Don't count goals scored for the opposition - Yes or No?

[Travis Hoffman]

Proposal - Modify the rules such that any goals scored for the opposition are not counted. All other seeding/ranking rules remain as written.

What this would change -

1. Any "boosting" collusive actions would be eliminated, as the vehicle for such collusion would be removed.

2. Spectators - all the ones Dean is urging us to bring to the competitions to get them excited about FIRST - would be far less confused as to what the heck is going on down on the field.

3. Those alliances who cannot score due to functional difficulties will not suffer the additional public embarrassment of having the opposition score for them.

Many have witnessed all 3 of the above in action at the Week 1 regionals. Discussions and interactions revolving around the above have generated many emotions - anger, disappointment, confusion, embarrassment - that do not contribute to the otherwise "inspirational" atmosphere present at a FIRST event.

What this change would preserve -

1. The apparent ability of this system to let the cream rise to the top of the rankings.

2. The promotion of offensive activity during qualifying.

3. The disincentive to bogart all the game pieces and slaughter your opponents if you are on an excessively-capable alliance.

Your thoughts? Please don't debate the logistics of actually implementing this rule change into the scoring software. I am only interested in opinions on how this would affect strategy and gameplay.

[Chris is me]

That removes the entire Coopertition Award from play as well, since the award is now based on how good your opponents are, as you have no legal way to help them score. Just to make people aware...

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

That removes the entire Coopertition Award from play as well, since the award is now based on how good your opponents are, as you have no legal way to help them score. Just to make people aware...

You are not "helping your opponents score" by using your robot to score IN LIEU OF THEIR ABILITY TO DO SO. You are merely padding your ranking stats.

Your opponents would be better served if you helped them improve their design BEHIND THE PIT CURTAIN. That is where the true cooperation takes place.

Cooperate BEHIND the curtain; compete IN FRONT OF it. Merge the two to get your "coopertition". That formula has worked for years.

[Rich Kressly]

I voted for the change not that I think there will be one, but it is something I'd support. I'd be in favor of this, or adding the Win-Loss back in. I fully respect the work of the GDC and understand the philosophy behind writing the current rules in the manner presented to us, but there seem (and I emphasize "seem" since I can't speak for he intent of the GDC's work) to be some unintended, if not undesirable consequences. Anyone who knows me knows I'm pretty much the only person on the planet who LOVED the 2001 game which was a 4v0 game, but this is very different to me

You can still "help" the apposing alliance to score in other ways without physically doing so - not defending, putting more balls in opponents scoring zone, etc.

The reasoning behind my position is exceedingly similar to the one already conveyed by Paul Copioli over here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...6&postcount=43

(Yes, I pretty much completely agree with Paul on this issue - go figure )

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

You can still "help" the apposing alliance to score in other ways without physically doing so - not defending, putting more balls in opponents scoring zone, etc.

I like the compromise inferred here - leave/place more balls into the opponents' zone, for THEM to do their own scoring.

There are still plenty of ways to earn the "Coopertition Award" - all of them more genuine than dumping balls into the opponent's goals.

[Jimmy Cao]

What defines "scored for the opposition"? Redbot kicked a ball, which touched bluebot, and went into the red goal. Who scored? Red who kicked, or blue who touched it last?

How do you tell who "scored"? The scoring system is automated. It eliminates the need for scorers. But wait, now we need people to not only count the goals, but also tell the system which ones are "legitimate"?

How do you enforce DOGMA penalties now? Must the balls still be put into play in the same timely manner? In that case, scoring for your opponents becomes a means of giving them penalties exclusively? But wait, you cannot cause a penalty. If they don't need to be returned, how do you tell the HP they can take their time with that ball.

In 2006, you could score for your opponents all you like. Teams took advantage of that to boost their own score. Wise move.

Likewise in 2009. It happened less often than 2006 in my opinion, but it is still a valid strategy.

Its no different in 2010. In fact, its MORE important in 2010. It helps sort out the "great" from the "best". Great robot can score 10/match. The best robots can score 10/match, and win every match by 1 point (in theory). Scoring for your opponents isn't the problem. It results from the way the ranking system is set up. Removing scoring for your opponents is a bad bandaid over the issue.

In 2006/2009, scoring for your opponents benefited the losing alliance. They get more RP. This year, if you lose, you benefit NOTHING from your points. I disagree with the system, but that's the way the system works. I don't like it, but, like the rest of us, I need to live with it.

So if you really want to fix the problem, I find it more logical to go after its root, and not just patch its branches.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Lostmage333

What defines "scored for the opposition"? Redbot kicked a ball, which touched bluebot, and went into the red goal. Who scored? Red who kicked, or blue who touched it last?

I would think that just the presence of the rule would be enough to dispel most teams from following the practice. How much intentional tipping did you see at events this past weekend?

Keep it simple - kick originated from red and entered blue's goal - IF DETECTED by the person assigned to catch it, it doesn't count, regardless of how it got there.

Most intentional scoring attempts from the opposition should be direct, obvious, and easily detectable by the volunteer(s) responsible for tracking them. Discount those. Accidental "deflection" scores and such will not be as obvious and are less likely to be caught. No big deal.

