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

[Paul Copioli]

The main root cause for us even having this discussion is the fact that the loser gets the winner's score. We would not even be having this conversation if the loser got the loser's penalized score like in the pre-2004 years.

Giving the lose the winner's score has broken the "coopertition" model. It is stupid, but my teams will play the game according to the rules. We will score for the opponent when necessary and lock down our own goals when appropriate.

If 148 or 217 is with 2 incredibly ineffective robots and we are up against a tough alliance, we will have the rookies lock down our goals and we will score like crazy for the other alliance. I do not feel bad about this and will not apologize. These are the rules we are given and we will play within them.

[Tknee]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

If 148 or 217 is with 2 incredibly ineffective robots and we are up against a tough alliance, we will have the rookies lock down our goals and we will score like crazy for the other alliance. I do not feel bad about this and will not apologize. These are the rules we are given and we will play within them.

If you would just humour my curiousity: if such a scenario were to arise, and your opponents knowing your proposed strategy offered to play for the tie instead, would you accept such an offer, or do you believe it to be too risky?

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Giving the lose the winner's score has broken the "coopertition" model. It is stupid, but my teams will play the game according to the rules. We will score for the opponent when necessary and lock down our own goals when appropriate.

I'd love to start another poll which simply asks "of all the teams on alliances who've had goals scored for them by the opposition over the years, how many actually were truly inspired by the practice?" That is the root question to me for all of this "coopertition" junk. HOW DOES SCORING FOR THE OPPOSITION ELEVATE THOSE WHO NEED MORE GUIDANCE? "Oh wow, we just got pwned and embarrassed publicly; I think I've seen the light - I'm magically going to go design a robot as good as Paul or JVN now". As far as I'm concerned, scoring for the opposition over the years has primarily served as a mechanic for the BEST TEAMS to ensure higher ranking at the expense of lesser teams. Is this "you inhale audibly relative to them - go get better" negative reinforcement inspirational?

I don't blame the better teams for using the rules to their advantage, but what in the heck is FIRST thinking in believing that this practice holds any type of positive outcome for the program?

[Gary Dillard]

It's kind of interesting that in the one page summary of the game there is no mention at all of the seeding system. I guess all these non-FIRSTers we're inviting to the competition will just have to wonder why one alliance is sitting there while the other alliance does all the scoring for both sides.

[RoboMom]

Originally Posted by Gary Dillard

It's kind of interesting that in the one page summary of the game there is no mention at all of the seeding system. I guess all these non-FIRSTers we're inviting to the competition will just have to wonder why one alliance is sitting there while the other alliance does all the scoring for both sides.

And after spending 2 days trying to figure out how to spin this and explain it to the VIPs and public this week (and getting some really thoughtful explanations from people I respect-thank you all!) I will keep this one-page summary in the training packet for the adult and Student Ambassadors.

And I will include the following:
>>There are many ways to earn penalties this year; some are about safety and others to make scoring tougher. FIRST challenges traditional views of competition in this game by creating a ranking system not based on wins and losses. Instead, teams have multiple game strategies available to them, including 6v0 (to jointly achieve a high-score) or scoring on themselves to gain Coopertition points. Some of these strategies involve negotiation between the red and blue alliances before the match.<<

If there are any in-depth follow-up questions, I will say "We are lucky to have a representative of the Game Design Committee here today and let me introduce you."

[Paul Copioli]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

I don't blame the better teams for using the rules to their advantage, but what in the heck is FIRST thinking in believing that this practice holds any type of positive outcome for the program?

I have long since given up on that question. There are some things that I have just stopped arguing because there are bigger battles to fight. Now my only expectation is that the rules are clear and consistent. I don't much care what the rules are. My students are still having fun, are inspired, and learning stuff. When they stop is when I stop doing FIRST. Until then, these little rules just don't matter. Don't get me wrong, I think it's dumb to have the scoring the way it is, but it is what it is and it isn't that bad.

If you would just humour my curiousity: if such a scenario were to arise, and your opponents knowing your proposed strategy offered to play for the tie instead, would you accept such an offer, or do you believe it to be too risky?

