A novel strategy: Always score for your opponents

[Steve W]

I, for one hate the ranking system. To me a competition is about two teams playing against each other to determine an outcome. What I believe is happening is, in my opinion, what happens when 2 or 3 businesses work together to eliminate other businesses. NOT our typical sports like competition. FIRST seems to be instilling the business mindset and not that of GP that they promote. One where 2 teams will compete against each other but help each other become better and stronger. The FIRST that I loved.

That said, the rules do allow and promote a 6 x 0 game but for what reason I do not know or understand. There is nothing GP against playing that way as it is all within the set boundaries and rules of the game.

For spectators that come and watch the game, they will be confused by the play that they see and it doesn't promote a good experience. If they come to the Elimination rounds they will see an exciting game that they CAN understand and enjoy, giving them a good experience.

What was FIRST thinking?

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by WJF2011

Everyone on an alliance should talk to the other alliance and talk about not playing defense, letting the game get up to something around 10-10 then play for real.

So you are then saying that not playing defense, colluding, and/or artificially inflating scores is "playing for fake"?

I think I've found a new description for this process.

[Johnny]

I agree, I'm not a fan of the ranking system, but i believe the original intentions were good. I see the direction the GDC was trying to go, but this system just has an unfortunate downside. Leave the system the way it is and wait until next year and hopefully we can create a ranking system that will have the same original spirit as was intended of this years system, and also the same outcome.
Now, lets all go to another thread and talk about how awesome it was to see all of the different designs and friends from other teams! Or help those teams who need some assistance!

[Joe Johnson]

I too join the chorus of those who hate the idea of winning by losing but that is the situation we have been thrust into.

I have just now sent an e-mail to my fellow mentors on my team arguing that we should try to convince our alliance partners to play to maximize seeding points. If they all agree then we approach the other alliance, if they agree then we either decide based on the number of hangers or by playing paper-scissors-rock whether to score in Red or Blue (probably after autonomous so that teams could tune in their programming for the elims). If the other alliance won't agree, then we score for them and don't hang.

It is a strange way to play the game but it is the game that FIRST made for us.

For me the only ethical issues revolve around the idea that everyone is trying to get to play after lunch on Saturday. At some point, the seeding will sort itself to the point that teams are in 3 camps:

1. Those still in the running for Top 8 (top 10-11 really because it is typical for the 10th or 11th rank team to move up to the #8 slot)
2. Those that really need a monster seeding point game to get back into the hunt for Alliance Captain.
3. Those clearly out of the running for Alliance Captain

What happens when a team from Group 3 really really needs to show that it can play defense is paired with a team from Group 1 or Group 2?

What is the ethical thing for each team to do in this case?

I honestly don't know what to tell these teams.

Joe J.

P.S. Just to be clear, I think that the GDC was simply wrong in setting up the seeding in this way. I believe that it is bad for FIRST in the long run. If FIRST continues with this system year after year, I believe they are in danger of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. HOWEVER, FIRST knew what they were doing setting up the rules as they did. They are smart people, to say they didn't know what they were setting up is silly (imho).

Teams are supposed try to seed high. Winning or losing qualifying matches is not the name of the game this year. After all they are called "QUALIFYING" matches.

So... ...I don't think it is fair to criticize teams for doing their best to QUALIFY during the qualifying matches.

However it IS FAIR to criticize FIRST for making a poorly constructed set of incentives that result in a confusing and boring game to watch in the qualifying matches -- and before you even make the argument, NO, I don't think that what happens in the elimination rounds makes up for it. It was dumb. FIRST knew it was dumb. They did it anyway for their own reasons. JJ

[ravichauhan]

we did this at dc in our final qualifying match.

[johnr]

After reading this entire thread, i'm really worried what this season might look like after acouple of weeks. This whole thing could get very ugly very fast. I do not understand what the gdc is trying to accomplish. To do your best and play to win means nothing. Make deals and know what the out come is before the match is played is the right thing. I hope this is not what the gdc wanted.

