Team update 16

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak

Of course life isn't fair, and neither is anything in it. So i guess we just have to live with it.

When it comes down to a decision like this you have to look at it from how will this benefit the kids. Will they get disgruntled and mad at a flawed system that COULD be fixed but only at an event they aren't going to (especially due to the rule). Or they could make problems with Week 1, fix it, and run the rest of the regionals in a maner that'd let those who play the game better (strategy, design) win.

Sorry Week 1.

[Danny Diaz]

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak

My point is that update 16 will not stop the weaker alliance from creating a 6v0 situation, it won't stop the stronger alliance to score for their opponents to raise their own seeding score/cooperation bonus even more. after all. I thought that was the issue that everyone was struggling with. "scoring points for your opponent". We already knew that part of the system was flawed.

I have to agree with this. There is still no incentive for an alliance that knows they're not going to win to even attempt to "fight." All they really want to do (even with #16) is to keep the bleeding to a minimum - to prevent their alliance from scoring any points (whether scored by them or by the opposing alliance); there is nothing gained by fighting a battle you know you cannot win.

For instance, let's say a particular matchup brings 217-148-111 against 418-5000-5001 (where 5000 and 5001 represent mythical rookie teams that can only push balls around the field). Even after #16 I would still be correct to instruct my alliance members to not score (for our alliance), to not defend (against our opposing alliance from scoring in their own goals), and only to attempt to prevent anyone from scoring in our goals. It is in our alliance's interest to play like this during the qualifiers, if you know the cards are stacked against you, to prevent a "runaway" from the stronger alliance. This is where this year's game falls apart - where the scoring model inhales audibly. In this year's game I have the strong likelihood to do more damage to myself trying to play, than to sit on my keyster - WTH?

I do appreciate the GDC's stance on backing off the ball incursion penalty, and I also appreciate them cracking down on robots that don't pass inspection. However, their bread-and-butter (the game itself) is still sadly and horribly broken.

-Danny

[the man]

did any one notice this?

In the event that BALLS become dammed in the GOAL at the mouth of the BALL COUNTER,

I think dammed is ment to be jamed.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak

My point is that update 16 will not stop the weaker alliance from creating a 6v0 situation, it won't stop the stronger alliance to score for their opponents to raise their own seeding score/cooperation bonus even more. after all. I thought that was the issue that everyone was struggling with. "scoring points for your opponent". We already knew that part of the system was flawed.

The most upsetting issue was the pre-match collusion possibility.

Although I made it clear in my "don't count points scored for the opposition" poll/thread that I do not like the concept of scoring on your opponents for any reason, because it doesn't really serve any inspirational point, and although I feel teams could still "cooperte" in other, better ways on the field if opposing goal scoring were eliminated, I believe Dean/FIRST feels that this practice is part of their "coopertition" model, and no amount of reasoning will get them to alter that viewpoint. Therefore, all the possibilities you mentioned are definitely still in play.

Here's my question - WWPCD? (you figure it out ) in response to this rule change? I think I know, but I'll wait for the answer from the horse's mouth.

Most people abhor the notion of pre-match collusion - the *only* *true* 6v0 situation. Of all the scoring in opponent goals strategies - the 5 point bonus will serve as greatest incentive not to do that, since you have the entire match in front of you and anything can happen.

I believe this rule change will definitely sway more optimistic folks to pursue victory. However, for pessimist/realist types who know when they're up against a stacked alliance or paired with less than optimal partners, I don't think the 5 points will mean much - if anything, the alliance will wait a bit longer before deciding the hope of winning the match is lost and switching to "lockdown mode".

[rick.oliver]

Originally Posted by Richard

Thank you, Game Design Committee.

When something is not quite working as designed, the right move is to tweak it. I think these changes will, by this time next week, be seen as well-judged tweaks to a system that was nearly right to begin with.

Well said, completely agree. Well done GDC.

[Joe Johnson]

To all those saying this doesn't fix everything, what solution do you know of that fixes EVERYTHING? I don't live in that universe (yet).

BUT I will repeat that these 5 point make ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the intent of FIRST is that qualifying matches be played to WIN.

Yes, there may be some cases where an alliance may collect more seeding points if they do otherwise, but now teams can clearly point to this rule and say, "No, that was not the intention and we are not going to go down that path."

