The Update, it fixes nothing! (AKA: why is everyone so excited about Update #16?)

[Leav]

Hi,

So I was out of the loop since ship date and have just now read up and understood the implication of the seeding system (6v0 was a "Woah!" moment for me).

So basically, the old system (pre update #16) had a built in incentive for 6v0.
(both alliances colluding to kick all balls into one side, thus providing higher seeding points to both alliances).

Team update #16 address this partially by removing the symmetry that existed between the winning and losing alliance's score in the 6v0 scenario.

this address the issue when looked at from a single match standpoint.

However I think there is still a problem with this system:

Basically an alliance may decide to go for 6v0 if they feel losing is inevitable.
The losing alliance will still get 5 seeding points less than the winning alliance, but it would be more than they would have gotten by doing their best and losing.

Example Match:
Red alliance score: 2
Blue alliance score: 1

Red alliance seeding points: 7
Blue alliance seeding points: 2

Now Ignore that 6v0 removes alot of defense and just say you shift all scores to one side:
Red alliance score: 3
Blue Alliance Score:0

Red alliance seeding points: 8
Blue alliance seeding points: 3

(though obviously it would be much higher since there is no defense and only "coopertition")

The losing alliance obviously has no hope of improving it's position in the rankings with regard to the winning alliance's teams, but it could hope for improvement compared to other teams who are not participating in the said match.


Perhaps the title of this thread is worded too strongly (), but I still see this as a major flaw in the whole "coopertition" idea (or perhaps just the implementation chosen year after year).

Hopefully we will never see gameplay as described above.

-Leav

[Justin Montois]

The system is not perfect, but at least now at Championship I feel more comfortable telling my drive team and the teams we are playing with that we are going to play for the win. I understand there may be times where 6v0 is "smarter" but we're going to play to win instead of playing just for points. This makes our game simpler.

I'm worried now that even MORE defense will be played in quals and the matches will suffer. We'll see.

[hipsterjr]

Leav has a point. From the begging I have been wondering how long it would take people to realize this and start taking advantage of it.

[pfreivald]

The GDC has made it *absolutely clear* that the object and the spirit of the game is to play to win -- each match.

I am stunned that in light of this clarification there are still teams that are considering doing otherwise.

[Mike o.]

The whole intent of the seeding was to play for the win since the game was announced. The only thing is that this year the GDC wanted to reward those teams that worked to make sure the scores of the matches were kept close to each other. Let me remind you all that your Seeding Score is as follows:

1. For the Winning Alliance it is the sum of their penalized score PLUS 5 points PLUS twice the un-penalized score of the losing alliance
2. For the Losing Alliance it is the sumer of the winning alliance's un-penalized score
3. In the case of a tie, it is triple the amount each respective alliance's penalized score

Before Update #16, the case of the 6v0, yes they would be working together to maximize each alliance's seeding score, but it would ultimately defeat the whole purpose of creating a competitive atmosphere and really the whole intent of the game. Would you really want to sit there and watch a competition where everyone is just scoring on one goal or would you rather watch a competition that had scoring going back and forth on opposing goals and there was that excitement and anticipation of who would come out on tope because the scores are so close?

I personally like the change in how they are doing rankings this year, and I commend the GDC on coming up with such a different way of doing it than the conventional way.

[StevenB]

The update fixes several things. First of all, it should reduce the number of penalties. Combined with the additional 5 point bonus, the "always score for your opponents" strategy is no longer viable. That's a huge improvement.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

The GDC has made it *absolutely clear* that the object and the spirit of the game is to play to win -- each match.

I have to respectfully disagree. The GDC wants Breakaway to be a competitive game, but they have made it even more clear that there is more to winning than getting a higher score than your opponents.
If the GDC wanted us to play purely to win matches, they would have made the ranking system win-loss-tie. But they didn't, which means there's more to winning than "winning".

[Molten]

Originally Posted by 340x4xLife

I'm worried now that even MORE defense will be played in quals and the matches will suffer. We'll see.

When have matches ever suffered due to defense? Honestly, a competition without defense seems a little dull to me.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Molten

When have matches ever suffered due to defense? Honestly, a competition without defense seems a little dull to me.

Quite often in qualifications at "weaker" events in games such as Rack and Roll and Breakaway. Defense can add some excitement to matches, but 0-0 and 1-0 matches are definitely pretty boring.

[kirtar]

At least from what I've seen today, I haven't seen too many 0-0 or 0-1, in part probably due to reduction in the most common penalty.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by StevenB

I have to respectfully disagree. The GDC wants Breakaway to be a competitive game, but they have made it even more clear that there is more to winning than getting a higher score than your opponents.
If the GDC wanted us to play purely to win matches, they would have made the ranking system win-loss-tie. But they didn't, which means there's more to winning than "winning".

Originally Posted by Section 7, The Game

7.1 OVERVIEW
Breakaway is a game played on the FIELD (illustrated in the figure below). Two ALLIANCES, one red and one blue, composed of three FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC) teams each, compete in each MATCH. The object of the game is to attain a higher score than your opponent by shooting BALLS into a GOAL, climbing on the ALLIANCE TOWER or PLATFORM, or by lifting an ALLIANCE ROBOT off the PLAYING SURFACE.

There are more than one reason to consider why they made the ranking system the way they did. This system discourages defense far more than any other system FRC has had, in a game that can be crippled by defense. It also works in the coopertition patent that FIRST announces last year. But it does not mean you shouldn't play to win.

[brasspenny]

Really not relevent, but logic is this:

1. IF you know you are going to lose, score for your opponent.
2. IF you know you are going to win, score for your opponent.
BUT if you don't know, you are a fool to score for your opponent. The risk is not worth it, and with pentlties ... Only in blowouts.

[Enigma's puzzle]

The way I see it (say what you will), is that the GDC is attempting to reward robots for completing the task, not winning. Instead of letting teams that only built a drive train that can push other robots around the GDC want to promote robots that successfully complete the tasks that they provided. I think it is a great idea by the GDC to promote actually shooting to complete their task. So much so that i bet they all cheered when they saw 469 make a robot that could take advantage of there rules in a way to run up the score like they did. It's Innovative thinking. I'm sure they love someone going out of the box to play offense instead of making a way to detract (through defense) from another teams robot.

PS I'm ready and fully expecting to take heat for my views that agree with the rules.

[JGurnow]

The update does fix losing as the team with the higher score in blowouts.

The 5 points does add up significantly over time, if you win all your matches thats 50 more points then you would have had if your opponent used the same strategy used in week 1.

[JackG]

What's insidious about the remaining problem that you described, Leav, is that is requires no collusion to implement. It's quite easy for any given alliance to, without warning, start scoring against themselves. Granted, we might not be seeing much of it happening, but it doesn't mean the game still is not poorly designed or that there aren't holes like this to exploit.

Perhaps, for practical purposes, the update removes enough of the incentive that teams will listen to whatever sense of ethics that whisper about the spirit of the game. However, some teams that are truly "playing to win", as David Sirlin would say, score against themselves to help themselves. It's sad, really, that the GDC, with all their great minds can't, for the life of them, design a seeding system without these unintended consequences.

[Chris is me]

The update removes arranging a 6v0 match just for the hell of it, or ever. You can't just go "oh well this would be a good match, but i want more RP so let's 6v0 this!".

It allows you to throw matches and plug your own goals when your alliance is crippled with a good scorer on the opponent's side, which is exactly what my team did in a match versus 230. Without the 9 QP we got, we would not be the seed we were.

I shrug and say fair enough. I kind of like the system in many ways. If all the robots work, it's a cool idea.