Ranking

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by Jim Meyer

I really don't get these "everyone score in the same side" matches. Lets say the blue alliance decides to score in the red goals. Why wouldn't the red alliance get a comfortable lead then start scoring in the blue goals? It'd be like getting two points for every goal scored, points that can't be taken away by penalties.

If Blue was really smart about it, they'd park their two least effective robots in front of their own goals to guarantee that Red couldn't score. Alternately, you can just have an agreement between teams at the start of the match that you'll only score in one goal.

If you agree to score in Red goals, then there are pluses and minuses for both teams:
Red: Certainty of a win, easy to tell if Blue isn't following through
Blue: As long as Red follows through, you'll get at least as many points as they do. If Red takes penalties (or even if you take penalties), they don't count against you in seeding points.

[sgreco]

Originally Posted by Bongle

If Blue was really smart about it, they'd park their two least effective robots in front of their own goals to guarantee that Red couldn't score.

That wouldn't be legal.

G29

Defending ROBOT Restriction - Only one opposing ALLIANCE ROBOT is allowed in the opponent’s ZONE. A ROBOT is considered in this ZONE if any part of the ROBOT is in contact with the ZONE's green carpet. Violation: PENALTY; plus a RED CARD if effort to remedy is not immediate.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by sgreco

That wouldn't be legal.

G29

Nope, Bongle is right. They are defending their own goals and thus 2 bots are allowed to hang out at home.

Yep, it is wierd, but correct.

[Tanner]

Originally Posted by IKE

Nope, Bongle is right. They are defending their own goals and thus 2 bots are allowed to hang out at home.

Yep, it is wierd, but correct.

Our team was considering that once for one of our matches, but decided against it as we hoped that our new and improved suction device would work better. Results? We lost with a score of zero anyway.

-Tanner

[mariak37]

Actually, this was what our alliance did for our last qualification match, at the KC regional. We'd noticed the system didn't seem fair (why should the losing team get the points that the winning team scored?) so our alliance scored in the other alliance's goals. It ended up 13-0 with one penalty, so they had 13 QPs and we had 14. It was interesting, because we actually ended up playing defense in front of our own goals.

I agree that the system at least needs to be revised, to place more emphasis on wins and losses and less on the scores. Another problem that you could run into is that a blowout gives both alliances more QPs than a hard-fought match with well-played defense, where the score ends up, say, 2-3. It is also probably better for a losing team to lose by a lot-not a way to encourage continued scoring even if you're down.

A final problem is that all the hullaballoo about ranking points means that teams may have to entirely change their strategies between qualification matches and finals.

[ttldomination]

Originally Posted by Tanner

Our team was considering that once for one of our matches, but decided against it as we hoped that our new and improved suction device would work better. Results? We lost with a score of zero anyway.

-Tanner

Hahaha, we changed our strategy three times. The first plan was to purposefully take the loss, then we decided to play, thirty seconds into the match we decided to back off and just take the loss.

- Sunny

[sgreco]

Originally Posted by IKE

Nope, Bongle is right. They are defending their own goals and thus 2 bots are allowed to hang out at home.

Yep, it is wierd, but correct.

I see. I misread it, but honestly I hope nobody ever does any of this. Regardless of how poorly written the rules are, or what the intent is for cooperating, I hope teams don't manipulate the rules to this extreme. My team has yet to decide on exactly how to play, but we're probably just going to try to win, avoid penalties, and make sure our opponent doesn't get shut out. We're going to play to win straight up, but gear our strategy slightly more offensively rather than defensively.

"working together" in quals isn't something I want to do; it eliminates the competitive fire from both sides, and frankly it just takes the fun out of it. Limiting competition limits the leaning experience. It's a shame that the rules are aimed at preventing a hard fought competition, because that's what's fun, and realistically, that's what the real world is like. Fluffing things over to help the losers feel better doesn't benefit anyone in the long run. I'll be honest, my team's performance left much to be desired last year. I didn't need people saying "oh well at least you tried" or have a skewed ranking system to help us. The best way to deal with it is to come in last. You can't learn unless you fail first.

