Curie Match 100, 28-0

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Please look closely at the crowd gathered around the field to watch. The dome tilted a little to the northwest during that match.

[O'Sancheski]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Would have been awesome to see it in person!

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Please look closely at the crowd gathered around the field to watch. The dome tilted a little to the northwest during that match.

yeah... i was there... you might be able to see me filming this but the energy was absolutely insane... people from all the divisions came to see this match... and Dana, not to be rude, but the final score was 29-0... not 28-0... but to everyone that was there... it was the match of the year

[Zach O]

An excellent match! The one match I REALLY wanted to watch that day. I was wondering if 1114 was going to take their first loss of the year to go 6v0, soar up in ranking points, or go against them, chance a loss anyways, and not go up as far in seeding points. Nevertheless, it was an amazing match.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I, kinda, find it sad that what should have been the best contest of the year ended up being an exhibition.

Before anyone says I'm hating on these teams, I understand that it is a strategic decision (and a good one, from the teams point of view), I just wish it could have been more of an epic clash.

JMHO

[JB987]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

I, kinda, find it sad that what should have been the best contest of the year ended up being an exhibition.

Before anyone says I'm hating on these teams, I understand that it is a strategic decision (and a good one, from the teams point of view), I just wish it could have been more of an epic clash.

JMHO

I totally agree, Daniel. Not much "tition" in the coopertition...

[Madison]

I don't understand what's invalid about competing against the whole field of teams by strategically maximizing your seeding points rather than competing against just three teams in a given match. It seems to me that both are competitive strategies, but if you're trying to win the competition, only one makes sense.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Madison

I don't understand what's invalid about competing against the whole field of teams by strategically maximizing your seeding points rather than competing against just three teams in a given match. It seems to me that both are competitive strategies, but if you're trying to win the competition, only one makes sense.

I agree, last I checked losing 25 to 0 using 6v0 is better for both alliances than having two amazing robots tie. Case in point, team 217 and 469 at the Troy District. Qualification 20 they are against each other and play their hearts out and tied 5 to 5. Then in qualification 45 they were again against each other and play 6v0, the score was 25 to 0. In this case 217 and 469 each got 15 seeding points in the first match followed by 217 getting 25 points in the next match while 469 received 30. 1114 was very wise in their strategy of play since they were playing 469 along with 111 whom they were competing for position in the top 8.

Was 6v0 considered when the GDC created this game and seeding system, probably not as no one ever thinks of scoring for the other alliance in a tight match up. If we were using the old system of W-L-T, 6v0 would be nonexistent. There were no rules being pushed or broken, only outside the box thinking which is something we should be promoting among FIRST students and engineers, not hindering. Don't judge some of the best teams in FIRST for how they play the game and use the seeding system to the best of its ability.

[gren737]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Was 6v0 considered when the GDC created this game and seeding system, probably not as no one ever thinks of scoring for the other alliance in a tight match up. If we were using the old system of W-L-T, 6v0 would be nonexistent. There were no rules being pushed or broken, only outside the box thinking which is something we should be promoting among FIRST students and engineers, not hindering. Don't judge some of the best teams in FIRST for how they play the game and use the seeding system to the best of its ability.

I highly doubt that especially since they patented the term "coopertition" last year and this is not the first time they've done this. It was either 2000 or 2001 and the game was called coopertition FIRST and it was a 4v0 game (no 3 team alliances yet). I didn't participate that year but the whole "strategy" was for all 4 teams to work together.

Going with the coopertition theme:
The bumps were a pretty effective way to get alliances to work together, in order to score you had to pass the ball from one zone to another where your teammate could score it. This year more than others it was next to impossible for a single robot to carry an alliance due to the bumps (not all balls being in 1 place). This was a great field element that was very challenging but also forced teams to work together in order to achieve the goal.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by gren737

I highly doubt that especially since they patented the term "coopertition" last year and this is not the first time they've done this. It was either 2000 or 2001 and the game was called coopertition FIRST and it was a 4v0 game (no 3 team alliances yet). I didn't participate that year but the whole "strategy" was for all 4 teams to work together.

Going with the coopertition theme:
The bumps were a pretty effective way to get alliances to work together, in order to score you had to pass the ball from one zone to another where your teammate could score it. This year more than others it was next to impossible for a single robot to carry an alliance due to the bumps (not all balls being in 1 place). This was a great field element that was very challenging but also forced teams to work together in order to achieve the goal.

Originally I too had the impression that 6v0 was a strategy they had come up with to fall under the category of "Coopertition" with scoring for the other alliance to boost your score, but after reading this post 34 by Josh Fox (sorry, I don't know how to just post a link to his exact post and searched but can't find out how), he says that Woodie Flowers told team RUSH in a discussion that 6v0 was not intended or desired by this years game. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...odie+Flo wers

I was very confused after reading this because I thought that 6v0 was a form of Coopertition on the playing field.

[gren737]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Originally I too had the impression that 6v0 was a strategy they had come up with to fall under the category of "Coopertition" with scoring for the other alliance to boost your score, but after reading this post 34 by Josh Fox (sorry, I don't know how to just post a link to his exact post and searched but can't find out how), he says that Woodie Flowers told team RUSH in a discussion that 6v0 was not intended or desired by this years game. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...odie+Flo wers

I was very confused after reading this because I thought that 6v0 was a form of Coopertition on the playing field.

