TIEBRAKERS to prevent RIGGING THE MATCH

[Tton]

I dont see a need in tie breakers.

They already say what happens if there is a tie in QF matches and Final's.

[Mike Norton]

The tie seems to be a great idea

just think you can make a stack 8 high in the first 10 sec then go and get 14 bins in your area leaving one to be put out of the scoring area. then every robot to the top.


This would give each team 324 points

If a team can't do what they say they can do this will only benefit you. in the past if your depended on someone and they did not do what they said they could do it cost you big points.

if they fail to get 14 bins or get to the top of the ramp you get 2 times the loser score. that will be a lot.

So the pressure is still on you to make sure you get the points you need and that would be 162 points.


if you come short of that you just gave the other team big points.


I like this better than playing hard and getting a few points

[Digo]

Originally posted by dlavery
I'm just going to go stick my head in the oven.

Two years ago, virtually EVERY team screamed and yelled about how much they hated the 4-vs-0 scenario. It was boring, no fun, a waste of time, and not challenging. More than one team said it would be their last season specifically because there was no more "competition" in the competition. I even had one person nearly tackle me in the stands just before the awards ceremony, and practically beg me to PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE ask FIRST not to stick with the "complete cooperation" games.

Now here we are two years later, and all of the sudden everyone is all up in a lather about the potential situation where - GASP! - teams will all collude to ignore the "competition" and just "cooperate" to the detriment of the game.

The only way this "intentional tie problem" will happen is if all four teams decide to accept a lower score than they could by winning. If even one team decides that they might prefer to WIN and ADVANCE OVER THE OPPOSITION, then the "intentional tie" scenario fails. Given the number of teams that were present in 2001, and are still around for this year's event, I have a hard time seeing the "intentional tie" situation happening.

In other words -
- you spoke
- FIRST listened
- you got what you asked for
- what is the problem?


-dave
(unfortunately, the oven is electric, so it will just hurt a lot...)

I think Dave means that people will not do 4-vs-0 because all of them hate it.
I think that will happen MOST times, but (as we could see in many posts here) there are some people that think to tie is good, and if they have the chance they will, and most people (the ones that don't like 4-vs-0) will not be happy about that, and (what's worse) will feel tempted to tie too, not to be lower in points.

About "what benefits the tie brings?":
The other thread about this was called "Nash Equilibrium". It was about the movie "A Beautiful Mind". There are, let's say, four guys and 5 girls. One of the girls is obviously the most beautiful. Usually, all of them would try to date the most beautiful one, and when they realize they didn't manage to do that, they will try the other ones, but those girls will be upset with the guys, so the guys don't date anyone.
But if the 4 guys talk and decide that no one will try the most beautiful one, all of them date a girl, wich is a better thing for every of them.

I hope you see the relation of this and the current subject (and maybe the reasons stated in earlier post were better).


Dave,
Stack Attack is AWESOME. Virtually everyone loves this game. But we saw a little "bug" in the "program" and we are affraid it can cause bigger problems in the future, during the competitions.

I don't want to be boring, I'm insisting on this only because I understand that you think most people hate the complete cooperation.

All we are saying is don't give 4-vs-0 a chance.

[Gabriel]

There have been a couple of questions about Nash Equillibrium, I'm not by any means an expert, and I apologize for any errors but here's some general info.

Adam Smith argued that the best strategy in a competitive situation was to do whats in your own self-interest at any cost. Get the most points for yourself if it means rolling over the competition. In the late 1940's the RAND Corporation developed a game called "Prisoners Dillemna" which is used as a simulation for any competitive situation from international affairs to psychology. The basic idea is that two criminal partners are arrested and both are placed in separate interrogation rooms and given the same information. They can "defect" and confess and implicate the other guy or they can "stonewall" and refuse to talk. If both stonewall they'll both get off with a slap on the wrist, if both defect they'll both get, say 5 years in jail, if one stonewalls and one defects the one who defects will get off with limited jail time and the one who stonewalls will get it.

