Curie Match 100, 28-0

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

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.

They are absolutely not the same.

"Throwing" a match is intentionally getting a negative outcome for yourself and everyone on your alliance. This is extremely selfish and hurts your partners. People were advocating intentionally aiming for low seeding scores just to disrupt 1114.

1114 sought to maximize their seeding points for them and their partners in one match. The strategy that did that was to not win the match. The result was beneficial for the entire alliance, just a different strategy than is intuitive.

So no, 1114 did not do the same thing as everyone else advocated on Chief Delphi. They played to maximize their seeding points, not to bring down their alliance partners. Please stop pretending they are the same thing.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

"Throwing" a match is intentionally getting a negative outcome for yourself and everyone on your alliance. This is extremely selfish and hurts your partners. People were advocating intentionally aiming for low seeding scores just to disrupt 1114.

My definition of 'throwing a match' is to intentionally lose the match for the benefit of an individual or group (consider Pete Rose). 1114 benefitted from intentionally losing the match, therefore it is 'throwing the match'.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Again, my issue is not with the teams involved, but with the system the promotes this.

[Don Wright]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

My definition of 'throwing a match' is to intentionally lose the match for the benefit of an individual or group (consider Pete Rose). 1114 benefitted from intentionally losing the match, therefore it is 'throwing the match'.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Again, my issue is not with the teams involved, but with the system the promotes this.

They are still two different things completely. 6v0 is completely different than, say, while you are partnered with 1114, your human player purposely hides a scored ball in the corral so that the entire alliance gets a bunch of dogma penalties causing the alliance (and 1114) to score 0.

6v0 to maximize your seeding score (and losing the match) vs. purposely getting penalties to cause your alliance partners to lose and score low are completely different things...

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Again, my issue is not with the teams involved, but with the system the promotes this.

Agreed. I have major issues with the system as well. My angry tone was not directed at those who were upset with the system. My angry tone was directed at those who were hurling insults at our team.

[Hadar]

a great match indeed!
I was there in person, this was the only match in the curie division, that not one of my team members was willing to miss, we were waiting for this match to come!
when we saw this match on the "match schedule" we marked it as a "must to watch" match almost immediately!

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

My definition of 'throwing a match' is to intentionally lose the match for the benefit of an individual or group (consider Pete Rose). 1114 benefitted from intentionally losing the match, therefore it is 'throwing the match'.

Semantics aside, you said Karthik / 1114 / whomever had no right to get mad at people advocating throwing a match to bring down 1114 because his team played a 6v0 match. No one can honestly say those two things are anywhere close to the same level of "bad".

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Semantics aside, you said Karthik / 1114 / whomever had no right to get mad at people advocating throwing a match to bring down 1114 because his team played a 6v0 match. No one can honestly say those two things are anywhere close to the same level of "bad".

I'm gonna elaborate on this if you don't mind Chris.

6v0 (regardless of my personal feelings) hurts no one. In fact, it was a viable strategy this year. 1114 decided to place itself in the best possible position from which to win the event. (Something all teams should do) This match left them with an awkward decision. They could gamble or they could take a lower payout. If they played their best they could lose and give 111 a massive boost in the rankings. They could also win and get a massive boost. Or they could take the assured payout. Say what you want about 1114 but you cannot say they are not logical. They decided, along with their partners, not to gamble.

A team throwing a match to hurt another team's standings is unsportsmanlike. There was talk about intentionally drawing penalties when playing with 1114 so they get losses so that they would not be #1. That is sick.

This isn't even comparable. One is a strategic move so that everyone at least gains. The other is a rude move that I feel should warrant expulsion from the competition. If you intentionally draw penalties to hurt another team you don't deserve to be competing.

[dag0620]

I posted the following on my Blog (the post was originally from a Curie Thread) but I feel it serves more purpose in this thread:

In regards to Match 100:

I think by now it’s quite obvious that the FIRST Community is quite split on the strategy played during that match.

I was often told that when reading the rule-books, I should keep in mind what the GDC ment for the game to have, and not to Lawyer. Now we could have a whole conversation on that, but this is not what I’m trying to get into. Sadly, the tournament set-up is one of those areas where we’re not sure about the GDC intent with the game. I have seen arguments that say both that the system was not ment to be used in 6v0, and others that the GDC was planning for matches like Q100. Both sides have very strong arguments.

In the end, 1114 interpretaed useing 6v0 as a scenario the GDC designed the rules to allow, and that it was not a whole in the Seeding system.

So I believe members of the FIRST community should stop taking hits at certain teams for there own interpreations of the Rules.

I think its perfectly fine (if not awesome ) to discuss if 6v0 was an intention of the GDC or not, but I think it would be a good idea if we keep in mind when doing it, that this is something that people have to interpret and have an opinion on. An opinion is an opinion, and an opinion can-not be wrong or right.

My $0.02

[216Robochick288]

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.

Thank you Karthik.

Now I understand that some people are annoyed at Curie match 100, but the rules left it open. I am sure [after talking to our drivers] that this was not our favourite option. I believe, however, that it was not cheating, we were not throwing the match, or playing badly. We were playing with strategy in mind.

1- A close tie wouldn't do good for the losing team. I know ties were a killer to 288's rank at multiple competitions.

2-A close match, high also would be bad for the losing team. With many highly ranked teams on the field, this would be rather devastating to lose. .

3- A close, low scoring match. Devastating to both winner and loser's rank, no matter where they were in the system.

4- A huge loss. If one side scored a ton, and none for the other, both teams can get large amounts of seeding points.

I personally think 4 was the best option for both alliances. It didn't hurt either side. maybe it wasn't the clash of the titans everyone seemed to want, but it was a crazy match anyhow.

As a side note, I congratulate 469 for having a robot that had thoughts that were outside the box and maybe outside of the normal configuration ^.-

Thank you to 1114, 231, 111, 469, and 888 for an exciting and unforgettable match 100 at my first time to Atlanta!

~Abby Wilson, 288/216~

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

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 understand the point of the statement - but I don't think we need to add any more unenforceable rules to the book. Just tweak the system so that the losing team gets their own score and this all becomes academic.

[sgreco]

This has pretty much been said in past posts, but this is where I stand.

The game and competition both have rules, I would imagine the ultimate competitive goal of the competition for just about all teams is to win the competition. 1114 followed the rules and pursued their goal, to win the competition. They did what they had to do to seed first, and give themselves the best chance possible to win. It's hard to have a problem with that. Let' be honest, we all want to win, it just happens 1114 is really good at it. If you have a problem with the system that is something different, there is no fault in following the rules, and giving yourself the best chance to win.

[Jack Jones]

When a team or alliance pursue a tactic there are consequences that impact the rest of the field. For example, had the 1114 alliance scored just three points in match 100, then 2612 would not have won the Coopertition Award on Curie.

So 2612 could look at it like we took home some hardware because of the 6v0 match which some would say is like being run out of town on a rail - if it weren't for the honor of it, they'd just as soon pass. Or, we could look at it like we won the award because we were in shoot-outs all weekend, and 1114 was in the one situation that could help them seed first. However, we choose to see that it was what it was, which was a whole lot of fun, an honor just to be part of the action, and certainly nothing to get bent out of shape over.