Playing two different games this year?

[David Brinza]

One outcome from coopertition-based scoring is the possibility of playing two very different Breakaway games. Will your team adopt this strategy? Or will you play to maximize coopertion bonus (close, high scoring matches)?

To avoid negative connotations, I'll avoid the word "collusion" in describing the game played in qualifications. If ALL teams at a regional agree to play qualification matches according to a "fully-cooperative" strategy, then no harm is coming to the teams as a result of pre-match agreements. Here's the "full-cooperative strategy" for qualification matches:

1. ALL scoring will be for only one alliance in the match (RED or BLUE), it won't matter to the teams in the match.
2. NO defense is ever played.
3. NO autonomous scoring for the "losing alliance"
4. NO robots elevated or suspended for the "losing alliance"
5. NO penalties (always a good idea).
6. The objective for the teams is to achieve the most lopsided score possible: (i.e. 30 - 0, 40 - 0, or more).

Teams on both alliances will get large seeding scores.

The game in elimination matches are competitions where it's all about winning. Defense is back (and probably important). Scoring in autonomous and hanging/suspended robots are important. This is the game that won't require any special explanation to spectators.

Do you want to play Breakaway like this??

[Chris is me]

What makes me so upset about the seeding system is that teams had to decide to make either a bot optimized to do well in qualifications or eliminations, as drastically different robots are required for each. I thought that was the reason we switched to W / L / T in the first place!

A qualification robot doesn't have to worry about traction or a shooter that works over more than one bump. Often they don't even need to hang.

[Rizner]

Although it may help teams get to eliminations, it wouldn't help when choosing an alliance partner or for those who plan to play defense in the elims. No experience playing defense could be a very bad situation -- think about going into the quarter finals not knowing what the refs are picky about, how they feel about contact over the bump, or how capable your team or a team picked for an alliance will be when it really comes to pushing power?

[StevenB]

Originally Posted by David Brinza

Do you want to play Breakaway like this??

No, not at all. Will I play Breakaway like this? Yes, if it maximizes our seeding score.

[Grim Tuesday]

Our team choose not to do this, since we knew that we wouldnt be int the top 8 anyways, so if we could wow another team with our awesomeness , then we could get into their alliance. It's also more graciously proffesional to play the game the way its supposed to be played.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

Our team choose not to do this, since we knew that we wouldnt be int the top 8 anyways, so if we could wow another team with our awesomeness , then we could get into their alliance. It's also more graciously proffesional to play the game the way its supposed to be played.

If I were in the top 8 and our alliance had asked you to play a certain strategy in a match during qualifications and you refused I would not pick you no matter how awesome you were.

Ignoring an alliances strategy is done at your own risk.

[Grim Tuesday]

Our alliance agreed with us; it was a different match that one of the teams pulled this strategy.

[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.

[Stephen of REX]

Well I'd like to provide an example today from the DC regional. It was the last qualification match of the day. The MC commends the teams for all agreeing to only score on one side. The whole point was to increase everyone's seeding point before the end of the qualifications.

The match ended 5 - 0 with a red card and a yellow card being played. So much for that, I hope some other teams can pull it off!

(If you were at DC, please correct me if I'm wrong! That's how I remember it going...)

[J_Beth]

Originally Posted by Stephen of REX

Well I'd like to provide an example today from the DC regional. It was the last qualification match of the day. The MC commends the teams for all agreeing to only score on one side. The whole point was to increase everyone's seeding point before the end of the qualifications.

The match ended 5 - 0 with a red card and a yellow card being played. So much for that, I hope some other teams can pull it off!

(If you were at DC, please correct me if I'm wrong! That's how I remember it going...)

well, if it makes you feel better this was pulled off in the last match at the Greater Kansas City Regional. The final score was 14-0 but the winning team got 1 penalty. This got several teams from both alliances moved up in the rankings. I would have considered this i very smart strategy for them.

[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.

[BEEKMAN]

Originally Posted by J_Beth

well, if it makes you feel better this was pulled off in the last match at the Greater Kansas City Regional. The final score was 14-0 but the winning team got 1 penalty. This got several teams from both alliances moved up in the rankings. I would have considered this i very smart strategy for them.

Just like in sports, throwing the game like this is unacceptable. Don't be concerend about rank....we were in 47th place at the start of day three (GSR 2010) and we move up to 28th in three matches, got picked for an alliance and won GSR! (paired with 1519 and 1073). It is more important to look at the result of scouting than it is for ranking. So scout!!!!!

[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.

[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.