Please do not misunderstand, I will not collude with the opposition. We will lock down our goals without any prior warning to the other alliance. Think of it as a hostile, or forced, 6 v. 0.

[rcoren22]

The solution is easy...
Scoring an own goal intentionally is a penalty.

[johnr]

So paul ,what if one of your partners says they won't play that game? Or both of them? Seems like alot to ask/bully some rookie team that might be at thier only comp to just sit there. Teams come to play ,not sit.

[Paul Copioli]

So paul ,what if one of your partners says they won't play that game? Or both of them? Seems like alot to ask/bully some rookie team that might be at thier only comp to just sit there. Teams come to play ,not sit.

Then we don't do the strategy. All alliance members must be on board with the strategy for it to work.

All I am saying is that it s a viable strategy and those that throw it out don't understand the entire game.

By the way, they do not have to sit their. They can kick balls out of the zone, actively defend our own goals, etc.; but if they can do that much and are partnered with us then we probably wouldn't use that strategy.

[Swampdude]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Then we don't do the strategy. All alliance members must be on board with the strategy for it to work.

All I am saying is that it s a viable strategy and those that throw it out don't understand the entire game.

By the way, they do not have to sit their. They can kick balls out of the zone, actively defend our own goals, etc.; but if they can do that much and are partnered with us then we probably wouldn't use that strategy.

Paul, just curious, what would you do if you're opposite a team that plans to do a hostile 6v0 to your alliance also and nobody agreed to anything before the match? Will you abandon your hostile 6v0 to support them or duke it out for a low scoring match?

Another thing I haven't seen mentioned is where does Autonomous come in to all of this?

[Paul Copioli]

Originally Posted by Swampdude

Paul, just curious, what would you do if you're opposite a team that plans to do a hostile 6v0 to your alliance also and nobody agreed to anything before the match? Will you abandon your hostile 6v0 to support them or duke it out for a low scoring match?

Another thing I haven't seen mentioned is where does Autonomous come in to all of this?

This happened to 217 at FLR. We scored as much as we could for ourselves. The opposition sat robots in the corners since one was dead already. We actually got our rankings hurt by this (Slipped to 4th, probably could have been #2), but I would have done the same thing in their shoes. I was not the driver coach during this match, but there wasn't much 217 could do but score as many for ourselves as possible.

[Swampdude]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

This happened to 217 at FLR. We scored as much as we could for ourselves. The opposition sat robots in the corners since one was dead already. We actually got our rankings hurt by this (Slipped to 4th, probably could have been #2), but I would have done the same thing in their shoes. I was not the driver coach during this match, but there wasn't much 217 could do but score as many for ourselves as possible.

Game on

[TheOtherGuy]

Would it hurt to go a little further with the following scheme?

Winner gets penalized winner's score + penalized loser's score
Loser gets penalized loser's score

Coopertition is still intact in that a dominant alliance can choose to not play defense and kick balls to the lesser alliance's zone and get a few points out of it. The lesser alliance also isn't forced to give the dominant alliance twice their score if they are horribly outnumbered (2 dead robots scenario).

All in all, I think it's quite apparent that giving the losing team the winning team's score IS the root of the problem.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

That is the root question to me for all of this "coopertition" junk. HOW DOES SCORING FOR THE OPPOSITION ELEVATE THOSE WHO NEED MORE GUIDANCE? "Oh wow, we just got pwned and embarrassed publicly; I think I've seen the light - I'm magically going to go design a robot as good as Paul or JVN now".

In past years, when opponents scored for you, it helped the loser in the rankings. Now, it is to no one's benefit but the winner to score on the loser's goal, which makes awarding the practice utterly stupid.

[Radical Pi]

Well, the GDC has spoken as to intent. They want the competitive edge on the field for coopertition, but it still doesn't completely solve the problem. If a team is at a huge disadvantage, the bonus of a 6v0 match is still there for the losing alliance. They may not get more than the winners anymore, but it still is a way to deny an easy boost in points for the winner