Much like refs sometimes fail to catch penalties, I'm sure some opposing scores would be missed. But the obvious ones should always be caught, and that's the main goal.

How do you tell who "scored"? The scoring system is automated. It eliminates the need for scorers. But wait, now we need people to not only count the goals, but also tell the system which ones are "legitimate"?

Deduct at the end of the game. Have existing refs or additional volunteers keep track. It's not like it's going to be a rampant practice if the rule is placed in effect.

How do you enforce DOGMA penalties now? Must the balls still be put into play in the same timely manner? In that case, scoring for your opponents becomes a means of giving them penalties exclusively? But wait, you cannot cause a penalty. If they don't need to be returned, how do you tell the HP they can take their time with that ball.

No changes to any other rules. HP's return all balls as usual.

One would think any attempts to overwhelm an opponents' HP's would be rather obvious, wreckless, and pointless. This is a non-issue.

So if you really want to fix the problem, I find it more logical to go after its root, and not just patch its branches.

I'm sure many will "go after" the root cause in the offseason. This is an attempt to discuss meaningful ways to address rising concerns THIS season.

[Jimmy Cao]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

I would think that just the presence of the rule would be enough to dispel most teams from following the practice. How much intentional tipping did you see at events this past weekend?

Keep it simple - kick originated from red and entered blue's goal - IF DETECTED by the person assigned to catch it, it doesn't count, regardless of how it got there.

The problem with that is that people don't like ambiguous rules. Leave it ambiguous, and you'll get complaints that its not well stated. If you want to put a rule like this, I would think you need to define it clearly.

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Most intentional scoring attempts from the opposition should be direct, obvious, and easily detectable by the volunteer(s) responsible for tracking them. Discount those. Accidental "deflection" scores and such will not be as obvious and are less likely to be caught. No big deal.

Much like refs sometimes fail to catch penalties, I'm sure some opposing scores would be missed. But the obvious ones should always be caught, and that's the main goal.

The intent behind the automated scoring system is that it is exactly that. Automated. FIRST is trying to remove human scoring for this, because that is inherently flawed. Granted, the automated scoring isn't flawless (at least it's better than 08 lap counters), but introducing volunteers to count the scores adds additional complexity.

Another, somewhat unrelated point. Last week, I saw one instance where the defending robot pushed a ball into the goal it was defending (or was pushed and therefore pushed a ball in). How would these be called? Leaving ambiguity in the rules leaves different events to have different interpretations. That causes problems. Adding additional wording results in more rules. Neither is very pretty.

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

I'm sure many will "go after" the root cause in the offseason. This is an attempt to discuss meaningful ways to address rising concerns THIS season.

I see it this way. If your robot has a roller that sometimes pulls the balls under the robot, incurring G46 penalties, how would you fix it? Would you try to adjust the placement of weight on your robot to fix it, or fix the roller itself? This scoring for your opponents concept is nothing new. Its a new reincarnation of old concepts. This new reincarnation is more powerful, and probably more widespread, but even if it is a bad concept (which I don't think it is), FIRST is no more likely to ban scoring on yourself than they are to change the ranking system.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Lostmage333

The problem with that is that people don't like ambiguous rules. Leave it ambiguous, and you'll get complaints that its not well stated. If you want to put a rule like this, I would think you need to define it clearly.

I didn't want to go here, but...would the following provide clear enough a message?

<G3.14159> TEAMS are not permitted to intentionally score in the opposing ALLIANCE's goals. Violation: PENALTY and YELLOW CARD.

The intent behind the automated scoring system is that it is exactly that. Automated. FIRST is trying to remove human scoring for this, because that is inherently flawed. Granted, the automated scoring isn't flawless (at least it's better than 08 lap counters), but introducing volunteers to count the scores adds additional complexity.

It's a penalizable offense now. Scoring will be conducted in an automated fashion as usual. The referee will penalize one point per infraction, with a yellow card. Do you think teams will bother attempting the practice with such a stiff penalty in place? Most teams don't want to do it anyway. They do it merely as an incentivized reaction to a loophole/quirk in the ranking/seeding rules. Close the loophole, and the incentive is removed.

I see it this way. If your robot has a roller that sometimes pulls the balls under the robot, incurring G46 penalties, how would you fix it? Would you try to adjust the placement of weight on your robot to fix it, or fix the roller itself? This scoring for your opponents concept is nothing new. Its a new reincarnation of old concepts. This new reincarnation is more powerful, and probably more widespread, but even if it is a bad concept (which I don't think it is), FIRST is no more likely to ban scoring on yourself than they are to change the ranking system.

Then shame on them for furthering all the frustrations and contradictory dilemmas propagating forth at events and in these myriad of CD threads.

If those responsible for permitting these behaviors will not act, it is up to the community to raise awareness and police themselves. It's already turned into a political process for certain teams lobbying for these collusive and opponent score padding strategies. If the majority is against the practice, then TURN THE POLITICAL PRESSURE AROUND. Distribute flyers within the pits on Thursday that both inform teams about the new ranking/seeding system (apparently a MUCH NEEDED practice) and state the larger, ideal-impacting arguments against scoring for the opposition, strategic advantage be darned.