Huh, that's surprising to hear but the GDC has arguably one of the hardest jobs ever, and they have to re-do it year after year. Imagine trying to come up with a new sport, new rules, and new way to score points every single year. You have to make it difficult and challenging for the crusty old vets, but not too intimidating and achievable for the newbies. Add into that that 40+ thousand WICKED SMART people will be playing this and going over it with a fine toothed comb and they are never going to win.
When we as engineers work on products we get the benefit of several iterations and months to years to get it right. They get a couple of months and 1 shot to roll it out and hope everyone likes it. Some years are great, some are not, that's just the way it rolls.
In the end, if you've learned something new from the game/year then I think it was a success.

All in all this year was one of the more fun years to watch in recent memory, if this was like a normal engineering project and they got a chance to do a second iteration this game could be one of the best ever, but on the whole given what they've got to work with and what we got out of it, I think this year was a pretty good success. Now if only they could pull off another Frenzy year....

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by gren737

Huh, that's surprising to hear but the GDC has arguably one of the hardest jobs ever, and they have to re-do it year after year. Imagine trying to come up with a new sport, new rules, and new way to score points every single year. You have to make it difficult and challenging for the crusty old vets, but not too intimidating and achievable for the newbies. Add into that that 40+ thousand WICKED SMART people will be playing this and going over it with a fine toothed comb and they are never going to win.
When we as engineers work on products we get the benefit of several iterations and months to years to get it right. They get a couple of months and 1 shot to roll it out and hope everyone likes it. Some years are great, some are not, that's just the way it rolls.
In the end, if you've learned something new from the game/year then I think it was a success.

All in all this year was one of the more fun years to watch in recent memory, if this was like a normal engineering project and they got a chance to do a second iteration this game could be one of the best ever, but on the whole given what they've got to work with and what we got out of it, I think this year was a pretty good success. Now if only they could pull off another Frenzy year....

I too don't know how the GDC designs new games every year with new rules. I believe it would be impossible for them to come up with a game that would not allow for unintended actions on the field such as 6v0 in 6 months without teams involved. If they used a game for two years, then I could see flaws in the game ironed out so that it is truly the game that they intended.

The Game Design Committee is such an amazing group of individuals who create amazing games every year. Breakaway was a great success! Thank you GDC!

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Guys,
I think we have to tender our discussions on issues like the 6v0 strategies with something else in mind. Whether the GDC had intended this strategy or not, the rules did allow it. Potentially, every year the rules may allow something that not all of us will feel is gracious, fair or good for spectators. Teams will use the rule to advance or play different strategy than the majority of the remaining teams. We should not pass judgement on these teams. They are simply using the rules all of us are presented with in a way we might have not considered. Was this a good use of the rules? Yes, the team finished as first seed and in a great (and enviable) picking position. Isn't that what we all strive to do. Isn't that what your strategy meetings discuss? In a competition where you are striving to show your sponsor, your school or your district that you can compete on the big stage, aren't we all using the rules to advance the team?
For the newcomers, we were part of such a controversy once. One year the game rules awarded bonus points for a robot that was supported above the floor by another robot. We saw the potential for a match where a robot might not be able to play. We also saw the potential for a team to place one robot on top of another prior to the match start. We asked the Q&A if that was legal and the response was a firm "yes". When faced with a match in which two alliance partners were unable to drive, we placed one on top of the other for the bonus. We took a lot of heat for that decision just like the teams discussed above. I can tell you right now that the discussion that has transpired so far is more ungracious (to the teams involved) than the original decision itself. We don't have to like it but it was a legal strategy. They used the rules and they succeeded. Yay!

[Ether]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Qualification 20 they are against each other and play their hearts out and tied 5 to 5. Then in qualification 45 they were again against each other and play 6v0, the score was 25 to 0. In this case 217 and 469 each got 10 seeding points in the first match

Not to nitpick, but they each got 15 seeding points in the 5-5 match (assuming no penalties)

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...19&postcount=1



~

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Madison

I don't understand what's invalid about competing against the whole field of teams by strategically maximizing your seeding points rather than competing against just three teams in a given match. It seems to me that both are competitive strategies, but if you're trying to win the competition, only one makes sense.

I didn't say it was 'invalid' (strawman argument). In fact, I stated that I understood the strategy. I was just was hoping for a competition, not an exhibition on how to shoot goals. If thats what we wanted why not just webcast the practice fields.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

I didn't say it was 'invalid' (strawman argument). In fact, I stated that I understood the strategy. I was just was hoping for a competition, not an exhibition on how to shoot goals. If thats what we wanted why not just webcast the practice fields.

I didn't mean to address you, specifically, as this is a discussion I've seen played out a few times -- and some in response to my team's own strategies at two events.

The part I don't understand is how people don't see this sort of thing as competition in the first place. The matches we play don't exist in a vacuum and the results from each -- this season more than any in recent years -- are more important than simply scoring higher than your opponent. I'm sure you understand all of that and my post was simply to illustrate to folks that may not always see the bigger picture that any one person's view of what "competition" actually is may be different than any other.