Logically, when faced with Prisoner's Dillemna the best strategy is to defect, because no matter what the other guy does you'll be better off. So you could say that the best think to do in an INDIVIDUAL match in FIRST is to NOT cooperate with your opponent and to do whatever you need to do to maximize your score. Unfortunately Prisoner's Dilemna doesn't accurately describe FIRST, FIRST is itterative, we play the same game over and over again. So what John Nash (his life was chronicled in "A Beautiful Mind") did was make a Prisoner's Dillemna Tournament, he played the same game with a group of people over and over again, and a funny thing happened, the players who defected in every match ended up with hundreds of years in jail while those who cooperated in every match did much better. Think about it, if you defect in every match, sometimes you'll do very well and sometimes you'll end up with a significant ammount of jailtime, and the people who play you will gradually learn to defect as well so you'll ALWAYS end up getting jailtime in each match. If on the other hand you stonewall you'll get screwed on a couple of matches but gradually people will realize that you'll both get off easier by cooperating with you and stonewall as well. Try it with your team, I guarentee that these are the reults you'll see.

Nash Equillibrium means that if in every match you do what's best for yourself AND whats best for your opponents, over time you'll come out better than if you did just what was best for yourself.

FIRST isn't an exact corralation, but I suspect that Woodie & Co. had this in mind when they designed the game. If you attempt to tie on every match you will get lowers cores on a few matches than if you had won and higher scores than if you had lost, over time you'll end up doing better than if you had just gone after the opponents in every match.

I don't know, maybe using this strategy in every match won't work, it doesn't satisfy the human need for conflict for example, but its definitely worth putting in your playbook and not banning.

[Geoff_494]

Originally posted by ChrisH
I know in the past we've scored points for an opponent in spite of their active opposition.

I have much more problem with teams "taking a dive" to lower their score in a hopeless match and therefore lower their opponents QPs.

Scoring for an opponent was used extensively last year to help raise the winner's score, and was a good competitive strategy. However there was also risk involved as you could accidentally help your opponent to the point where they were able to beat you in the final seconds and win the match. This is not the same thing as deliberately tying. There is no risk involved in going out with the sole purpose of tying (unless somebody backstabs you, but once they did nobody would ever trust them again anyways, so...).

As to protesting against teams taking a dive to lower the winner's score, the thought behind that strategy is almost the same as tying. Either way you are acting in your best interests to maximize your potential of advancing by doing something that might not quite fit the definition of "Gracious Professionalism".

com·pe·ti·tion (n): 2. A contest between rivals
(Notice the last word?)

[Rick]

LISTEN TO ME!

ties aint gonna happen. it takes to much coregraphy to do. the only tie i can see planned is if everyone stays still giving each team zero. other than that, no 4 robots will be able to get a certain amount of bins a certain hieght while still having so many on the ground. THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY VARIABLES. plus if the plan changes youve got no way to communicate with the other side of the field which is 54 feet away between 2 plexiglass walls with music blaring and crowds yelling. SO CLOSE THE THREAD TIES WILL BE RANDOM

Originally posted by Ricksta121
ties aint gonna happen. it takes to much coregraphy to do.

For the most part you are right...

The more you think about it, planned ties are way to difficult to pull off, unlesss you have a zero - zero tie. Which I have seen before (and im sure it wasnt planned).

[thaylenl]

I agree with eliminating ties.

I have done the math and it would be very difficult to get a better score than you could get by tying. (Teams could get as many as 452 points just by stacking 8 totes in the human round, putting 14 totes from the center in each scoring zone and getting back on top). This would be hard to duplicate with your opponent knocking down your stacks and pushing your totes out of bounds or stealing them, even if you do end up winning. You would have to score at least 152 points, much more if your opponent doesn't score many. (It can be awfully difficult to stack totes for your opponent and protect your own stack at the same time.)

As clearly shown in this string of messages, there is significant disagreement about whether rigging a match is or is not in the spirit of "gracious professionalism", though I have never been involved in any competition where it has been (no matter how it is done). Yes, teamwork is important, but that is why there are alliances.

Because of this, rigging the matches would give an advantage to those teams that felt it was OK (assuming they could convince their competitors) and a disadvantage to those who felt it was not OK.

If FIRST intended collaboration with the opposition to be OK, then they should specifically state it, otherwise, the rules should be modified so that it is not a significant benefit. Other than that rule, I think this is a great, complex and challenging game.

[Jeff McCune]

This isn't worth bugging first about. The game is unfair. Deal with it and move on. If teams decide to work for a tie, let them. They'll simply alienate themselves from the rest of the first community.

99% of us understand that First is about the thrill of working with science and technology to build a machine in 6 weeks. You'll be hard pressed to find 4 teams willing to screw that system. If not, then I better find another project to work on cause First isn't what I thought it was.

Lets leave it at this, if you don't want ties to happen, your team should not participate in group planned ties. As long as one team doesn't participate, it will not happen. Thats all that needs to be said on this subject.