Ask teams to unite against such practices, and don't let savvier teams manipulate less aware teams into engaging in these strategies. Kill off the "buzz" for scoring for an opponent at an event before it even gets off the ground.

Remember, just because something is permissible doesn't mean it should always be done. You do NOT have to "game the system", as someone put it. A few still will, but they are probably the teams who would seed high anyway even if they didn't resort to scoring for the opponents - they just elect to leverage every advantage they can because the rules permitted them to do so.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Lostmage333

The problem with that is that people don't like ambiguous rules. Leave it ambiguous, and you'll get complaints that its not well stated. If you want to put a rule like this, I would think you need to define it clearly.

I would take an ambiguous rule over the ranking system we have now any day of the week.

[Swampdude]

Travis, I take it you are against the collusion strategy. If the rule stands, where do you draw the line? As soon as a team begins to lose, i.e. teammate breaks, the other team has 3 balls in during autonomous and your team has 1 kicker etc. Are you asking those teams to believe in miracles and keep scoring hoping they will come out on top, but knowing all they're doing is multiplying the winning teams score? For the sake of honoring a win/loss gaming philosophy? I would feel silly telling my driver to keep on pumping up the other teams score for them and I won't, it's ridiculous! If you're going to get everyone riled up at the regional to take a stand against collusion, you really need to make it clear what are the "NEW" rules. I would rather leave that to FIRST.

However, I like your idea of no opponent scoring! But I think FIRST needs to act fast on this or at least make a public acknowledgment of this situation.

[Cory]

This thread is pointless because hundreds of teams have already competed and FIRST will never make major changes to scoring rules after the season is underway.

[Jay Trzaskos]

In 2007 FIRST implemented a broken randomizer for Qualification matches. Teams in the first few weeks of competition ended up playing the same teams 5+ times, sometimes being beat each time. They recognized the problem and attempted to fix it around week 3 or 4. Was it a good fix? Not really, but it was better than the original algorithm.

FIRST needs to learn from past mistakes, and just get rid of the broken ranking system now. Sincerely apologize to the teams that only competed in week 1 for the horrible ranking system and go back to Win-Loss ranking. If I were still competing I would much rather they fix the problem now, recreate the intent of the “Coopertition Award”, and have gotten the bad end of the deal in week 1. Especially when compared to having to listen to people complain about how "un-GP" a legitimate strategy is that only exists because of a broken system.

FIRST made a mistake, teams exploited it to the advantage of ALL teams involved. If they are going to keep the ranking system then don't take away the LEGITIMATE strategy of 6v0. But if FIRST wanted to take the game out of the game, they did an amazing job of it.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Swampdude

Travis, I take it you are against the collusion strategy. If the rule stands, where do you draw the line? As soon as a team begins to lose, i.e. teammate breaks, the other team has 3 balls in during autonomous and your team has 1 kicker etc. Are you asking those teams to believe in miracles and keep scoring hoping they will come out on top, but knowing all they're doing is multiplying the winning teams score? For the sake of honoring a win/loss gaming philosophy? I would feel silly telling my driver to keep on pumping up the other teams score for them and I won't, it's ridiculous!

In such an outmanned situation, I'd feel sillier and believe I'd be harpooning the spirit of the term competition if I were to pump balls into the other team's goal.

If I were in an outgunned situation, I'd switch to defense. I agree - it's silly to elevate the other alliance's rank (as well as your alliance's seeding score with this year's loophole/oversight/intentional decision/whatever the heck it is) just for the sake of nothing better to do. Spectators/sponsors/etc. won't understand what they are seeing, and you aren't furthering any FIRST ideals by providing those "fake points". The opposition didn't earn those scores. You didn't earn those scores shooting into an undefended goal. At least if I played defense, I'd still know that any scores they managed to achieve were earned against LEGITIMATE OPPOSITION, not via some misguided vision of forced "cooperation".

If you're going to get everyone riled up at the regional to take a stand against collusion, you really need to make it clear what are the "NEW" rules. I would rather leave that to FIRST.

As would I. Absent any action from FIRST, however...teams may choose to employ other means of getting the message across....

By the way, did other regionals neglect to play the game animation? I don't recall seeing or hearing it. I missed DC regional Saturday ceremonies, and I don't believe it was played at Friday opening ceremonies at all. Maybe they showed it throughout the day - I was in the pits almost exclusively.

However, I like your idea of no opponent scoring! But I think FIRST needs to act fast on this or at least make a public acknowledgment of this situation.

Sure would be nice.

[The Lucas]

It is easier to just to change Section 9.3.4 and give the losing alliance their penalized score instead of the winners unpenalized score. That would eliminate the 6v0 scenarios there would be less reasons to score in opponents goals.

To implement this change, all you would have to modify is a calculation in the scoring system. To not count balls scored in opponents goals, refs would have to enforce an ambiguous rule (often doesnt turn out well, and puts undue stress on the refs) and mess with the best real time scoring system we have ever had. The automated RTS seems to be working better than ever from what I saw in webcasts (certainly better than the ball counters in '06 or the lap counters in '08).