Curie 2010!

[eyu100]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

It makes the executer of such a strategy a massive jerk who will stop at nothing just to make an overhyped alliance not happen, and they'd go on my DNA/DNP list immediately. I know that's a bit harsh, but when is all this "lulz how are we going to stop 1114 and 469" discussion become too much? You want to win, but at that cost?

I wasn't asking about the effect on the team's reputation, only on its chances of winning (and I agree that it makes the human player a jerk). In my post, I said that it was the last qualification match and the team was already an alliance captain, so they do not have to be picked to make eliminations. This is what I was thinking: if 1114 and 469 form an alliance, what are your chances of winning? Virtually zero. If they don't, what are your chances? Slightly better. Therefore, if you are already an alliance captain, anything that prevents 1114 and 469 from teaming up will help your team win, although it may not be worth the damage to your reputation.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by eyu100

The second option will break up the 1114-469 alliance, and since this is the last qualification match, you will still be an alliance captain. Does this make your team more likely to win the division?

This brings up an interesting question. What if enough teams decline an alliance selection that there are not enough teams remaining to fill out the 8 alliances?

[eyu100]

Originally Posted by sammyjalex

Plain and simple, while it's become cliche, it doesn't stop being true: FIRST is about more than robots and a competition.

It's about bettering yourself as a human being and expanding your mind; becoming the person with the social and mental capabilities you dream of becoming.

Ask that question you just asked back to yourself and question how it reflects these ideals. What do you think your grandmother would say, as Woodie tends to say. What if you were in 1114's shoes and your partner was working against with complete intention? How would you feel?

That's just my two cents. Ask yourself first before asking the community because very often on these forums, moral dilemmas are posted as strategy. What does Gracious Professionalism mean to you? Give it meaning in your life.

Sam

I was not trying to promote the strategy, and I agree with you that it should never be used. I only wanted to point out that, if a team ever did find itself in this situation, it might have an incentive to basically play against its alliance members.

[JABot67]

Originally Posted by eyu100

A question:
1. Play normally, possibly improving your position in the top 8, and almost certainly making 1114 first seed? OR
2. Have your human player refuse to return balls. This will rack up many DOGMA penalties and cause you (and 1114) to lose. 1114 will almost certainly not become the first seed.

The first one. The second option is mean! Intentional DOGMA penalties = bad. If 1114 seeds second because your human player intentionally racked up DOGMA penalties, two things will happen:
1. The #1 seed, who is obviously really good, will probably pick 469.
2. 1114, seeded #2, will not pick your team, because you were a bunch of jerks to them.
So you're not going to win the division, either way. I don't see how penalizing yourself in the last qualification match will help you in any way. I know what my team would do in this situation. We would play to the best of our ability, then get ready to play some tough matches in elims.

[Karthik]

We're now at the point where people are suggesting and advocating that teams throw matches to hurt their alliance partners. Out of the box strategy is one thing, sabotage is another. I'm speechless.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by eyu100

A question:

If it is the last qualification match, 469 is seeded 3rd (but they have finished all their matches), you are seeded 4th, 1114 is seeded 2nd and needs 20 seeding points to reach 1st seed, and you are on 1114's alliance, is it better to:

1. Play normally, possibly improving your position in the top 8, and almost certainly making 1114 first seed? OR
2. Have your human player refuse to return balls. This will rack up many DOGMA penalties and cause you (and 1114) to lose. 1114 will almost certainly not become the first seed.

The second option will break up the 1114-469 alliance, and since this is the last qualification match, you will still be an alliance captain. Does this make your team more likely to win the division?

EDIT: If you pick the second option, you can even pin the opposing robots to lower 1114's seeding score; you wouldn't care about the penalties (in fact, you would want them) since you are intending to lose anyway.

Aside from the fact that it may not work... NO. God, no. Play your best every single match you go out there. To do anything else is disrespectful to your partners, your opponents, your team mates, your sponsors, your school, your division, and all of us in FRC. It sours the vision of FIRST. I would rather lose to 1114/469 100-0 than intentionally draw one penalty. Don't even suggest it. Don't even JOKE about it.

