Intentionally Losing Matches

[Protronie]

This whole throw the match idea leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
Rather you have a green light or not from your partners, the pope, or even Woodie himself... you should be putting forth you best effort every time you enter the field.

Problem with thread like this one you've started... the fact that you even thought of such dirty tricks would have me and others wondering for a very long time if you and your team really tried your best in a losing match.
Its hard to have confidence in a alliance partner that thinks of such tricks to help their position. I know this thread will be in the be in the back of everyones mind when your team is in an alliance with them. It would be in mine.

Such things might happen in other sports... I really hope it never happens at FIRST (happy?).

[Brandon Holley]

FIRST is FIRST for a reason. We are supposed to hold ourselves to a better standard than all the other kinds of competitions. Woodie and Dean have preached GP for years, and for good reason.

Any kind of deal striking, or conspiracies in anything are normally frowned upon. In FIRST where we are "holding ourselves to a higher standard", how would it be any different, I think it is safe to say that most people would feel worse about the whole situation. Knowing that there are teams out there who care just about winning as opposed to having fun and getting a good experience.

I've been doing these competitions for 8 years and I've realized some times you are on your game and sometimes you are not. There is a lot of luck and skill involved in winning one of these competitions, trying to finagle your way into a better position just seems against all the principles of FIRST doesn't it?

[JoshD]

I personally would not want to rely on our final standing. I would still push my team to give it their all even with monumental odds against them. We got picked for an alliance at VCU this year even though we went 0-8 in the qualification matches and were in last place. The alliance that picked us wanted us for our autonomous (at least 3 lines every match) and our ball placing/removing ability. Unfortunately our bad luck followed us there and we were knocked out in two matches.

So I guess my personal point is, if you have that ability to get that #8 seed by winning, don't throw the match intentionally. Plus, if someone saw what you did because of who you were up against, they might not look too favorably towards you.

[ebarker]

Some good many years ago in the world of baseball a batter tapped the pitched ball out to the right side field.

The fielder then throws the ball to 1st to tag the runner out.

But.... The hitter ran to third, then to second, then first and home. The confused fielders then start throwing the ball around trying to catch this clown.

Turns out the rule at the time said the runner much touch all bases but never addressed the order of touching them. The intent had always been 1,2,3, home but it was unwritten.

I don't know if this story is completely true or what game it was, but it illustrates the gap between the intentions of a game designer and the rules that are written.

It is probably a pretty fair to assume that the game designers intend for everyone to compete in every match and make the best showing of their technological skills, not their superior application of game theory.

It's that simple. You do not have to go any further back than the discussion on the IR hybrid mode implementation to see the direction the GDC is working in.

Going with Chris on this one.

[ttldomination]

I'll say something my mentor said...
We were ranked like 13th and people started suggested that we started making the games more marginal so that we would get more Ranking Points. Our mentor said that we would not do that. We would go out there, play our best, and be hoped to be picked by a good alliance.

This is not nice and you'd have to think about the other alliances.And what if 1114 and 217 don't pick you....

Now i quote my coaches....

"You never wanna walk away with any regrets, you always say that you did your best and that there was no way you could've done any better"

So, whoever this Chris man be....

Karma to ya.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by ebarker

... It is probably a pretty fair to assume that the game designers intend for everyone to compete in every match and make the best showing of their technological skills, not their superior application of game theory.

It's that simple.

Mathematics and in particular the ability to estimate the effect one's current actions have on ones progress in each match and in the tournament are obviously technical skills.

It is probably pretty fair to assume that the game designers intend for teams to compete in a tournmant conssisting of multiple matches and make the best showing of all their technological skills throughout the entire duration of the tournament.

I presume that they would frown upon only viewing each match in isolation, because that would mean that the teams were disregarding important information.

It's that simple.

[fredliu168]

Originally Posted by Protronie

This whole throw the match idea leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
Rather you have a green light or not from your partners, the pope, or even Woodie himself... you should be putting forth you best effort every time you enter the field.

