Curie Match 100, 28-0

[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.

[IBdrummer]

Originally Posted by George1902

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.

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.

You make a good point. I think it running in the off season could show FIRST that it is a good ranking system (if it works). I liked this years system (ignoring the 6v0 problem) because it places winning as a priority but focuses scoring and competition more than W-L-T record. Getting one bad match up would completely ruin your record previously and this year helps reduce that impact. Not to mention the system is much easier to understand. before this year I didn't know what we needed to do in a match to rank up, this year its clear cut. We need to gain x# of seeding points in this match in order to move up a rank.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Mike o.

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, 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 don't think there is any evidence that supports your claim that 1114 worked with 469. Yes, they may have scored for their alliance, but that doesn't mean they worked together to ensure 1114 would be #1 and then pick 469. According to Karthik, 1114 never discussed the strategy with 469 or the other alliance.

Maybe we are thinking of diferent things, but 6v0 and scoring for the other alliance occured several times on Curie, including match 17 and I believe in match 8.

[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

[ExTexan]

I guess I am in the minority but I only see one behavior that I consider against the principles of the scoring rules. That behavior is colluding with the opposing alliance before the match to establish a strategy. I believe the GDC answered a Q&A and said that was against the spirit of the rules.

I think the seeding score rules are perfectly clear and was surprised to see more alliances not trying to take advantage of earning the most seeding points available by scoring for the opposing alliance. Granted, the Field Management System had to be relied upon to give the correct scoring but I saw a lot of opportunities that teams could have increased their seeding points but chose not to in favor of winning big. It seemed it was very difficult to break the "win-loss" culture of sporting events but those weren't the qualifying match scoring rules this year!

I do not think that the game objectives were the same during the game as they were at the beginning of the game. That was the whole basis of the Nash equilibrium. If it becomes obvious that 2 of your alliance partners are completely stopped and the other alliance is scoring at will, isn't it the right thing to do for your team and your alliance to score the most seeding points for the alliance that you can?

I would never criticize, and in fact expect, alliances to change their strategies at any point they decided it would benefit the whole alliance. Isn't that the point of an alliance working together....to achieve the maximum benefit for the alliance?

It was a great game for strategy and I'm sure many will continue to believe that winning is most important but I just didn't find that in the rules for playing the qualification rounds.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Mike o.

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.

For a person who's not a part of our team, you sure seem to "know" a lot about our thought processes. First off, we did not make up our mind about 469 until late Friday night, long after match 100 took place. Anyone who actually knows our team, knows that we put a large emphasis on data analysis and scouting. We never make a decision without putting a huge amount of thought into it.

Originally Posted by Mike o.

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.

The 6v0 strategy played out in numerous matches, it was just never as effective and noticeable as it was in Match 100. I know our opponents actively scored for us in matches 8 and 17.

Originally Posted by Mike o.

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.

And I would have liked to have seen more class and sportsmanship in your post, but I guess that didn't happen either.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of our team, our alliance and others being insulted and dragged through the mud on these forums. We've had to deal with people advocating throwing matches when playing with 1114 or 469, 469 has had to deal with people calling their design "cheating", and now we apparently lack class, sportsmanship and gracious professionalism. I really wish more of these people would have the courage to try and say these things to our faces, as opposed to doing it while hidden behind the curtain of the internet.

It's one thing to disagree with someone's strategy it's another thing to be downright insulting. Ah well, just time to add another one to the list.

[Akash Rastogi]

Courtesy of MT from the snoop thread

People love to bash the ones succeeding, don't they? Karthik, at least you can take comfort in the fact that there are more people that admire your strategies and robots than those who love to bash a team.

.

[BrendanB]

Wow, it is posts like these against teams I look up to recently that make my wonder why I am even a member on these forums. I've heard a ton of long time members mentioning the good ole' days from early 2000, but I have noticed things changing around here since I first started reading in 2006. But, there will always be haters in any form of competition but just remember that you are representing yourself and your team!

I just think I'm going to logout and return back for kickoff to check out all the game rule threads. Off-season just might be getting dramatic with the recent activity in the past few weeks! Wait, where are those 1902 kids to make a new reality T.V series!

