2010 FLORIDA REGIONAL

[Josh Drake]

As this year's coach in Florida, I have been strugling with this. If you have a robot that can dominate and carry an alliance, would it be good to make sure you win, but shoot some for the other team too? Probably. The issue comes in when a Krunch and a Pink go against each other (for example). Each can do well and neither wants to loose those coopertition points by loosing.

I don't know the solution, but right now I'm of the mindset to win, but win close if you can control that. Does this mean to score for the other team? Does this mean you may not hang at the end because you lost the round by then?

I noticed some teams go through and do well (team 25 comes to mind). I don't know their strategy with the rules, but as far as I could see they just made sure they won, and hoped the system worked for them.

Strategy is difficult this year, and the teams that come up with something that works may not want to tell all of their opponents. At least eliminations are simple.

I do see the argument that defense during the qualification rounds doesn't benefit either team.

[Andrew386]

I for one am stoked about Florida. This regional has always been one of my favorites, and I'm sure this year will be no exception. From the pictures and videos floating around I think it's pretty clear we're going to see some of the best bots yet in the UCF arena this weekend.

I'm also excited about the opportunity to play with my old team, Metal-in-Motion. From what I've seen, you guys are looking solid!

As far as I'm aware, 386 has not yet decided how we'll handle the scoring situation. Personally (my opinion being my own and not at all the team's), I can see how people get upset about 6v0 and 3v0 situations purely for the 'feeling' of it. As of now, I'm more a fan of the 'neither team plays defense, but otherwise a normal competitive match' strategy. No matter how you slice it, it's always nicer to be in that top 8 on Saturday and perhaps using the scoring to your advantage is the best way to get there. No matter what, good communication within and among teams will be key. We'll see how things go, and my team as a whole will have the final say on how we play the game.

[Josh Drake]

I asked your dad if he wanted to coach so you two could be down there together. He declined.
A crazy year to strategize to say the least.

[Warren Boudreau]

As Eric has said, we've been thinking about this for a long time and George and I still don't completely agree on a philosophy.

In my opinion, if I am going into a match against three offensive machines (Krunch, Pink, and Swampthing spring to mind) and I have two BLTs and SPAM, I am going to try my best to convince my alliance mates that it is in our best interest to help the opposing alliance score as many points as possible while making sure that nothing goes into our goals. I would much rather lose 20-0 than 15-5. However, this would have to be a consensus agreement.

If an opposing alliance came to me with a reciprical request, we all score in my goals and nothing in their's, I would honor the gentleman's agreement and not try to score in their goals.

If it looks like it will be a close match, then I would prefer to play a tough match straight up.

[Josh Drake]

But those decisions would be made based on the perception of a team being able to dominate another team. That's a problem I have with rolling over, and not trying to upset the powerhouse. On Saturday morning those perceptions will be based on the Friday performance, and it may be an easier pill to swallow.

[gorrilla]

I'm stuck,

But I think the best bet is for everyone to try and score as many points as possible. No-one play defense, just try to out-score each other offensively and keep the scores as close as possible.

But I will most certainly not be scoring for the opposing alliance.
I (and don't bash me for this) would feel ashamed if my alliance needed the other alliance to score for us.

[dodar]

This is just my opinion, but if you look at all week 1 standings, the cream of the crop rose to the top at prolly 90% of the regionals because they were able to have competitive matches and yet still score alot.

I think in some situations during quals defense will be needed and some wont need it but most likely if you go out there and do what your team and your robot can do to the best of its and your abilities, the fruits of your labor will show.

I am not against cooperatition between alliances (6v0), but i would rather have a more competitive match, but thats just cause im really competitive lol

[Nawaid Ladak]

I believe that there should be NO Defense played during the qualification matches what so ever.

The goal of the game in qualifications is to score as many points as possible

IF a 6v0 match best serves my team and my alliance partners, I will present it to them. IF that means scoring for the opponent. Thats just a part of the game.

It's a part of the game, everyone plays by the same rules, so deal with it.

I'll be open to gentlemen agreements if anyone is interested.

[cziggy343]

I think that from my perspective, I want to win. That is just what is in me, and that is the way that I have been taught to drive in matches: drive it like you stole it, and get out with a win.

