Curie Match 100, 28-0

[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!

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by 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!

Al,

I apologize if my statements seemed ungracious (believe me, I have massive respect for the teams involved).

My statement was because I tuned in to the webcast to specifically watch Curie 100 as it was shaping up to be a titanic clash of some of the best robots in FRC this year. I was very disappointed to see, not a competition, but instead an exhibition on shooting.

Again, I understand that the rules allow for the strategy they chose, and because of that it is a valid strategy ... but from a spectators point of view, watching on the webcast, it was ... well ... less than inspiring.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Daniel,
I wasn't pointing fingers at specific people, simply giving a view from the other side of the fence.

[Joe Johnson]

Let me play what if here for a minute.

Recall that at that moment in time, there were 4 matches left. 1114 was ranked #1, 111 was ranked #2 but the difference between them was pretty small. After this match there would be only 3 more matches for things to settle out.

As back ground let me define three "edge conditions":

1. a blow out but high scoring: this is what we had. Both 1114 and 111 put distance between themselves and the rest of the field but they continue to duke it out amongst themselves for primacy.
2. a close high scoring match: Whomever wins this match is #1 seed because the 2X the losers score + 5 points for winning would be very unlikely to be overcome. This is the outcome 1114 wanted to avoid because they would likely be the loser in this case (or at least you can argue that on paper that was the likely outcome)
3. a low scoring close match: Both 1114 and 111 fall out of the race for #1 seed (and the right to pick 469)

It is the 3rd case that I would like to explore a bit.

• Suppose that 469 prefer 1114 to be #1 seed (I don't know this to be the case, but let me make some assumptions to explain why I think the GDC should revisit their seeding calculation).
• Suppose further that whomever was in 3rd place in the rankings was not so good but had made it clear that they would draft 1114 over all other teams (because they didn't like the style of play of 469 or because they were a fellow Canadian team or because their scouting team has a collective crush on Karthik, whatever -- again, give me my assumption for the minute).

Now, under this condition, 111 could easily think, this way. Option 1 is what 1114 wants. Option 2 is what I would prefer, but I can't have that option if 1114 and company don't try. What if I can force option 3? Then what? Well, 1114 and us are still closely duking it out but we are duking it out for 2nd at best. BUT... the team that is likely to become 1st place will draft 1114 if they are not in 1st place, which means I get to draft 469 after all. So... Heads I win, Tails I win.

Now... ...Would it be right for 111 to decide to play against 469 and 1114 (and presumably the 888, WildStang's other partner, who would want as many seeding as they could muster) by actively defending 469?

You can argue with my scenario, but you have to give me that it is completely possible for teams on the alliances to want other outcomes based on how the seeding is going to settle out.

If you take the position that the job of qualification matches is to seed in the position you believe will maximize your chances of doing well after lunch on Saturday, and that as long as you do not violate any of the rules of the game, do whatever it takes to seed where you want to, then you will ALWAYS be able to put together a scenario that has moral side effects you are not going to be happy about if you really think things through.

SO... ...I think the GDC should make a general statement (or a rule if you'd rather) that says that it is bad for the game, and for FIRST generally, to have teams gaming the system in this way, that it is corrosive to the FIRST community, puts teams in ethical paradoxes, confuses the general public, causes lice to thrive and rats to over run the castle, etc. (insert your bad outcome here)... ...Therefor, it is the desire of the GDC that teams try to win every match that they are in. Even if they are in a hopeless cause, they should be trying to accomplish the game objective. Strategies aimed at deliberately losing a match or losing it in a way that provides a seeding benefit are not in the best interest of the game and are not to be employed or encouraged. Specifically, if ever optimizing seeding strategies are at odds with trying to accomplish the game objectives, teams are to favor accomplishing the game objectives over seeding considerations.

I know that this is not an enforceable rule in many cases. BUT it is a clear statement of principle that will give teams that care about such things guidance as to the path they should pursue.

Joe J.

[Mike o.]

I will agree with all the discussion that YES, the 6v0 strategy does not break any rules. Although, the ultimate thing to look at is that it does not lie with the spirit of the game and does not induce a fair and fun competition.

