Is FIRST Encouraging Uncompetitive Winners?

[Mark Hamilton]

We used the win big then lose strategy to win at UCF. I don't feel it is uncompetitive or against the spirit of the competition. In order to use it, you still have to win the first round. It is still possible for a team to come back, just much harder. I agree matches were much better as 2 out of 3, but this is the game we are given. I do not apologize for using our heads to make the most out of the game. The game is fundamentally flawed so the first winner has a very large chance of going on to win.

[DaveO'B365]

Originally posted by Mark Hamilton
The game is fundamentally flawed so the first winner has a very large chance of going on to win.

i don't necessarily agree... what if the team in the first match realizes they are going to lose and they keep a wide margin? they can see an obvious loss and work to destroy their points

[sevisehda]

To counter the big win then lose strategy I would employ the lose then win bigger strategy. The matches are equal, if the blue alliance is clearly winning then the red alliance should kill there points and regroup the next round. The following round Blue will be killing there points and then red can outshine blues first match score and dominate. The problem is most losing alliances fight til the end of the first match instead of killing there scored. If proper strategy is employed then its possible to come back, most teams just don't get it.

Further, if the red alliance wins the first match obviously there the better alliance and should advance, it is only FIRST being nice to give the blue alliance a second chance. There are no second chances in the NCAA tournament. Why don't you argue that the 1st seeded alliance shouldn't play the 8th seed because it's a disadvantage for the 8th seed, instead they should play 1st and 2nd, 3rd and 4th...

[Matt Reiland]

Originally posted by sevisehda
Further, if the red alliance wins the first match obviously there the better alliance and should advance, it is only FIRST being nice to give the blue alliance a second chance.

The outcome of an individual match is not necessarily an indication of who is a better alliance. A single robot getting disabled during autonomous or flipped could mean an automatic loss even though they are are better alliance.

[DaveO'B365]

Originally posted by Matt Reiland
The outcome of an individual match is not necessarily an indication of who is a better alliance. A single robot getting disabled during autonomous or flipped could mean an automatic loss even though they are are better alliance.

this happened a lot. also, since we're using the NCAA tournament as a comparison, each game is not 2 minutes in length, there is time to recover from serious errors or injuries, and substitutions can be made. i coulda sworn there were 2 halves to a game... ideally, if 2 alliances were exactly equal in capabilities, and something caused a win in the first match, there should be no way for the winners to come back. but often the first match is lucky, or unlucky, depending on viewpoint. first employed these rules to help reduce small errors that could lead to weaker alliances advancing. if you're so confident that the better alliance will win the first match, why won't they win the second? i've seen this fail numerous times, and it's all part of strategy. there is no guarantee that the first alliance is more powerful than the 8th alliance either. this has been proven time and again, and not only this year. from my experience, MOE has won as a high numbered alliance and lost as a number 1 seeded alliance. bad luck, good luck, and excellent opponents all come into play.

[Amanda M]

I think that FIRST has created a great game here. The only problem is that there are not enough people playing it.

It is a game of STRATEGY.

For goodness sakes, play with the numbers, mess around with both sides of the ramp. Don't just sit there knocking boxes out of the other team's scoring zone!

Descoring is a great strategy! Oh well if it causes the other team to lose! Put a little bit of guerilla warfare into it!

This game would be so much better if people wouldn't just but the boxes into the zones and then be done! At Phoenix, it was all a rush to KOTH. But most of the points don't come from that! All the points are in the boxes, and those points are there to manipulate.

The scoring is difficult for this reason. FIRST wants us to think about different strategies and how to win and still get a bunch of QPs or EPs. And yes, the elimination rounds are annoying, but they are there to make us think. To challenge us.

Don't you think we should rise to meet it and try to figure out ways to get past it?

Although I myself am opposed to the set up of the elimination rounds, I think that time is better spent trying to come up with more strategies.

I can't wait till nationals! It will be great to see all of the new ones out there! Good luck to you all! Hope to see you there!

-Amanda