[Dan Richardson]

In qualifying the verbiage winning and losing should nearly be stricken from our vernacular, because it's a non recorded erroneous statistic. Coopertition by it's very definition does not even use the verbiage win or lose, but describes the two competing alliances as having gained higher or lower point totals. ( United States Patent 7507169 )

The ONLY thing that quantifies the result of a match this year is your seeding score. When reflecting upon a qualification match and in communicating those results to fellow teammates the match should not be described as having been won or lost but yet described as having gained X number of seeding points. The reality of it is, this is the only statistic that matters in developing the strategy for qualifying.

Now, this is contrary to every sport and nearly every real life scenario but I believe this is what the GDC intended. To disregard this strategy as UN-GP or unsportsmanlike is illogical and to cast a team in a negative light for having participated in this strategy in a public forum like this is indeed UN-GP.

Having said this if a team is really trying to do everything it can to "Win" this would often be the best course of action. If an alliance decides that a loss is likely, then it would be best to play no defense, aid the other alliance where possible and guarantee that no points are scored for them. The absolute worst outcome in this case would be equal seeding points or a "tie" and often, because of the frequency of penalties this year, higher seeding points, or a "win."

Teams this weekend proved that superior play can help you seed highly and it would be naive to say that all teams will subscribe to this philosophy. It does not take a 6v0 "collusion" to pull this off, just an agreement by one alliance.This may complicate scouting but should be expected and understood as playing entirely within the spirit of the game.

One thing I hope happens tho, is that if an alliance chooses to play for the other team, that this decision is unanimous. I guess what I'm saying is I think it will be disappointing to see robots playing defense on their own alliance.

[Swampdude]

I think if every seeding match were played 6v0 the best offensive teams would rise to the top, because they will consistently score higher whichever alliance they're with. I think the 6v0 (everybody wins) is better than the 3v3 (loser wins) as far as getting the best offensive teams to the top (which are usually the ones at the top anyways). The week 1 results won't show this because they didn't start figuring it out until Saturday.

However, those who can't convince alliances of 6v0 are kind of screwed. This means the teams who do the best job of convincing everyone to work together, or get parings that favor it will seed the highest, and not necessarily who scores the best.

I personally don't think the GDC thought of this as they put a lot of emphasis on the opponents score being a multiplying factor for the winner. I think they missed the lack of incentive for the losing alliance.

I like the idea of not counting balls scored from the opposing alliance, but that screws up FIRSTS intention of coopertition as well. I would whole heartedly support a rule change to get this season back on track. Otherwise anyone at the Florida regional can expect team 179 will be looking to cooperate.

Maybe we should start threads for each regional so teams can advertise in advance whether they are willing to 6v0 or not. Then we can avoid some of the confusion and confrontation in advance. I really don't want to offend anyone if they feel it is a moral issue. I see it as 6 teams working as an alliance rather than 3. But if our alliance or opponents refuse we will cooperate just as well.

COME ON FIRST, IT'S OK TO MAKE A CHANGE, IT'S NOT TOO LATE!!!

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Swampdude

The week 1 results won't show this because they didn't start figuring it out until Saturday.

Pish-posh. Many of us figured it out a few days after kickoff -- and just assumed that most teams would play to win *anyway* in the *spirit* of the game, as opposed to by its letter. Please give the rest of us a bit more credit in the smarts department than you are. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Swampdude

However, those who can't convince alliances of 6v0 are kind of screwed.

118 qualifying points and 22 hanging points shows that your statement here is false. We faced several situations where our alliance partners and our opponents wanted us to engage in this 6v0 shenanigans, and my drivers and field coach (who is a student, by the way) would have none of it. And good on them.

We were quite decidedly *not* screwed.

------------------

Steve (by the way you're the best MC ever, even if you are from that weird, freezing area north of the Big Lake), I think it *is* fair to criticize teams who make decisions based solely on "winning", as opposed to "winning the right way". We can argue all day and night about the fuzzy definition of "winning the right way", but like GP, it's something that probably doesn't need a fully codified definition.