[R.C.]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Courtesy of MT from the snoop thread

People love to bash the ones succeeding, don't they? Karthik, at least you can take comfort in the fact that there are more people that admire your strategies and robots than those who love to bash a team.

.

I don't understand why people even bother to hate and complain. Your seriously just wasting your time. Simbotics went 66-3-2. I'm not gonna lie, that is an amazing record/season. One day I hope to get to that point, but until then I'll just admire awesome teams such as 1114 and work harder to reach that point.

I think we as FIRST robotics team should move on and create stronger teams. Personally I admire how much effort teams such as 1114/217/148/254 and there are others put out year to year. I'm sure there were a ton of roller and lift changes when 148 tossed out their promo vid. But didn't that help teams? I know we took a good look at our roller and we didn't switch to the "pinchy" roller but we did make ours loads better.

Instead of calling their designs and strategies cheating, shouldn't we be striving to create better robots, teams and programs? Through out the years I've learned, that because of teams such as the IFI group that my team has gotten better. We have more sponsors, more resources and a better program due to these elite teams. I for one hated this group earlier cause they were unfair to the rest of us, but how wrong I was. For once, I'd like to say thank you for making FIRST more competitive.

Just food for thought.

-RC

[Don Wright]

If I've learned anything this year, especially with regards to our "cheating" design, our ungracious gameplay, and being "the most hated team in FIRST" is that the number of people who actually come up and talk to us in the pits with words of encouragement, excitement, and say they were inspired by our season and design FAR outweigh the few noisy cowards that choose to hide behind their keyboards and preach their narrow minded viewpoints and opinions here on CD.

And I've also learned that most of the people that I care about in this program know this as well, so I don't care....preach away...most of us are laughing anyway...

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of our team, our alliance and others being insulted and dragged through the mud on these forums. We've had to deal with people advocating throwing matches when playing with 1114 or 469, 469 has had to deal with people calling their design "cheating", and now we apparently lack class, sportsmanship and gracious professionalism. I really wish more of these people would have the courage to try and say these things to our faces, as opposed to doing it while hidden behind the curtain of the internet.

It's one thing to disagree with someone's strategy it's another thing to be downright insulting. Ah well, just time to add another one to the list.

Karthik,

I have a few things I'd like to say about this:

1> As far as 469 'cheating'. Many people did not fully read the rules this year (as was evident at the regionals with uncompliant robots). Because of this they made assumptions about what the rules said. 469 built one of the most dominant alliance bots I've seen in years, and their detractors couldn't beat it. 'Nuff said.

2> As far as people advocating 'throwing matches'. Well, thats exactly what 1114 did in Curie 100. You made a strategic decision to 'play the match to lose big' (the definition of throwing a match). That being said, I have no issue with that (from a strategy point of view) because the rules do not specifically prohibit that strategy and the Nash Equilibrium for the seeding system actually encourages it if you believe you will lose the match. It's not your team that I'm disappointed in, it's the (seeding) system that promotes that strategy.

3> 1114 and 469 have shown nothing but class and gracious professionalism throughout this (and many other) season. Keep setting the example, and maybe those detractors will eventually come to see the light.

4> I do not fear stating anything I say here to someones face. I put my name to each of these posts because I believe in the content I put here.

My disappointment with Curie 100 was because I was hoping for a competition, and I got an exhibition instead. This is not the fault of any team that was in that match, but because the system dictated that that is the best way to improve your seeding points.

[Don Wright]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

2> As far as people advocating 'throwing matches'. Well, thats exactly what 1114 did in Curie 100.

I think what he meant were people posting about purposely taking penalties when they are aligned with 1114 just to keep them from getting the #1 seed.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Don Wright

I think what he meant were people posting about purposely taking penalties when they are aligned with 1114 just to keep them from getting the #1 seed.

My point was that Karthik should not get upset for others 'throwing matches' when his team did as well. Again, the circumstances may have been different, but the action is the same.

Plus, penalties do not affect the other teams seeding scores, as the winner got the losers unpenalized score doubled (plus their own) and the loser got the winners unpenalized score.

Again, my issue is not with any of these teams, they made a strategic decision based only on quantitative values. It's the game that I'm disappointed with, in the fact that it not only allowes this, but encourages it through the Nash Equilibrium (Best outcome vs any strategy played against it).