Curie Match 100, 28-0

[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.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Madison

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.

I agree ... to a point.

The definition of 'competition' is probably the sticking point. Many see each match as a competition, while others see the regional/championship as the competition. Thus they have very different goals during each match.

The point I was trying to get at (and probably failing miserably) is that if FIRST wants a 'spectator friendly' competition, then they should create rules that foster/nurture that type of game/strategy. The rules, as they stand, create a strategic disconnect with attempting to win every match since it may be in an alliances interest to not play for the win.

Again, I understand the strategy and I understand why some will employ it (just like stuffing a defender into the goal ... to get stuck). It's a strategy, and it's valid, but it's also one that challanges ones ideals of what a 'competition' is about.

[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



~

[Nawaid Ladak]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

I agree ... to a point.

The definition of 'competition' is probably the sticking point. Many see each match as a competition, while others see the regional/championship as the competition. Thus they have very different goals during each match.

The point I was trying to get at (and probably failing miserably) is that if FIRST wants a 'spectator friendly' competition, then they should create rules that foster/nurture that type of game/strategy. The rules, as they stand, create a strategic disconnect with attempting to win every match since it may be in an alliances interest to not play for the win.

Again, I understand the strategy and I understand why some will employ it (just like stuffing a defender into the goal ... to get stuck). It's a strategy, and it's valid, but it's also one that challanges ones ideals of what a 'competition' is about.

The one quarl i may have about this post is If those Canucks were playing for the win, we would prbably get something like 18-13. an exciting match taht woudl fill up the seats. but it wouldn't have it's own thread on Chief.

On the other hand, what we saw on friday afternoon was truly exciting. It was the story of the Championships until alliance selection on Saturday morning. As great as QM 119 on Archimedes was, It was not talked about to the extent taht this match was. I was on the dome floor when taht match finished and heard people say "yesterday's match was better".

6v0 or 4v2 may not have been intended by the GDC. but it showed taht FIRST teams really do think outside the box and use unique stratedgies when they need them.

If you want to bring people to the stands (or the floor for that matter). you have to put on a show, case and point 18-13 wouldn't have the sizzle that 29-0 had.

If people haven't figured out that this game isn't all about winning, please try to go undefeated winning matches 3-0 or 4-0... let me know how high up in the standings you are.

EDIT: speaking of Archimedes match 119. I should have that up on my youtube channel tonight.

[Dmentor]

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.

I completely agree with you.

I have the utmost respect for 1114 and absolutely agree that they made the right strategic decision in this match; however, as a (webcast) viewer I was completely disappointed. 469 when paired with a quality scorer (like 111) was a juggernaut versus arguably the best all around robot in 1114. With supporting cast this had all the makings of a prize fight. Could 1114 starve the cycle where others had failed? How high could 111 and 469 go? Unfortunately, it ended with a KO in the first round with smiles and big paychecks all around (okay so maybe a little too much on the metaphor). I mean 32-0 pre-penalties was cool but 217-469 put up 26 through solid defense in MI districts and 1718-16-343 put up 34 pre-penalties without the benefit of 469 on Newton. For me, this will always be a memorable match for what might have been...

[Andy Grady]

If my team was in that division, and in response to the 6v0 strategy we decided to collaborate with 1114's alliance partners and opponents to block all 4 goals thus keeping the score as close to zero on both sides as possible, would that be considered a viable strategy? We all know that 1114 being the number one seed benefited no one except 1114, 469, and 2041 in the end. Wouldn't it make perfect strategic sense to break it up before it even happened by sabotaging 1114 in each of its following matches? Would this be considered Gracious Professionalism? After all, it is "playing the game", "competing in the overall competition".

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that people on these boards and in the FIRST community would not be happy with that strategy. 1114 would certainly not be happy with that strategy. It makes the game boring, and it is unfair to the teams who actually WANT to play the game. Reminds me alot of 6v0...

Just an opinion.

