Throwing the game.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by defied

Or the team would say their robot went straight and became unresponsive for a moment (Which is known to happen [many times last season] and the robots were rarely disabled) but afterwards they regained control (just to lose it again?).

The RoboRio will hopefully reduce at least some of the underlying cause of issues like this.
Seeing as turning your robot into an obstacle on this field without warning could cause your alliance issues I would hope that the RoboRio's ability to recover from low battery voltage situations will at least put robots a little more in control.

I watched Team 11's robot run around a competition field dropping FMS packets left and right and still remain drivable using the beta RoboRio. They did nothing to gain that capability in their code in fact the code in the robot at the time was allowing the drivetrain to place heavy drain on the battery. Had that robot had a cRIO it would have had a radio reset that would have made it stop.

[RunawayEngineer]

It's strange that this would be a topic this year. The lack of Win/Loss/Tie system makes this year the one with the lowest incentive for sabotage in qualifications.
Individual teams have way less influence on each other's rankings than in previous years. Last year - a couple points swung in a single match determined the top seedings. This year - a couple points in a single match is almost meaningless because it is averaged out over all of them.
A scenario like described could exist between 2 close rival teams - but the same incentive has been in almost every regional previously, with teams having more influence to act on it.
Resilience to this particular brand of politics is one of the things that I like about this new structure.

[ScottOliveira]

Originally Posted by RunawayEngineer

It's strange that this would be a topic this year. The lack of Win/Loss/Tie system makes this year the one with the lowest incentive for sabotage in qualifications.
Individual teams have way less influence on each other's rankings than in previous years. Last year - a couple points swung in a single match determined the top seedings. This year - a couple points in a single match is almost meaningless because it is averaged out over all of them.
A scenario like described could exist between 2 close rival teams - but the same incentive has been in almost every regional previously, with teams having more influence to act on it.
Resilience to this particular brand of politics is one of the things that I like about this new structure.

I would strongly disagree, if anything I would believe sabotage would be far easier this year than previously (not that I advocate that strategy). While points are averaged, it is very easy to knock over a few 3-4 tote + container stacks and take out a hundred points or more (easily potentially dropping their average score by 10% or more if you are looking to effect a dramatic change). And the larger number of discrete ranking levels means it can be easier to knock a (perhaps threatening) team down (possibly out of a captainship) while maintaining your own position.

[Thromgord]

There's a point that I think that a lot of people are missing: even if knocking over a set of totes could improve your ranking, it still means that you have to deal with other teams at the competition.

Personally, I think I can speak for my team when I say that we wouldn't join an alliance that achieved its position by underhanded means, even if it was our only chance at getting to Nationals. I wonder what would happen if nobody accepted an alliance with the dirty (mumble-mumble) teams... is there a rule for this?

[defied]

Originally Posted by Thromgord

Personally, I think I can speak for my team when I say that we wouldn't join an alliance that achieved its position by underhanded means, even if it was our only chance at getting to Nationals. I wonder what would happen if nobody accepted an alliance with the dirty (mumble-mumble) teams... is there a rule for this?

I'm happy to see that most of the responses here lean in that same direction. It shows that the general attitude about gameplay is to be honorable, fair and positive.

It would be interesting to see if a team were considered so non-GP that noone would accept an alliance with them and what would happen.

D

[*Rachelle*]

Fortunately I don't think this scenario is likely to happen with us defied. Being that we are in districts, we have to earn our way into regionals.

In case you haven't seen this already a recent blog post (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...ct-points-2015) said that teams will want to focus on ranking well. I think this will stop even potential un-GP teams from "throwing" matches. The only thing would be if they are picked by an alliance that makes it to finals I suppose.

There are also some other interesting tidbits about rankings in the post. Good luck, we'll see you at Shorewood.

[IronicDeadBird]

So lets say this strategy is used...
How do you win with it? You have just given us a strategy where you got yourself into a position where you advance, but this strategy in the long run doesn't work because you can't actually win the game with it. If a team that throws is up against a team that can compete then the team that competes wins. (Assuming that you are throwing because you can't win a conventional match)

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Thromgord

I wonder what would happen if nobody accepted an alliance with the dirty (mumble-mumble) teams... is there a rule for this?