This sort of talk just makes me ashamed to be in FIRST right now. Dean, Dave, or Woodie, could you guys PLEASE address this train of thought in one of your speeches? This denouncement of successful teams is so contrary to everything I think FIRST stands for and I think teams need to hear it from the visionaries of FIRST.

[eyu100]

Originally Posted by Karthik

We're now at the point where people are suggesting and advocating that teams throw matches to hurt their alliance partners. Out of the box strategy is one thing, sabotage is another. I'm speechless.

I just want to repeat that I am NOT advocating this... I am ONLY asking whether this would help a team captain in eliminations... Obviously this strategy is not worth using for other reasons.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by JABot67

If 1114 seeds second because your human player intentionally racked up DOGMA penalties, two things will happen:
1. The #1 seed, who is obviously really good, will probably pick 469.
2. 1114, seeded #2, will not pick your team, because you were a bunch of jerks to them.


So you're not going to win the division, either way.

Such a bleak fate for those who aren't allied with either of those two teams.

This thread is interesting - it's like a political campaign, with different parties each pushing their agendas, trying to win the support of the impressionable masses.

As a team that falls squarely within the vast community of the "non-elite" in the Curie Division (despite our name), I'd like to introduce the "Little Guy Party" platform. One which supports:

• the balanced spread of the best teams across all eight alliances for the most exciting Curie elimination rounds possible.

• the balanced use of offense or defense in team strategy, at each team's discretion. If you like to score, then score. If you like to defend, then defend. If you like to drive in circles, drive in circles! Each team defines for themselves their own "spirit of the game".

• in a match against a highly-regarded opponent, the balanced notion that if some great offensive teams leverage the "coopertition" system in their favor by scoring for their opponents (or publicly advocating that the opposition offer less resistance for a bigger scoring "cookie"), then it is equally justifiable for a lesser team who does not have superior abilities to try and limit the favorite's seed rank in a defensive, low scoring match. Not only are they demonstrating marketable elimination round skills against the best competition, they are also increasing the chances of the best of the best seeding lower, leading to more balanced alliances 1-8 and a better shot at advancing for more of the "common" teams. If it's ok for an elite team to ask a Little Guy Team to not offer much resistance in order to maximize their chances of pushing to the top, then it's also ok for teams to try and reject that reality and substitute their own. Not all teams in Atlanta are built to be alliance captains. Don't let anyone try to convince you otherwise. Instead, demonstrate what you can do to contribute positively to a winning elimination round alliance. I feel THAT is in the best interest of the majority of teams competing within the Curie division.

• Not caving in to the funky "coopertition" pressures of "the system", which often benefits the superior teams' final status far more than that of any of the lesser teams who allow it to happen. Is it smart (or entertaining?) to let someone walk all over you just so you can get a weak rankings boost relative to the bigger boost you're giving to the superior teams by rocketing them to the top of the rankings chart? Keeping the elite teams at the top means they can more easily control their destinies (and therefore, you). Don't automatically buy into claims of "free health care" when in reality people are just trying to leverage their exceedingly high levels of charm, charisma, and good looks to schmooze the public into reelecting them - make them fight even harder to keep their spot at the top - make sure YOUR best interests are being served.

• the right of each team to play the game the way they believe it should be played, and their right to stand up for those beliefs during pre-match strategizing, regardless of whom they are partnered with or what strategies are advocated. Let your voice be heard.

• the rejection of any "strategies" which are designed to limit the success of any of your alliance PARTNERS. These matches are also ripe with opportunities to demonstrate marketable elimination round skills - working well WITH the most powerful teams when presented with such a bipartisan opportunity often increases your chances of reaping benefits down the road.

In summary, the Little Guy Party platform supports working hard with the best when you have the opportunity to play alongside them, but don't do them any favors when squaring off against them, especially if such favors elevate their standing over and above any goals you've set for yourself at the competition.

