OCCRA
Go to Post We're past half of the poll options already :( - Hitchhiker 42 [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-26-2017, 10:47 PM
bobbysq bobbysq is offline
Registered User
FRC #4646 (Team ASAP)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Rookie Year: 2015
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 916
bobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond repute
Re: On side ball use agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Scheuing View Post
Let's create a "no more agreements" agreement.
Agree to Disagree Agreement?
Reply With Quote
  #32   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-26-2017, 11:06 PM
Ekcrbe's Avatar
Ekcrbe Ekcrbe is offline
MIssin' the MItten
AKA: Erik Boyle
FRC #0395 (2 Train Robotics), FRC #4640 (Metallic Panthers)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 407
Ekcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond repute
Re: On side ball use agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes View Post
To each his own, but I find it more fun to play games where I can just focus on winning than to play games where I have to focus on maximizing some other metric.
Yeah, this is what irks me. I know that these sort of things make FRC uniquely complex and deep for a high school program, but that sort of desired strategic intensity can be achieved without gimmicky backdoor deals between alliances to play the game a certain way. We know this. The 2013 and 2014 games provided ample room to think deeply about strategy and draw up game plans in a way that approached traditional sports, which is clearly part of what many of us enjoy about the competitive aspect of FRC. "_____ Agreement"-type plans just replace the natural strategy of well-designed games with consternation over how best to subvert the 3v3 nature of the competition to move up the rankings. It's not unethical, it's just confusing for less-informed or non-CD spectators and frankly (in my opinion) less enjoyable to watch and play. The alliances that win events and championships should be the ones that together are the best gear placers, shooters, climbers, and defenders, not the best at doing something else. That is the hallmark of an effective game.

TL;DR Strategic depth is not incongruous with games that encourage simply playing with your alliance and against the other one. We don't need other nonsense to get our fill of lateral thinking.
__________________
Four years of FRC 68 Truck Town Thunder
2012 Championship Newton Division Finalists—Thanks 330 and 639 for the Full Court Press! | 2013 Kettering University District Chairman's Award Winners! | 2014 Great Lakes Bay Region District Winners—Thanks 288, 4819, and 5166! | 2014 Waterford District Chairman's Award Winners! | 2014 Michigan FRC State Championship Chairman's Award Winners—Congratulations 33 and 503! | 2015 Center Line District Chairman's Award Winners! | 2015 Lansing District Winners—Thanks 314 and 1684! | 2015 FIRST in Michigan District Championship Chairman's Award Winners—Congratulations 503 and 2137!


Reply With Quote
  #33   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-27-2017, 12:13 AM
Grim Tuesday's Avatar
Grim Tuesday Grim Tuesday is offline
Registered User
AKA: Simon Bohn
FRC #0639 (Code Red)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 1,637
Grim Tuesday has a reputation beyond reputeGrim Tuesday has a reputation beyond reputeGrim Tuesday has a reputation beyond reputeGrim Tuesday has a reputation beyond reputeGrim Tuesday has a reputation beyond reputeGrim Tuesday has a reputation beyond reputeGrim Tuesday has a reputation beyond reputeGrim Tuesday has a reputation beyond reputeGrim Tuesday has a reputation beyond reputeGrim Tuesday has a reputation beyond reputeGrim Tuesday has a reputation beyond repute
Re: On side ball use agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Lightning View Post
I cringe every time that I see a thread like this. Any agreement such as this always falls under the classic prisoner's dilemma where it incentivizes betraying the deal, which is inherently violates GP.
I think it is wrong to conflate FRC games with the one-shot Prisoner's dilemma. In fact, I think it's more reasonable to model them more as infinitely repeated games, as a team's reputation stays with it forever. Depending on how much each team cares about their reputation, this can lead to situations where cooperation is the nash equilibrium of the prisoner's dilemma.

Here's a good Wikipedia article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_t..._(game_theory)
Reply With Quote
  #34   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-27-2017, 06:52 AM
Roger Roger is offline
Registered User
FRC #1153
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Rookie Year: 1900
Location: Walpole MA
Posts: 729
Roger has a reputation beyond reputeRoger has a reputation beyond reputeRoger has a reputation beyond reputeRoger has a reputation beyond reputeRoger has a reputation beyond reputeRoger has a reputation beyond reputeRoger has a reputation beyond reputeRoger has a reputation beyond reputeRoger has a reputation beyond reputeRoger has a reputation beyond reputeRoger has a reputation beyond repute
Re: On side ball use agreement.

Just to roll this back around to the original question, after a couple of years as a field resetter standing behind the driver station, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that human players would ignore the overflowing bins, forget to replace bins, drop fuel all over the place, ... in other words, you think it, it's been done or not done. Not in any agreements, not in malice -- just "because".

