then everyone would have a high seeding score. No drive teams or robots would stand out because no one will be challenged. I feel it would just make every team have a high seed score regardless of anything else, taking any competition out of the picture.

[jspatz1]

I think it is fair to say that the GDC probably did not foresee all the possible ramifications of this seeding system. I understand and agree with the concept of coopertition, but when a win is a loss and a loss is a win, when poor robots rise to the top of the seeding, and when it becomes smart to forfeit matches and not play the game, the something is clearly wrong. I talked to both students and mentors this weekend that were discouraged that building a good robot meant less than knowing how to game the seeding system. If the cooperition factor is taken too far and begins to effect the participants' moral, or if FRC gains the reputation for being a league where being good doesn't really matter, then that is potenitally damaging ground for FRC.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Laaba 80

Having the most seeding points does not mean you win. If you do this and lose in the quarterfinals what do you have to show for your weekend? No wins.

Also IF you get to elims, your drivers will have no experience. They practiced scoring away from them with no defense. Now try to have them score toward them while being defended.

It does not mean you win, but having the top pick of the draft is a big deal. It sets you up to win.

I don't see what the outrage is here. FIRST made the rules, we play with them. This is hardly a loophole. It was an expected outcome, that people began discussing on Chief mere hours after the rules were released.

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by Cory

It does not mean you win, but having the top pick of the draft is a big deal. It sets you up to win.

I don't see what the outrage is here. FIRST made the rules, we play with them. This is hardly a loophole. It was an expected outcome, that people began discussing on Chief mere hours after the rules were released.

But you won't know who is good and who is bad because no teams will have been challenged the way they will be in the finals. What's the point of picking if you have minimal criteria to judge by?