Troy Athens Regional

[David Dawson]

Our team had asked the same question.
When we played 469 there was a suggestion to lose on purpose to boost our rank into the top 8. But we didn't think that was in the spirit of G.P. So we did our best to win and show off so a team in the top 8 would notice us and pick us. We knew we had a decent bot this year so why not play to win?

[BJC]

Originally Posted by David Dawson

Our team had asked the same question.
When we played 469 there was a suggestion to lose on purpose to boost our rank into the top 8. But we didn't think that was in the spirit of G.P. So we did our best to win and show off so a team in the top 8 would notice us and pick us. We knew we had a decent bot this year so why not play to win?

Because we didn't have any robot troubles we helped another team perfect an auto so they couldn't get to the tower in that match. It worked to we won. I predict a lot more blocking of 469 from the tower in the quals at States so they might not seed as high (keyword: might)

[Paul Copioli]

Originally Posted by David Dawson

We knew we had a decent bot this year so why not play to win?

Right, play to win. Play to win the event or play to win one match? This year, unfortunately, they are not the same thing.

[BJC]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Right, play to win. Play to win the event or play to win one match? This year, unfortunately, they are not the same thing.

It depends on your position. If you have a chance of seeding high play to win seeding points. If you don't have a chance at this, play to show off your robot so you will be picked for elims. Either way, the goal is to ultimatly, win so teams have to do their best with what their given.

[Jen.Scharl]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Right, play to win. Play to win the event or play to win one match? This year, unfortunately, they are not the same thing.

I agree. However, when faced with the difficult task of a match against 469 on Saturday morning, our team had a dilemma. Half of our team wanted to "pull a Thunderchicken" and stack our seeding points, which no doubt would have put us into picking position, and the other half wanted to see what we could do against them. Some members figured that even if we lost (highly likely) we would be able to impress teams so we would get picked higher.
We knew we had an autonomous solely made to stop 469 from getting in the tunnel, but we had yet to try it out.

So what do we do? Guarantee ourselves a higher rank by scoring on ourselves? or fight like crazy to impress everyone, and show that 469 is stoppable?

I will admit I was torn as well. But, after talking it over, we decided to give it a fighting chance.

Seeing our autonomous work and hearing the whole crowd go crazy, was one of the greatest feelings ever. And while we only beat 469 by a penalty, we also had one dead robot, and our robot's signal was cutting in and out. Even if we had lost, we showed to everyone and ourselves that 469 can be stopped. It was a much more satisfying feeling, then purposely throwing away the match.

However, I will not criticize anyone who has used the 6 v 0 strategy. I understand why it is used, and how effective it can be. I just ask that teams think about actually trying to win first. It is much more satisfying and requires some, dare I say, fun strategic planning.

Congrats once again to 469, 217, and our mentorees 1188 for their great win at Troy. We will see you all at states!

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by BJC

It depends on your position. If you have a chance of seeding high play to win seeding points. If you don't have a chance at this, play to show off your robot so you will be picked for elims. Either way, the goal is to ultimatly, win so teams have to do their best with what their given.

If you seriously have the ability to stop 469 where other teams do not, I think other teams' scouts will notice even if you don't shoot yourself in the foot ranking wise.

I used to subscribe to the "show off your robot and press your luck" strategy, then my team went from 17th to 7th at WPI with 5 carefully calculated matches. We ended up conceding 2 matches versus who would end up being the #1 seed, blocking our own goals in the second of those matches, which helped us keep our ranking up. You can turn any schedule into a positive schedule if you're smart and have a versatile robot.

Despite only playing incidental defense, smart scouts did notice my team and saw that we had the potential to play smart and aggressive defense rather than simple pinning and ramming.

[MrFixIt2719]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

johnr (and anyone else who thinks this way),

I am sorry if you think this is just wrong (or unamarican), but please try to look at it from a broader perspective. Before I get into it, I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not like the seeding system this year ... not one bit. I love the game, but the GDC got the seeding system wrong. That is neither here nor there as these are the rules we must play by..

i totally agree with paul the seeding system is horrible it should only matter between wins loses and penaltys for the seeding process

[fuzzy1718]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

so why was our match the only one that was called out?

Because you guys (meaning both you and 469 as a pair) have used this strategy multiple times at multiple competitions. Yes you are 100% protected by the rules and nothing anywhere says that you cant do what you are doing, but don't expect to do what you do and come out smelling like roses. You guys are a great team, and that comes with a large target on your back, the strategy you guys are using makes that target so much bigger. Hence the being under the microscope scenario you are in.

[Paul Copioli]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

Because you guys (meaning both you and 469 as a pair) have used this strategy multiple times at multiple competitions. Yes you are 100% protected by the rules and nothing anywhere says that you cant do what you are doing, but don't expect to do what you do and come out smelling like roses. You guys are a great team, and that comes with a large target on your back, the strategy you guys are using makes that target so much bigger. Hence the being under the microscope scenario you are in.