Well, not really. Because the HP wasn't trained in their job.
Reply With Quote
  #35   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-27-2017, 09:51 AM
rich2202 rich2202 is offline
Registered User
FRC #2202 (BEAST Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,498
rich2202 has a reputation beyond reputerich2202 has a reputation beyond reputerich2202 has a reputation beyond reputerich2202 has a reputation beyond reputerich2202 has a reputation beyond reputerich2202 has a reputation beyond reputerich2202 has a reputation beyond reputerich2202 has a reputation beyond reputerich2202 has a reputation beyond reputerich2202 has a reputation beyond reputerich2202 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: On side ball use agreement.

IMHO, C02 and C03 should be a simple rule that there shall be no discussions/agreements between alliances, except regarding coopertition points (if available in that game).

FYI: The fuel use agreement should also include a Gear agreement - Alliance transfers gears from their Loading Lane to the Alliance Station.

C03 presents an interesting problem. Let's say you are a Surrogate Team, and you figure out yourself that you are better off throwing the match so that one of your alliance members doesn't get Raking Points. I think it is bad GP not to play to your ability.
__________________


Last edited by rich2202 : 01-27-2017 at 09:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #36   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-27-2017, 11:14 AM
Skyehawk's Avatar
Skyehawk Skyehawk is offline
Nuts N' Bolts
AKA: Skye Leake
FRC #2767 (Stryke Force, Thunder Robotics, Team F.U.N.)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 668
Skyehawk has a reputation beyond reputeSkyehawk has a reputation beyond reputeSkyehawk has a reputation beyond reputeSkyehawk has a reputation beyond reputeSkyehawk has a reputation beyond reputeSkyehawk has a reputation beyond reputeSkyehawk has a reputation beyond reputeSkyehawk has a reputation beyond reputeSkyehawk has a reputation beyond reputeSkyehawk has a reputation beyond reputeSkyehawk has a reputation beyond repute
Re: On side ball use agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Lightning View Post
I cringe every time that I see a thread like this. Any agreement such as this always falls under the classic prisoner's dilemma where it incentivizes betraying the deal, which is inherently violates GP. ...
I agree, they're fun to think about at first, but then you realize this is capitalizing on a loophole or breaks GP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Scheuing View Post
Let's create a "no more agreements" agreement.
The war to end all wars?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rich2202 View Post
IMHO, C02 and C03 should be a simple rule that there shall be no discussions/agreements between alliances, except regarding coopertition points (if available in that game).
Impossible to regulate.
__________________
My time in FIRST has made me a better person, frankly I don't know where I'd be without it.
  • A small mountain of hardware, good memories & life lessons with 876: 2011 - 2018
  • Inevitable good times upcoming with 2767 : 2018 - ????
Reply With Quote
  #37   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-27-2017, 12:16 PM
Chris is me's Avatar
Chris is me Chris is me is online now
on a break
AKA: Pinecone
no team (formerly FRC 3929, 228, 2791)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,520
Chris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond repute
Re: On side ball use agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyehawk View Post
Impossible to regulate.
To be totally fair, so are C02 and C03. Rules don't have to be enforceable to have a purpose. They can be instructional - show clearly that the "right" way to do things is not to do the behavior outlined in them.

That said, I don't think rules are necessary to prevent this behavior. It's clearly not in your interest to do this. It would be more arguable if you weren't already crossing the field to get gears, but your robot will already be at that side of the field regularly during a match. So you're going to want those balls!

The alliance that scores more frequently will want this possibly, but the underdog alliance would like more "free" chances to load fuel into cycling robots, so it's hurting a strategy that can be used by them to come back and win the match.
__________________
Sort-of looking for a new team in or near Chicago; PM me if you have a lead.
Mentor: 3929 (2018)
Mentor / Drive Coach: 228 (2016-17) - 2016 RIDE Winner &
Consultant: 2170 (2017)
College Mentor: 2791 (2010-15) Build Photos - 2013 WPI Finalists, 2012 BAE Finalists
Student: 1714 (2009) - 2009 MN 10K Lakes Winners
Reply With Quote
  #38   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-27-2017, 12:31 PM
Nessie's Avatar
Nessie Nessie is offline
Registered User
FRC #2702 (Rebels)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada
Posts: 269
Nessie has a reputation beyond reputeNessie has a reputation beyond reputeNessie has a reputation beyond reputeNessie has a reputation beyond reputeNessie has a reputation beyond reputeNessie has a reputation beyond reputeNessie has a reputation beyond reputeNessie has a reputation beyond reputeNessie has a reputation beyond reputeNessie has a reputation beyond reputeNessie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: On side ball use agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rich2202 View Post
C03 presents an interesting problem. Let's say you are a Surrogate Team, and you figure out yourself that you are better off throwing the match so that one of your alliance members doesn't get Raking Points. I think it is bad GP not to play to your ability.
Agreed, throwing is unacceptable. Totally unprofessional and also very tunnel visioned when you think about all the teams with effective scouting who will be watching you. Teams are looking for other teams to work with. Not teams who will work against them. And as someone also mentioned in this thread, a reputation follows the team.