Problem with thread like this one you've started... the fact that you even thought of such dirty tricks would have me and others wondering for a very long time if you and your team really tried your best in a losing match.
Its hard to have confidence in a alliance partner that thinks of such tricks to help their position. I know this thread will be in the be in the back of everyones mind when your team is in an alliance with them. It would be in mine.

Such things might happen in other sports... I really hope it never happens at FIRST (happy?).

Well, in my opinion, thinking and doing are two completely different things... Don't tell me you never thought of something that you know you would never do.
For example in this thread http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=61542, someone thought of a strategy of intentionally flipping the robot over, but its purely hypothetical, and people treated it as such. I honestly can't see why this thread is any different.

[Jack Jones]

I don’t see a whole lot of difference between some of the “questionable” strategies teams use to enhance their position in the alliance selection process. Many teams have scored for their opponents in order to boost their own ranking points. In 2004, many teams sandbagged because their qualifying points came from twice their opponents score, provided they won the match. Many teams have selected teams within the top eight that they knew would turn them down in order to prevent them from accepting from another. It is often pointed out that shaving points and insincere invitations are valid (even clever) options since they are well within the rules. On the other hand, it appears that dumping a match is frowned upon.

I guess it depends upon how bad you want to win, and what you’re willing to do to get that hunk of plastic. I my opinion, if you choose a strategy that’s within the rules, then who are we to question your integrity? Let they who are without sin cast the first stone!

[Bongle]

The highly negative response this thread has elicited is hilarious given that many elite (i.e. the ones we all strive to be) teams will actively score against themselves in years when the rules allow it so that they can have a higher RP.

Every time I see a team scoring on themselves, I think of it as being a fairly mean thing to do. They are essentially saying to the other alliance: "We feel that We have you beaten so badly, and are so confident that you lack scoring skill, that We're going to score for you". There aren't many other ways to interpret scoring on yourself. Sure, they're just trying to climb the rankings and it isn't anything personal, but it does send a message to the losing side. I wonder if that is why the last 2 years have had rules prohibiting teams from being able to score for their opponents.

Anyway, 1281 could have benefited (but obviously didn't) from this strategy at Waterloo this year. An effective lapbot, we ended up 8th alliance captain. Since Waterloo is a quite small regional, we might have been picked 2nd by a not-8th team and had a better run during eliminations than we did getting crushed under the wheels of the 1114/2056 juggernaut in quarterfinals.


I think a good way to make this (throwing games to avoid being a captain) strategy ineffective would be to allow teams to deny their alliance-captainship and just join the pool. I'm sure there are teams that would do it, hoping for a selection by a more powerful alliance. You throw away your guaranteed position in eliminations for a much lower probability of being selected by a better alliance.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

I guess it depends upon how bad you want to win, and what you’re willing to do to get that hunk of plastic. I my opinion, if you choose a strategy that’s within the rules, then who are we to question your integrity? Let they who are without sin cast the first stone!

exactly.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

I don’t see a whole lot of difference between some of the “questionable” strategies teams use to enhance their position in the alliance selection process. Many teams have scored for their opponents in order to boost their own ranking points. In 2004, many teams sandbagged because their qualifying points came from twice their opponents score, provided they won the match. Many teams have selected teams within the top eight that they knew would turn them down in order to prevent them from accepting from another. It is often pointed out that shaving points and insincere invitations are valid (even clever) options since they are well within the rules. On the other hand, it appears that dumping a match is frowned upon.

I guess it depends upon how bad you want to win, and what you’re willing to do to get that hunk of plastic. I my opinion, if you choose a strategy that’s within the rules, then who are we to question your integrity? Let they who are without sin cast the first stone!

You may be thinking 2003 or earlier--in 2004, it was the losing score.

The distinction I draw between sitting out a match and alliance selection trickery is that sitting out a match actively hurts teams who you're allied with, while alliance selection strategies are still legal strategies taken against opponents. Granted, you're making them your opponents with an alliance offer you know they'll decline, but going in with the plan that they're going to be your opponents one way or the other makes it (in my mind) a moot point.

Perhaps that's just where I draw my line in search of said lump of plastic, though; your mileage may vary.