Many of pointed out that 1114 worked with 469 in the match so that they could boost up in the rankings and ultimately ended up the #1 seed. Also, many of us knew that put into the position, 1114's first pick would undoubtedly be 469. With all that said, if we are going to have teams know what teams they are already going to pick AND these teams are going to game to system to ensure that they are put in the positions that give them that power, then why have the qualifications matches. Also, I spent my whole time at Champs up till Einstein volunteering on Curie, and I can tell you that this was the only time that a match like this happened.

I know that on Galileo my team was playing their hearts out and were rewarded with being the #1 seed. We also talked several nights about who we would like to pick, but always kept in mind that at any moment we could be knocked out of our comfortable position.

I feel that teams just need to let the game play out the way it is intended to and let those rise to the top that work hard. Gaming the system just shows that you are willing to do anything and everything to ensure that you get what you want and to not let the situation play out. It also in my opinion isn't very gracious or professional.

I was on the floor watching the finals, and it was really interesting seeing how many teams were cheering against the Curie alliance, from all the other divisions, not just those from Archimedes. It was clear that a lot of teams felt the same about this powerful alliance and did not really agree with the ways on which they went about handling it.

Again, these are just my observations, thoughts, and comments. I just would have liked to see a little more class and sportsmanship from these teams in how they handled the game and let the games play out and not have gamed the match. Overall though, I would have to say I really liked the game, the seeding system, and the quality of play that was a result of many hard working teams.

[George1902]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

SO... ...I think the GDC should make a general statement (or a rule if you'd rather) that says that it is bad for the game, and for FIRST generally, to have teams gaming the system in this way, that it is corrosive to the FIRST community, puts teams in ethical paradoxes, confuses the general public, causes lice to thrive and rats to over run the castle, etc. (insert your bad outcome here)... ...Therefor, it is the desire of the GDC that teams try to win every match that they are in. Even if they are in a hopeless cause, they should be trying to accomplish the game objective. Strategies aimed at deliberately losing a match or losing it in a way that provides a seeding benefit are not in the best interest of the game and are not to be employed or encouraged. Specifically, if ever optimizing seeding strategies are at odds with trying to accomplish the game objectives, teams are to favor accomplishing the game objectives over seeding considerations.

I would prefer a ranking system that doesn't incentivize scoring for your opponent in the first place to an imperial edict from on high that tries to browbeat competitors into a certain mode of play.

I like coopertition, but next year's version needs some tweaks:

First, if you don't want the losing alliance scoring for the winning alliance, give them ownership of their own score. This year the losing alliance received nothing for their own efforts at the end of the match. They were awarded the winner's score in seeding points. Once they knew they were going to lose, there was no reason to keep scoring points for themselves as those points wouldn't be theirs anymore once the match ended. Solution: Give the losing alliance their own score in seeding points. Additionally, you may want to add a portion of the winner's score to the loser's seeding points to factor in strength of schedule. One possible formula for the loser's seeding score is S = L + 1/2*W.

Second, if you don't want the winning alliance scoring for the losing alliance, don't make the loser's score more valuable to them than their own score. This year the winning alliance received twice as many seeding points for points the loser scored than for points they scored themselves. Once they knew they were going to win, there was no reason to keep scoring for themselves as those points were worth half as much as points scored for their opponents. Solution: Make sure the winning alliance isn't rewarded better for the loser's score than they are for their own. One possible formula for the winner's seeding score is S = W + L.

If you run an off season event, try to tweak the ranking system a bit instead of making a knee-jerk switch back to the W-L-T method. I think FIRST is on to something here, it just needs some refinement.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

I know that this is not an enforceable rule in many cases. BUT it is a clear statement of principle that will give teams that care about such things guidance as to the path they should pursue.

Joe J.

If the GDC wants me to play the game a specific way they should make that the smart way to play. This is much more effective that a statement of purpose saying "we want you to do this, even though it isn't the smart thing to do..."

Is it that hard?

-John