The biggest problem with 6v0 is that penalties will cause the "winning" team to "lose" every time -- and there's something terribly wrong with that. By negotiating a 6v0 game, whoever the "winning" alliance is chosen to be has a better chance of getting less points than the "losing" alliance, and that's just plain not right.

This is the first FIRST competition that has ever left a bad taste in my mouth. Like something smelly on the bottom of my shoe, I don't have to see it to know what it is.

------------------

On a side note, 6v0 is patently unfair to teams that would otherwise be breakaway stars. It is not right to pressure them into a 6v0 game.

In week one, we *owned* the tower. We got 22 hanging points -- which is higher than any other team at any other regional by 6 points. (Except perhaps Peachtree -- their stats aren't coming up on usfirst.org, so I can't check them.) If we were chosen to be on the '0' team, and we had non-assertive drivers who could be intimidated -- even unintentionally -- by older and/or generally more successful teams, then we would deliberately *not* hang from the tower and would deliberately *not* use ball starvation in the mid-zone -- denying us the opportunity to show what we are so darn good at.

I really, truly feel for any team that enters into a 6v0 game and loses the opportunity to present the greatness of what they have accomplished over six weeks to the scouts of the other teams, to the judges, to the fans, and to their sponsors. Most of these people want to see you *win games*, and won't care much about a long-winded explanation of why it's ok because of qualifying points and seeding strategies.

Not trying to win every game with the most impressive feats of robotism you are capable of is equivalent to *selling out*. Like selling out, it might be clever, and it might benefit you in the short term, but...

----------------------

On a final note, I predict that, in the end, 6v0 will not be all that effective. We didn't engage in it even once -- not even a little.

What was effective? Good game strategy, a well-engineered and robust robot, good communication amongst alliance partners, and a winning spirit. And charged batteries -- don't forget those.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

118 qualifying points and 22 hanging points shows that your statement here is false. We faced several situations where our alliance partners and our opponents wanted us to engage in this 6v0 shenanigans, and my drivers and field coach (who is a student, by the way) would have none of it. And good on them.

We were quite decidedly *not* screwed.

....

On a final note, I predict that, in the end, 6v0 will not be all that effective. We didn't engage in it even once -- not even a little -- and we had it used 'on us' twice (and we ran up the score as much as we could, because that's what we were there to do).

I'm confused. Did you or did you not play in match that was 6v0? I'm not making a judgement on 6v0, but I'm reading some conflicting information here.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I'm confused. Did you or did you not play in match that was 6v0? I'm not making a judgement on 6v0, but I'm reading some conflicting information here.

What we did was always try to win every game, every time. That's it.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

What we did was always try to win every game, every time. That's it.

But if two of your matches were a 6v0 (even if your alliance didn't plan it) it does show that the 6v0 strategy does result in seeding high. Your team is the prime example of that.

[GaryVoshol]

Do you people think the GDC members are stupid? They knew what the result of this rule would be. They want you to score for whichever team will generate the most points. If they didn't they would have made a rule that you couldn't score for the opponents. (What game was it a few years ago that had the rule?)

I don't particularly like this system, but don't claim unintended consequences.

[JackN]

If my opponents want to score for me that is fine. It is silly to me to go and score for my opponents. It is more valuable for me to win a match 4-2 than it is to win 6-0 or 7-0. The ranking system this year rewards teams that win quality matches, unlike in the past where an ugly win is worth any kind of win. Having 6 teams working to score into 2 goals is really awkward since you will wind up with several teams in the middle zone that will get in each others way. It is interesting that this game has lead people to no longer try and win hard fought matches, when a hard fought match is going to turn out well for you.

[Johnny]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

What we did was always try to win every game, every time. That's it.

Then you were participating in this method that's being discussed. You could have played defense against yourself if you really disagreed with this whole idea, or stopped scoring points. Your team benefitted from the "broken" system and received a ton of ranking points for it.