[XaulZan11]

I don't think blocking all goals to try to keep the score low is a viable or gp/moral/good decision. Unlike a 6v0, this hurts both alliances seeding scores. But a 6v0, like 1114 did, their alliance seeding score is improved.

Earlier in the competition, we decided to do a 6v0 against 1114, 27 and 88 by blocking both of our goals. I don't think anyone on our team really liked the idea, but agreed it was the best option to improve our seeding score*. Going against the #1 seed and two first round picks, with a team that had jaguar issues (they didn't move in the match, so we had to push them infront of the goal), we didn't think we had a chance to win the match. The decision to block our goals wasn't "lets screw over 1114's seeding score", but to encourge them to continue to score for their alliance, helping our seeding score. They scored two goals for us, but for the most part, I think it worked. A part of me was relieved to see 1114 do the same strategy in match 100, knowing they approved of it.



*This was our second match of the event, before we knew we would lose 4 matches by a combined 5 points, essentially killing our chances at seeding high...not that I'm bitter or anything ... I guess some of our luck from Wisconsin and Midwest caught up with us...

[Andy Grady]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I don't think blocking all goals to try to keep the score low is a viable or gp/moral/good decision. Unlike a 6v0, this hurts both alliances seeding scores. But a 6v0, like 1114 did, their alliance seeding score is improved.

Why is it not viable? In essence you are playing in favor of the good of the many. Instead of 6 teams benefiting, now every team who is not 1114 or 469 is benefiting. You cannot tell me that every other contending team in that division would have had a better chance of getting to Einstein had 1114 not had the top spot and picked 469. It is absolutely a viable strategy. Moral? Of course not. My point is that I don't feel 6v0 is morally right either. Yeah it benefits 6 teams, but what about the teams who never had a match with 469? They didn't even have the opportunity to go out and try to match the score because that is how scheduling works. It is not fair to those teams. What about the teams who wanted to play the game? I quote team update 16..."The objective of the system is to reward high-scoring, close, competitive matches. Furthermore, we intended to make a disincentive for teams to win with a high margin." So teams who decided that they wanted to follow that mantra pretty much got the bad end of the stick by the teams who decided to outright ignore it. Do I blame those teams? Not necessarily. Would I ever use the strategy? No.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Andy Grady

If my team was in that division, and in response to the 6v0 strategy we decided to collaborate with 1114's alliance partners and opponents to block all 4 goals thus keeping the score as close to zero on both sides as possible, would that be considered a viable strategy? We all know that 1114 being the number one seed benefited no one except 1114, 469, and 2041 in the end. Wouldn't it make perfect strategic sense to break it up before it even happened by sabotaging 1114 in each of its following matches? Would this be considered Gracious Professionalism? After all, it is "playing the game", "competing in the overall competition".

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that people on these boards and in the FIRST community would not be happy with that strategy. 1114 would certainly not be happy with that strategy. It makes the game boring, and it is unfair to the teams who actually WANT to play the game. Reminds me alot of 6v0...

This is throwing matches to bring down an opponent regardless of alliance. 6v0 is working for the good of everyone on your alliance and doesn't hurt the other side all that much either. They're worlds apart in my head.

[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....

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Andy Grady

Moral? Of course not. My point is that I don't feel 6v0 is morally right either. Yeah it benefits 6 teams, but what about the teams who never had a match with 469? They didn't even have the opportunity to go out and try to match the score because that is how scheduling works. It is not fair to those teams. What about the teams who wanted to play the game?

I cannot speak for 1114 and thier partners in match 100, but when we did it (match 17), I made sure the drivers had a backup plan, in case our partners wanted to play the match straight up, 3v3. We would have completely understood and respected any team that wanted to play it normally. Atleast for our case, both our partners agreed to the 6v0.

Our strategy in match 17 didn't really affect 1114, 27 and 88's plan. They could still score, play defense if they wanted to and hang at the end. The only thing that we prevented them from doing was scoring in our goals, which really isn't a big deal. They could still enjoy playing to together, but got a little help from us and were encourged to score in their own goals.

[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.