With that being said, after watching the peachtree regional, I have found that I think it is in the best interest of everyone that wants to have a clear winner (ie: a team that doesn't want to score for the other team) to have no defense in the quals. then, that still lets the best teams rise to the top without completly taking the credibility out of a competition atmosphere.

[Gabe Salas Jr.]

Originally Posted by gorrilla

I (and don't bash me for this) would feel ashamed if my alliance needed the other alliance to score for us.

Please do not have that mentality if that sort of thing does happen. If an opposing alliance feels it is necessary to take the risk and score for your alliance, why stop them or get bent out of shape over it?

In the end, everyone is getting a higher ranking score.

[gorrilla]

Originally Posted by Gabe Salas Jr.

Please do not have that mentality if that sort of thing does happen. If an opposing alliance feels it is necessary to take the risk and score for your alliance, why stop them or get bent out of shape over it?

In the end, everyone is getting a higher ranking score.

If that's what they feel they need to do then I'm all for it, But I personaly feel like it would be degrading to the other team and selfish to boost your own QP's by scoring for them if they are unable to do it themselves.

Strategically, it's a good idea, but I just don't want to have to do it....

[Jim E]

These are hard decisions.

Near-Tie scores always produce more points if the penalties can be contained.

Nobody has mentioned penalties in these conversations. These are the real QP killers.

[Gabe Salas Jr.]

Originally Posted by gorrilla

If that's what they feel they need to do then I'm all for it, But I personaly feel like it would be degrading to the other team and selfish to boost your own QP's by scoring for them if they are unable to do it themselves.

Strategically, it's a good idea, but I just don't want to have to do it....

I feel that it is more important that everyone should be playing the game to the rules' maximum potential. I believe that every team should give it their very best in conjunction to gracious professionalism.

Scoring for your opposing alliance isn't something new. In fact, it has been encouraged before (2001 with "4vs0" gameplay, 2002 with balls in opponent's goal, 2003 with pre-match agreements to not go after alliance's multiplier stack, etc.).

Honestly, I wouldn't underestimate your opponents suggesting that they are feeble in their capability in scoring. Perhaps they are going for a strategy that isn't working as well as they wanted. Scoring for your opposing alliance is simply a suggestive option to consider.

Originally Posted by Jim E

Nobody has mentioned penalties in these conversations. These are the real QP killers.

That's part of the risk associated with scoring for the opposing team. This is something your scouting needs to keep in mind with teams you are paired up with and go against; that everyone is reliable & consistent enough to not produce penalties.

[Warren Boudreau]

What we are all struggling with is the disparity between the game rules, and the tournament rules.

The game rules are very well written and offer up the possibility of a very exciting game that incorporates both the physical challenges and the mental challenges that we have all come to appreciate from the GDC.

The tournament rules, however, dilute the competitive aspects of the game rules and replaces them with something very different.

The challenge before each of us is to determine how much of a paradigm shift are we willing to adjust to.

When conventional groups are confronted with these types of paradigm shifts, the result, typically, is a polarization within the groups. Look to our current political environment as an example.


I offer up the hope that we of the FIRST community will be able to avoid this polarization and accept that others will be more, or less, willing to adjust to the changes the same way that we accept that they choose to drink diet soda instead of regular soda. It's a choice, and it is, after all, only a game.

[Gabe Salas Jr.]

Originally Posted by Warren Boudreau

What we are all struggling with is the disparity between the game rules, and the tournament rules.

The game rules are very well written and offer up the possibility of a very exciting game that incorporates both the physical challenges and the mental challenges that we have all come to appreciate from the GDC.

The tournament rules, however, dilute the competitive aspects of the game rules and replaces them with something very different.

The challenge before each of us is to determine how much of a paradigm shift are we willing to adjust to.

When conventional groups are confronted with these types of paradigm shifts, the result, typically, is a polarization within the groups. Look to our current political environment as an example.


I offer up the hope that we of the FIRST community will be able to avoid this polarization and accept that others will be more, or less, willing to adjust to the changes the same way that we accept that they choose to drink diet soda instead of regular soda. It's a choice, and it is, after all, only a game.

Well put Warren - fortunately Team Update #16 came out - Thank you GDC!