[delsaner]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

This sort of talk just makes me ashamed to be in FIRST right now. Dean, Dave, or Woodie, could you guys PLEASE address this train of thought in one of your speeches? This denouncement of successful teams is so contrary to everything I think FIRST stands for and I think teams need to hear it from the visionaries of FIRST.

Originally Posted by Karthik

We're now at the point where people are suggesting and advocating that teams throw matches to hurt their alliance partners. Out of the box strategy is one thing, sabotage is another. I'm speechless.

I agree with these statements 100%, but you cant really take the competitiveness out of some people and the yearn to win. Don't get me wrong, being competitive and wanting to win is fine, but when it reaches the extent of considering sabotaging another robot, that is when it is looked down upon. I'd love to win a championship field and more onto Einstein, but Id rather lose fairly then win unfairly. I think people have forgotten about GP, which is a bit of a pity. My thoughts.
=/

[eyu100]

Originally Posted by delsaner

I agree with these statements 100%, but you cant really take the competitiveness out of some people and the yearn to win. Don't get me wrong, being competitive and wanting to win is fine, but when it reaches the extent of considering sabotaging another robot, that is when it is looked down upon. I'd love to win a championship field and more onto Einstein, but Id rather lose fairly then win unfairly. I think people have forgotten about GP, which is a bit of a pity. My thoughts.
=/

My team isn't going to Championships.

-.-

[thefro526]

If I may speak a bit bluntly here, if you don't want someone to take the top seed in this division then go out on the field and play your heart out. All of this discussion about how to keep an elite team from seeding at the top through less than honest means is disgusting. If I were ever with a team that purposely threw a match to control the distribution of seeding points to prevent another team from seeding well, I think I would try my absolute hardest to ensure that the offending team did not get selected for an Alliance.

Anyway, it's not like these elite teams can't be beaten. The hype surrounding them makes them huge targets for defense, not to mention that teams work harder to beat them so that they can take pride in their victory.

I've told my Driver on numerous occasions to not get caught up in the "hype" surrounding a select few teams in this divisions as to not cloud his judgement. He and I both know the absolutely devastating results that could come out of certain alliances, so there's no point in talking about it. If we do go up against some super-crazy-awesome powerhouse Alliance of two of the best teams in FIRST then we'll play it like any other: Play Smart, Drive Effectively, and attempt to out strategize them. At a certain point in time, we know that this is all we can do, because we will never let a match compromise our values.

Also, if possible, can we remember that there are other teams in this Division than the two that seem to draw the most attention? I don't mean to sound like a jerk or anything but, I'm really tired of hearing about the same two teams and I think a lot of people are too.

[delsaner]

Originally Posted by eyu100

My team isn't going to Championships.

-.-

My apologies. I assumed your team was, since you were on this thread talking strategy, sorry about that. I was not beating down on you, I was agreeing with Andrew and Karthik.

[Monty Python]

At what point does a strategy go from being honest and valid in an attempt to win to dishonest and sneaky? I'm not necessarily condoning or repudiating this strategy, and while I would never use this strategy, that stems first and foremost from a belief that throwing a match is never strategically in your best interest (as well as ethical concerns obviously).

You are playing to win, that much is obvious. Beating a team does hurt them, though beating another team is completely legitimate. If a strategy puts your team in the best position to win and is within the rules of the competition, why can't you use it? So maybe throwing a match is too far (as I feel it is), what about the 469 autonomous that there was a thread on a few days back? Is attempting to "sabatoge" another team through the use of an autonomous specifically targeted at them legitimate? What about defense (especially the aggressive type that can occasionally break robots). And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't tipping other robots legal in the past? At what point does a strategy intended to win a tournament go from legitimate and fair to inherently evil?

Oh and in case it wasn't obvious, I feel that 469 built one of the most creative, innovative, and amazing robots in FIRST history. It blows me away how awesome their robot is, and they deserve all the credit in the world.

[BJC]

If you want to win play your best. It's that simple.

[Kyler386]

Team 386 wishes everyone good luck in Curie. We are also excited because we are finally not in Archimedes like we are every year.