|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Quote:
I am of the opinion that you play the game. This game's rules want teams to work to get their gears and the fuel.... Your team designs a robot that will accomplish the tasks of the game. Agreeing to make it easier on each other will do nothing but amplify the advantage that really good teams have right now..... If you are a good fuel scoring robot.... this is perfect. Every ball you put in will come right back to you.... so keep scoring If you could shoot from the middle loading station in your own alliance you could almost shoot continuously.... This is not what the game designers intended.... I am pretty certain of that. Our team will play the game with gracious professionalism but will play to win.... If approached about this I would counsel my drive team to politely decline. Other teams can choose to do whatever they see as proper for themselves. |
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Just Say No To Game Objective Agreements!
please |
|
#18
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
So... if your team was approached by the other alliance to say, "Just so you know, we think that the goal of the game is to score lots and lots of points. We're going to put everything we have into offense, and we hope you do the same. We'll both score higher, possibly earn more ranking points, do less damage to our robots and put on a better show for the audience if we both focus on offense instead of defense."
Are they trying to undermine the game, or improve the game? Would saying, "Great idea! We'll do the same!" be G.P? Jason |
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Quote:
But those are just contrived examples. The point is, when we step on the field, we're there to win, whether that means the match or the competition. That means that we craft match strategy based on what is best for our alliance. Now, I'm not against co-opertition. If the GDC writes it into the rules, I'll gladly play along. I even like the message it sends. You could say I'm pro-co-opertition on the whole. But if it's just you telling me we should run a certain strategy for your sake, don't count on it. |
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
I think Jason was suggesting that implementing the OP's suggestion of active cooperation, rather than passive avoidance, would be an excellent way for both alliances to maximize their points.
Last edited by gblake : 26-01-2017 at 13:46. |
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Let's create a "no more agreements" agreement.
|
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Quote:
Sure, offensive play can be more fun for spectators to watch, and I'd prefer to have exciting, spectator-friendly games every year. I think they're better for the program and its outreach efforts. But as a team and an alliance, it isn't always in our best interest to avoid playing defense, even if our opponents say they won't defend us. We may judge our best chance to win a match is by defending. It's FIRST's job as the game designers, not ours as the competitors, to ensure that the spectators are entertained. |
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
I don't see this working out in any way. As much as I hate to say it, there are teams who don't abide by GP, and who will exploit this agreement. And reputation may spread, but at that point they've already benefited from it and gotten the ranking point(s). As soon as that starts happening, I think it'll be hard to find teams who will accept such an agreement, just to make sure they don't get snaked. I could be wrong, and this could work out wonderfully for both sides, but I can tell you that I would not take the risk by accepting this sort of deal.
|
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
It would be nice if the GDC could just add a new rule:
No prisoner dilemma deals are to be made. But... I'm sure someone would find another way around it. It's fun when you find a cool little "loophole" (2015 multi-bots and conveyors), annoying when we have to play lawyer. (agreements and flashlights) |
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
This is why I think these agreements will never work. For them to gain traction, every single team at an event has to agree to participate. If one team denies participation, it gives them an advantage from a ranking perspective and other teams will need to abandon the agreement to keep up.
|
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
It would be nice if the GDC would quit making games where the optimal decisions to minimize seed are often prisoner dilemma deals.
|
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Quote:
|
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Quote:
Embrace the challenge; and use the opportunity to teach students to use slightly-more-sophisticated-than-normal analysis/thinking to help them navigate the world's many non-linearities, including ethics' many shades of gray. Like so many other topics, this is a subject that doesn't fit well into the superficialities of tweet-sized sound bites. That makes it a fun one. Blake |
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Quote:
I fail to see how any team would do this strategy, if not for their benefit. In an ideal situation where this strategy is beneficial to both alliances, denying participation is only detrimental to your rankings. Why would other teams give up this agreement if it had any benefit? I do agree that these agreements are unlikely to happen in practice, but it would be nice for the GDC to show a definite intent. |
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
I don't think I'm a hater, but I do tend to disagree with many decisions the GDC makes.
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|