Please get your facts straight. The 6 v. 0 was used against us in Finger Lakes (unwillingly) and at Troy. At Cass Tech 469 pulled the 6 v. 0 agianst us to help themselves (we won 12 - 0, but it was only 1-0 due to penalties). The only time we (217) have actually strategized the 6 v. 0 was in the second match against 469 at Troy. Your multiple times at multiple competitions is simply libelous. My patience is wearing thin with false accusations against my team and my tolerance is now gone.

Anyone else that is thinking about slandering or libeling my team please take notice.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by David Dawson

Our team had asked the same question.
When we played 469 there was a suggestion to lose on purpose to boost our rank into the top 8. But we didn't think that was in the spirit of G.P. So we did our best to win and show off so a team in the top 8 would notice us and pick us. We knew we had a decent bot this year so why not play to win?

When you played 469 it was your second to last match, and you were ranked well away from the top eight. You had less than 150 seeding points while the top eight teams were sure to all be well over 200. So come back and tell us about making a righteous decision when you actually had a decision to make.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by BJC

Because we didn't have any robot troubles we helped another team perfect an auto so they couldn't get to the tower in that match. It worked to we won. I predict a lot more blocking of 469 from the tower in the quals at States so they might not seed as high (keyword: might)

While the automode did work, we did not win that match. It was quite close.

For those of you just planning on blocking, please review the eliminations of Troy. You need a smarter strategy than "just blocking".

[Jim Zondag]

I seldom chime in on bickering like this but I will for this one:

The GDC decided on a new scoring system which is unique from anything used by any other sport on earth.
They probably thought that they were being clever, but in some situations, this system takes away a team's motivation to win certain matches.
I don't think that they saw this coming, which surprises me, since we saw it before we had even picked up our kit on Jan 9th. Hence update #16, which restores some, but not all, of the basic motivation to win most matches.
Still the situation remains in qualifying that if your alliance honestly believes that you will not win, your best course of action is play a 6 vs 0 match.

Some still consider this unsporting, but I completely agree with Paul: This is the world FIRST created for us, we are all just working within their system to get ahead where possible. If all 3 members of your alliance agree to play 6 vs 0, then there is nothing unsporting about it. It is legal, it is fair, and it is within the scope of the rules.

"Don't hate the player, hate the game."
If you don't like this reality, let FIRST know in any way that you can and hopefully in the future they will return to a more straightforward W/L/T based seeding system, which has worked successfully from 2004-2009.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by BJC

Because we didn't have any robot troubles we helped another team perfect an auto so they couldn't get to the tower in that match. It worked to we won. I predict a lot more blocking of 469 from the tower in the quals at States so they might not seed as high (keyword: might)

469's seeding won't matter. They will be a first or second pick regardless. As Paul has pointed out, any strategist who doesn't see the value of being able to totally lock down the ball return should be fired. In fact, I'd be schocked if all the redirection bots like 469, 51, and a couple others aren't picked in the first pass of picking.

As a result, anyone who intends to play the elims at States had better be working on a way to nullify that advantage. That's tougher than it sounds, because as you saw (if you were watching) at Troy, they seem to have improved maneuvering issues and now look to be a dangerous robot even without the redirection system. Kudos to them.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

469's seeding won't matter. They will be a first or second pick regardless. As Paul has pointed out, any strategist who doesn't see the value of being able to totally lock down the ball return should be fired. In fact, I'd be schocked if all the redirection bots like 469, 51, and a couple others aren't picked in the first pass of picking.

As a result, anyone who intends to play the elims at States had better be working on a way to nullify that advantage. That's tougher than it sounds, because as you saw (if you were watching) at Troy, they seem to have improved maneuvering issues and now look to be a dangerous robot even without the redirection system. Kudos to them.

Locking 469 out of a top seed is still a good idea, as it forces them to join the number one alliance. Ideally, this alliance includes you or an unideal partner, such as 51 or 2337.

[BJC]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

469's seeding won't matter. They will be a first or second pick regardless. As Paul has pointed out, any strategist who doesn't see the value of being able to totally lock down the ball return should be fired. In fact, I'd be schocked if all the redirection bots like 469, 51, and a couple others aren't picked in the first pass of picking.

As a result, anyone who intends to play the elims at States had better be working on a way to nullify that advantage. That's tougher than it sounds, because as you saw (if you were watching) at Troy, they seem to have improved maneuvering issues and now look to be a dangerous robot even without the redirection system. Kudos to them.

But if they seed first they will most probably pick 217, because they work so well togeather and have won their last two regionals. However, if someone else seeds first and picks them at least 217 will have to play them at some point in elims. Get my drift .