There is not such a rule. I would also note that it would be EXTREMELY unlikely for nobody to accept their alliance. HQ would almost certainly become involved at some point.

And here's why. Any team that is not in the top 8 is in an "accept or don't play" situation on Saturday, thus is almost guaranteed to accept any offer they receive. At a small (30-odd team) event, where a large percentage of teams will be playing on Saturday afternoon, there's a slight chance that enough teams decline for there to be not enough teams available to fill out the alliances, which will (being the first time this has happened) result in a call to HQ to figure out what to do. At a large event (50-60+ teams), not a chance unless the team's action is EXTREMELY egregious. And in that last case, there's a significant chance that they had to talk to the Head Referee or the Regional Director at least once about "being civil" among other things.

[Taylor]

To its core, FIRST Robotics is founded on the Honor System. How do I know teams stop work on February 17th, that their systems were not built before January 3rd, that their robot truly is under budget restrictions, etc? I don't.
But I have faith in them, as they do with us.
I have an inherent trust in every team attending FIRST events, as I presume they would have for me.
Suggesting such a maneuver would be a betrayal of that trust.
If we were in Team B's position, I wouldn't trust Team D to follow through on their end of the bargain. If they're playing dirty pool with Team A, who's to say they wouldn't do the same with us?

[Nyxyxylyth]

Originally Posted by defied

Should there be a rule made/altered to ensure this can't happen?

What would that rule be? Anybody who just starts blatantly knocking over stacks is already in danger of getting a red card.

The great peril of this game is that one little mistake can lose the match. If you haven't tried it already, knock over a six tote stack with a can on it, and watch in horror how far the can goes. At some point, we'll see a can fly over the step (adding a six point foul to the already grievous injury), and I'll bet the other alliance will even use it to score.

Who could tell whether a quarter spin in the wrong direction that knocks over a stack is an accident, or on purpose? Accidents are going to happen, and we've all got to keep graciously, professionally cool.

[defied]

Originally Posted by Nyxyxylyth

What would that rule be? Anybody who just starts blatantly knocking over stacks is already in danger of getting a red card.

Who could tell whether a quarter spin in the wrong direction that knocks over a stack is an accident, or on purpose? Accidents are going to happen, and we've all got to keep graciously, professionally cool.

That's one of my points. That makes it exploitable. "I don't know, I think the drivetrain went out", or an excuse of that nature, makes it an accident.

This wouldn't be a tactic a team would take willy nilly. This is something that would be likely to happen towards the end of the qualifying rounds.

So, effectively, not counting the grey stacks until after the match has ended could be the root of the issue.


D

[dellagd]

Originally Posted by defied

A team could effectively "buy in" to the Playoffs by making a deal with a high-scoring team on the other alliance during a match to throw a game reducing the points collected by another high level team that one would consider a threat.

No high-ranking team that has any chance of doing well in the playoffs would accept this. They're going to pick whatever robots will help them score the most points (or stop their opponents from scoring the most). They do this through great scouting, good strategy, and a good robot. And playing clean.

And if some team picking in the top 8 would go for this, it's not like you're not going anywhere with them anyway, so I wouldn't even bother.

[Rick]

Originally Posted by defied

..."accidentally" knocking over stacks made by the other teammates of said alliance...

Sounds like you would "accidently" be removed from pick lists by doing something like this.

[RallyJeff]

Originally Posted by defied

G15 says in violation there will be a firm talking to, and potentially a yellow or red card if it happens again. As this tactic would be most effective towards the last qualifying rounds, it really doesn't matter.

That's not correct. The penalties specified for violating G15 include a potential red or yellow card for repeated or egregious violations. Without speaking to the specific scenario you described, a violation of G15 that was bad enough could result in a red card on the first offense. Also, 5.5.4 allows the head ref to issue red or yellow cards for egregious actions that violate the mission of FIRST but aren't captured in other rules.

[The_ShamWOW88]

What happened to just competing to the best of your abilities and trying to score as much as possible?

Why can't Team B show why they're a good robot by scoring as much as possible?

If Team A is good, why wouldn't B want to show them why they're a good alliance partner, possibly hoping for a pick in alliance selections?