[Valkyrie133]

Originally Posted by sgreco

I misread it, but honestly I hope nobody ever does any of this. Regardless of how poorly written the rules are, or what the intent is for cooperating, I hope teams don't manipulate the rules to this extreme.

Too late to hope nobody ever does it - it's already been done, and I expect it will continue to be done as long as it's a good way to get seeding points.

Teams are not "manipulating" the rules by using this strategy. They are using the rules exactly as written. If that results in matches with no competition, then the RULES need fixing, not the strategy.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie133

Teams are not "manipulating" the rules by using this strategy. They are using the rules exactly as written. If that results in matches with no competition, then the RULES need fixing, not the strategy.

ditto that.


~

[sgreco]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie133

Too late to hope nobody ever does it - it's already been done, and I expect it will continue to be done as long as it's a good way to get seeding points.

Teams are not "manipulating" the rules by using this strategy. They are using the rules exactly as written. If that results in matches with no competition, then the RULES need fixing, not the strategy.

I understand that, but the point of a competition is to compete. So the rules must have been phrased poorly such that teams are playing a match, but yet not competing against each other. FIRST is a competition for a reason; I hope the competition part doesn't get lost in the future because FIRST is far better than a science fair.

[Valkyrie133]

Originally Posted by sgreco

So the rules must have been phrased poorly such that teams are playing a match, but yet not competing against each other. FIRST is a competition for a reason; I hope the competition part doesn't get lost in the future because FIRST is far better than a science fair.

I think "phrased poorly" is a tactful way to say it. I agree that FIRST is a competition for a reason, and I also hope the competition part doesn't get lost. Unfortunately, the way the rules are written, that's exactly what can happen.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by sgreco

What was wrong with the old days when the teams that won got the best seeds? What part of earning your seeding position isn't fair?

There aren't enough matches to make the "best" teams seed the highest with a strict win/lose tally. This year's scheme seems to be compensating somewhat for things like winning easy matches vs. losing hard ones.

So many people are saying it's better to lose 0-5 than to win 3-0...but it's better yet to win 3-2. A 6v0 game where everyone gets the same number of seeding points doesn't benefit anyone; nobody rises or falls in the ranking. A game-theory analysis tells me that the best overall strategy is to score points and play to win.

[Herodotus]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie133

Teams are not "manipulating" the rules by using this strategy. They are using the rules exactly as written. If that results in matches with no competition, then the RULES need fixing, not the strategy.

So as long as things are done within the law, it's all peachy? It's acceptable to exploit the law to your full advantage, regardless of how that affects other people? I think it's more then the rules that need fixing if people are willing to ignore the rest of the game just to get those seeding points.

As for how to change the rules to prevent exploitation, I would simply give the winning team the combined score and the losing team half of that. The higher the scores the better it is for both teams, but you also want to win as it will give you many more points then losing.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Herodotus

So as long as things are done within the law, it's all peachy? It's acceptable to exploit the law to your full advantage, regardless of how that affects other people? I think it's more then the rules that need fixing if people are willing to ignore the rest of the game just to get those seeding points.

The game rules define the game. Teams who read and understand the game rules and plan their game strategy accordingly are playing the game.

Just like NFL head coaches who call a timeout to "ice" the opposing team's kicker.

If you don't like the game, change the rules.


~

[Herodotus]

Originally Posted by Ether

The game rules define the game. Teams who read and understand the game rules and plan their game strategy accordingly are playing the game.

Just like NFL head coaches who call a timeout to "ice" the opposing team's kicker.

If you don't like the game, change the rules.


~

FIRST is something more then a game, it's also a learning experience for young kids. I was always under the impression that FIRST was as much an analogue for life as it was for other sports, and teaching kids to exploit the law can be just as detrimental as leaving the law exploitable. Both things need to change.