Always play to the best of your ability.
Reply With Quote
  #39   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-27-2017, 02:33 PM
Chris is me's Avatar
Chris is me Chris is me is online now
on a break
AKA: Pinecone
no team (formerly FRC 3929, 228, 2791)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,520
Chris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond repute
Re: On side ball use agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rich2202 View Post
IMHO, C02 and C03 should be a simple rule that there shall be no discussions/agreements between alliances, except regarding coopertition points (if available in that game).

FYI: The fuel use agreement should also include a Gear agreement - Alliance transfers gears from their Loading Lane to the Alliance Station.

C03 presents an interesting problem. Let's say you are a Surrogate Team, and you figure out yourself that you are better off throwing the match so that one of your alliance members doesn't get Raking Points. I think it is bad GP not to play to your ability.
This is one of many reasons the surrogate match was moved to the third match of the qualification schedule and not the last match. Seeding implications are less obvious at that point, and teams will be less likely to "test something new for eliminations" in that match.
__________________
Sort-of looking for a new team in or near Chicago; PM me if you have a lead.
Mentor: 3929 (2018)
Mentor / Drive Coach: 228 (2016-17) - 2016 RIDE Winner &
Consultant: 2170 (2017)
College Mentor: 2791 (2010-15) Build Photos - 2013 WPI Finalists, 2012 BAE Finalists
Student: 1714 (2009) - 2009 MN 10K Lakes Winners
Reply With Quote
  #40   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-27-2017, 03:33 PM
JesseK's Avatar
JesseK JesseK is offline
Expert Flybot Crasher
FRC #1885 (ILITE)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 4,226
JesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond repute
Re: On side ball use agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoboChair View Post
Just Say No To Game Objective Agreements!
Seems appropriate.

This particular agreement states "ignore any discussion about match strategy around fuel which would gain your alliance a competitive edge in winning the match". IMO, it inherently violates C03/C04.
__________________
Drive Coach, 1885 (2007-present)

1885: YouTube | CAD Library
Reply With Quote
  #41   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-29-2017, 09:04 AM
Daniel_LaFleur's Avatar
Daniel_LaFleur Daniel_LaFleur is offline
Mad Scientist
AKA: Me
FRC #2040 (DERT)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Peoria, IL
Posts: 2,319
Daniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via MSN to Daniel_LaFleur
Re: On side ball use agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arichman1257 View Post
What if the two alliance in a match agreed to just move their bin that scored fuel goes into and let it fall into their opponent's bin? Then both sides wouldn't have to cross the field of they wanted to get fuel from human players
If I agreed with this, what would stop my alliance from parking a brave little toaster in front of the only feeder in front of their drivers station? There is no 'safe zone there, and I am not working with another robot to 'stop the flow of the game'.



.
__________________
"We are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. "
- Tennyson, Ulysses
Reply With Quote
  #42   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-29-2017, 07:11 PM
EricH's Avatar
EricH EricH is offline
New year, new team
FRC #1197 (Torbots)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 21,955
EricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond repute
Re: On side ball use agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur View Post
If I agreed with this, what would stop my alliance from parking a brave little toaster in front of the only feeder in front of their drivers station? There is no 'safe zone there, and I am not working with another robot to 'stop the flow of the game'.



.
Brilliance. And if BOTH alliances do that, we get a match like the match that settled the National Champion in 1997: 1.5 minutes of standoff followed by sudden offense.
__________________
Past teams:
2003-2007: FRC0330 BeachBots; 2008: FRC1135 Shmoebotics; 2012: FRC4046 Schroedinger's Dragons