And, if that isn't enough for you, I'd argue that these 5 points covers 80% of the cases where teams will be tempted to go down that path. Dividing the number of cases where throwing a match earns a team more seeding points by 5 is a non-trivial improvement in my book.

Joe J.

[Tetraman]

Originally Posted by the man

did any one notice this?

In the event that BALLS become dammed in the GOAL at the mouth of the BALL COUNTER,

I think dammed is ment to be jamed.

technically, dammed is the correct word. Jammed would be just as good, but dammed implies that there is a flow that's being blocked, like a dam.


As to the argument of whether 5 points solves this crisis: I don't think it does, but it makes winning more appealing to those who need the Highest qualifying points possible. I can imagine a situations where 6v0 would still be employed, but only for alliances with robots desperate to get easy qualifying points. Could you imagine if robots block their own goals so opponent's can't score on them?

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by Danny Diaz

.....For instance, let's say a particular matchup brings 217-148-111 against 418-5000-5001 (where 5000 and 5001 represent mythical rookie teams that can only push balls around the field)....

I, personally, would not employ the strategy you outlined after the words above. However I admit that what you describe is a viable strategy that some may and still will employ, including my own team if our strategy/drive folks decide to do so with good reason (albeit not as often as they would have without U16).

First off, what an incredible honor it would be to be on the field at the same time as these three teams. Second, if I had an alliance with the three teams above, all with functional drivetrains, I'd be inclined to play it straight - one team defending as best as possible while other two try to manage/push/shoot balls to score - at least for the first part of the match and evaluate from there.

Clearly, if you feel that you're THAT overmatched, then clearly you probably don't feel you're a top 8-10 team anyway, so wouldn't you need to show 217, 148, and/or 111 that you're a worthy opponent, therefore worthy of consideration for being chosen by one of these elite teams as an alliance partner? If those three teams are so darned good, one is likely to be the number one seed right? and will pick another one of those teams for the elims, correct? Won't you have to beat them anyway to win the event?

I also find it a little humorous that you refer to a mythical alliance of your team with two barely functional rookies (which happens a lot at some events), while you present the 148, 217, 111 alliance as one that we may readily see. I've watched over the web and at events PRAYING for alliances like this to form (so I could sit with popcorn and watch) in seeding rounds for a decade and have only seen the planets align this way maybe 3 times.

Thus, the following is WAY overstated IMHO...

Originally Posted by Danny Diaz

However, their bread-and-butter (the game itself) is still sadly and horribly broken. -Danny

The exact scenario, with three powerhouses together in a single seeding round, is so rare that, in my mind, there's no way to conclude that anything is "horribly broken." Heck, even before update 16 with a ranking/seeding formula I really didn't like, I still wasn't ready to say ANYTHING was horribly broken.

1712 played week one, and if you sat down with each individual student on the team who was in DC with us, you'd probably find out that none of them were too particularly fond of the ranking/scoring system. However, if you'd ask them if they'd do it all over again exactly the same way I think you'd be surprised by the answers. Further, if you'd ask them what they were taking away from the experience, I think you'd hear a LOT of feedback, very little of which had anything to do with the actual matches on the field. I don't believe that my team is special or different from most others in any significant way related to these conversations, either.

Let me reiterate that I'm THRILLED that there's an adjustment in ranking/seeding and was hoping for a change all day yesterday as many were, but cmon, is this REALLY something we want to view with this much importance to make such strong statements - even after major adjustments were made?

[johnr]

Team 5000 coach," I don't think so. My kids busted their butt for 6 weeks. Your not picking us anyway so we are here to have fun and play to win. Now you think your so smart come up with a strategy to win"
By the way, a team that could only push balls(at the time) won Kettering.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

BUT I will repeat that these 5 point make ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the intent of FIRST is that qualifying matches be played to WIN.

Yet they have retained the loser gets winner's score feature of the rules, and therefore retained the incentive to "lose bigger". Trying to comeback after going down big does not serve the loser, as the loser doesn't get loser's points. There will still be a threshold "gap" and match time left at which some teams will decide to abandon the pursuit of a "true" win and instead pursue a loss result that yields the best seeding score possible. The +5 merely widens that gap. That may be enough to deter most teams from pursuing the loss. Time will tell.

I will not fault teams for continuing to pursue "lockdown" mode - helping the winner win bigger is still a benefit to the losing team - in effect, the losing team IS pursuing their best interests by doing this - this is how they "WIN" the match when a *real* win is out of reach.

It is unrealistic to expect teams to try to WIN under all game conditions when doing so in certain conditions under the existing rules is directly to the detriment of the team.

[Martinez]

Originally Posted by Danny Diaz

I have to agree with this. There is still no incentive for an alliance that knows they're not going to win to even attempt to "fight." All they really want to do (even with #16) is to keep the bleeding to a minimum - to prevent their alliance from scoring any points (whether scored by them or by the opposing alliance); there is nothing gained by fighting a battle you know you cannot win.

For instance, let's say a particular matchup brings 217-148-111 against 418-5000-5001 (where 5000 and 5001 represent mythical rookie teams that can only push balls around the field). Even after #16 I would still be correct to instruct my alliance members to not score (for our alliance), to not defend (against our opposing alliance from scoring in their own goals), and only to attempt to prevent anyone from scoring in our goals. It is in our alliance's interest to play like this during the qualifiers, if you know the cards are stacked against you, to prevent a "runaway" from the stronger alliance. This is where this year's game falls apart - where the scoring model inhales audibly. In this year's game I have the strong likelihood to do more damage to myself trying to play, than to sit on my keyster - WTH?

I do appreciate the GDC's stance on backing off the ball incursion penalty, and I also appreciate them cracking down on robots that don't pass inspection. However, their bread-and-butter (the game itself) is still sadly and horribly broken.

-Danny

See, that's where FIRST believes their random alliance generator is infalliable, allowing such a one sided match never to happen. Ideally, with the alliance generator in place, blow outs should be rare or never happen. Of course, we all know the truth of that matter.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Danny,
Thank you for including us in your dream team even if it is mythical as Rich has pointed out.
Rich, if it ever happens, you are going to have to bring popcorn for everyone and a really big couch.
Travis, I agree that there are other methods to employ which inspire. I however, like the ability to add score to an otherwise upset match. I feel bad for teams that go out and try very hard in a one sided match. I see no honor in winning 234 to zero and no benefit to the opposing team. I firmly believe everyone should have a fun weekend and should not leave with everyone in the country (including the sponsors) knowing they had a (or more than one) zero score match. Just my opinion.

[thefro526]

TheFro approves of this update.

It may not be perfect, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than what we had to work with before. Also, we competed in week 1, and the seeding system wasn't very nice to us either, but that's in the past now. We just have to keep moving forward to bigger and better things.

Thanks GDC, at least we know that you're out there somewhere... Listening.

[Teammax]

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak

My point is that update 16 will not stop the weaker alliance from creating a 6v0 situation, it won't stop the stronger alliance to score for their opponents to raise their own seeding score/cooperation bonus even more. after all. I thought that was the issue that everyone was struggling with. "scoring points for your opponent". We already knew that part of the system was flawed.

It's great what the GDC has done with G46 and the principle of the 5 point bonus, but the process in which they have enforced the rule change. This change is totally unfair to teams who participated in Week 1 events. In a ideal world the GDC would have announced this change, but would not implement it until the Championship Event. That would give people a even playing field during their respective Regional competitions.

Of course life isn't fair, and neither is anything in it. So i guess we just have to live with it.

While I see the possibility of what you say I do not think it will happen much or if at all. In all the years we have had a team in this competition I never seen our team go into a much 'knowing they will lose or thinking they do not have a chance. So much can happen in a match I truely believe every team goes into a match will their alliance thinking they could win. Sure there are matches where we know the odds are not in our favor but everyone has seen upset matches numerous times. I can think of many times where we beat alliances that clearly out ranked the alliance we were on. Those are the matches you want to see at the end of the day because those are the oppurtunities to leap frog past other teams.

Along with this I am sure everyone that has been in a regional can point to a match that they were sure they would win prior to the match and then ended up losing.

I am not actually criticizing your comments and I understand the logic behind them. But, all of the teams are filled with overachievers I dont think the 'lose big' mind set will be there now that there is a 5 point incentive to win. A team that is low in the ranking will need those 5 points also.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by thefro526

Thanks GDC, at least we know that you're out there somewhere... Listening.

They may listen but I'm also sure they evaluate and review. The 1st week competitions offered the opportunity for the game to be played out. We've spent several days picking things apart, evaluating, looking at the results. I wouldn't be surprised if the GDC doesn't do that as well.

Jane