"Rockets are tricky..."--Elon Musk



Reply With Quote
  #43   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-30-2017, 08:21 AM
Eric Scheuing's Avatar
Eric Scheuing Eric Scheuing is offline
Registered User
FRC #0558 (Elm City Robo Squad)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 505
Eric Scheuing has a reputation beyond reputeEric Scheuing has a reputation beyond reputeEric Scheuing has a reputation beyond reputeEric Scheuing has a reputation beyond reputeEric Scheuing has a reputation beyond reputeEric Scheuing has a reputation beyond reputeEric Scheuing has a reputation beyond reputeEric Scheuing has a reputation beyond reputeEric Scheuing has a reputation beyond reputeEric Scheuing has a reputation beyond reputeEric Scheuing has a reputation beyond repute
Re: On side ball use agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH View Post
Brilliance. And if BOTH alliances do that, we get a match like the match that settled the National Champion in 1997: 1.5 minutes of standoff followed by sudden offense.
Going to derail for a second here, but I just watched a video of the match. Why was waiting for the very end deemed the most effective strategy?
__________________
2005-2007 || Bobcat Robotics 177
2015-2017 || MechaRAMS 999
2017-20?? || Elm City Robo Squad 558
Reply With Quote
  #44   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-05-2017, 01:06 PM
abigailthefox's Avatar
abigailthefox abigailthefox is offline
i make science jokes periodically
AKA: Abigail Fox
FRC #1711 (Raptors)
Team Role: Programmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Rookie Year: 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 153
abigailthefox has much to be proud ofabigailthefox has much to be proud ofabigailthefox has much to be proud ofabigailthefox has much to be proud ofabigailthefox has much to be proud ofabigailthefox has much to be proud ofabigailthefox has much to be proud ofabigailthefox has much to be proud of
Re: On side ball use agreement.

Just an observation: a clear majority of the posters on this thread were mentors/college students/alumni/not current student team members. I saw a few students posting, but they were overwhelmingly a minority.

As far as agreements go, I think that this one is pretty benign and beneficial, more in the spirit of coopertition that in trying to undercut the rules to get ahead. 1. Any team can participate in this, regardless of ability, and the benefits are likely to be proportional to both alliances. If one alliance is much stronger, they will likely benefit more in raw score, but in terms of a percentage increase from an average, non agreement score, both alliances will probably see a roughly equal benefit.
2. Both teams benefit. This one is pretty clear, there's no match-throwing, or rankings conniving, or a more capable alliance trying to dupe a less capable alliance into doing something not beneficial to them.
3. It does depend on both sides, but that's no different from coopertition in past years. If one side pulls out of this agreement without warning, the other side will likely be hurt if they were counting on participation from both sides during the match. However, I don't see this as much different than two alliances agreeing to focus on getting the coopertition points, and then one side realizing they can't/won't, and the other side then having wasted time they could have spent scoring points for themselves on trying to complete their end of the (now-failed) coopertition.

Ultimately, drive teams will probably make a match-by-match decision if this agreement is still viable/worthwhile by the time competition season comes along, but I don't think it's obviously either wrong or right to choose one way or the other.
Reply With Quote
  #45   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-05-2017, 03:36 PM
NShep98's Avatar
NShep98 NShep98 is online now
2079 + 246 = ALARMClocked
AKA: Nathan Shepherd
FRC #0246 (Overclocked) & #2079 (4H ALARM Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Rookie Year: 2015
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 521
NShep98 has a reputation beyond reputeNShep98 has a reputation beyond reputeNShep98 has a reputation beyond reputeNShep98 has a reputation beyond reputeNShep98 has a reputation beyond reputeNShep98 has a reputation beyond reputeNShep98 has a reputation beyond reputeNShep98 has a reputation beyond reputeNShep98 has a reputation beyond reputeNShep98 has a reputation beyond reputeNShep98 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: On side ball use agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by abigailthefox View Post
Just an observation: a clear majority of the posters on this thread were mentors/college students/alumni/not current student team members. I saw a few students posting, but they were overwhelmingly a minority.
I'll chime in on this.

I think agreements like this effectively go against the intent of how it should be played. At this point, we've seen that if FIRST wants coopertition in a game, there is a very explicit coopertition objective. Just like other game mechanics (high/low scoring, end games, etc.) some years it is there, some years it is not.

With this specific agreement, there is risk of one side breaking the agreement, where with now 3 different places team members can be stationed, it is difficult to communicate this effectively. Additionally, unlike games with specific coopertition objectives, there is nothing to guarantee teams will benefit anywhere near equally from participating in this agreement. Even if there were, this would inherently be putting teams who chose not to do this agreement at a disadvantage, as 2nd order ranking is determined by the cumulative sum of match points.

I honestly wish agreements like this would stop popping up. We saw what happened in 2015 with the noodle agreement. Spend more time building a robot that plays effectively and undoubtedly better than your opponents, and less time tying to exploit inter-alliance game mechanics to inflate match scores.
__________________


FLL:
2011, 2013

FRC:
2015 - 2017 : #2079 4H ALARM Robotics (student)
2018 - present : #246 Overclocked (mentor), #2079 4H ALARM Robotics (affiliate),

Boston University Class of 2021
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:12 AM.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi