Scoring For Your Opponents

[Jaine Perotti]

I think boosting your rank like this is very unfair. Is it legitimate? sure. But fair? no.

I honestly can't see why scoring for the other alliance can be interpreted as unfair. Scoring for your alliance partners has several benefits for both teams involved:

1) The winner of the match gets their ranking points increased.
2) The loser of the match gets their ranking points increased.

The way I see it, there is nothing un-GP about helping to raise the ranking points of the losing team. I think this shows a great deal more sportsmanship than if you were to completely shut down the opposing alliance.

That's not fair to the team's who truly WORKED to just pull out of a match and win by a single point.

Saying that this is not fair to the teams who "worked" to win a match does not make sense to me. It takes just as much "work" to score for your opponent as it does to score for yourself. Scoring for your opponent shows that you are competent strategists who have "worked" very hard to come up with a good game plan. Claiming that teams who score for their opponent don't "work as hard" as other teams, AND using this as further justification for the "unfairness" of scoring for the opponent - simply does not make much sense to me.

I believe that this is a legitimate game strategy. My team did this several times at the UTC New England Regional. No one approached us afterwards saying that this offended them.

It's not gracious. It's not professional. It's just plain insulting and rude.

If you're so bent on winning that you do that, then FIRST is not for you.

How does scoring for your opponent mean that you are "bent on winning"? If a team were so crudely "bent on winning", then I think they would be trying to completely shut down the opponsing the alliance, rather than help them by increasing their ranking points.

Far too often, people take occurrences on the playing field in much too personal a manner. In my team's case (and in many others), scoring for our opponent was never done to make them feel bad about their team's performance. The only reason we did this was to increase our ranking points. I don't see any legitimate reason for teams to see this as unfair - the only thing it does to them is increase their own ranking points.

If this happens to your team, don't take it so personally. It does not mean that your alliance parters think your robot is trash. You could have done poorly because you were having problems with your robot, or were placed on a not-so-hot alliance. Be glad that your opponents had the forethought and professionalism to make the loss not as hard on both your and their ranking points.

-- Jaine

[the_short1]

I think that scoring for your opponent is a good strategy to get higher in the leaderboard, but the whole purpose of having the loosing team score is this:

If an great alliance, lets say (1114,1503, 67), against 3 bots that dont score
score is: 80:7
you dont get awarded a good RP because it was oviously not a challenge.

ok .. this time you score some for the other team.
the score is 80:55
do you deserve the better ranking for winning against really bad teams?

NO! .. the purpose of using the loosing teams score, is to rank alliances higher if they beat a EVENLY matched team in a match, so your spoofing RP to make it seem like every match you played was a HARD game. If you can barely beat an great alliance, you deserve RP more then being the amazing alliance and beating a lower calliber team and spoofing RP.

PS: i dont have anything against 1114, 1503, or 67, i just used them as an example since they won GLR, and they are a great alliance! congrats to them at that!
thats my two $0.02 -kevin

[Imajie]

Originally Posted by the_short1

I think that scoring for your opponent is a good strategy to get higher in the leaderboard, but the whole purpose of having the loosing team score is this:

If an great alliance, lets say (1114,1503, 67), against 3 bots that dont score
score is: 80:7
you dont get awarded a good RP because it was oviously not a challenge.

ok .. this time you score some for the other team.
the score is 80:55
do you deserve the better ranking for winning against really bad teams?

NO! .. the purpose of using the loosing teams score, is to rank alliances higher if they beat a EVENLY matched team in a match, so your spoofing RP to make it seem like every match you played was a HARD game. If you can barely beat an great alliance, you deserve RP more then being the amazing alliance and beating a lower calliber team and spoofing RP.

PS: i dont have anything against 1114, 1503, or 67, i just used them as an example since they won GLR, and they are a great alliance! congrats to them at that!
thats my two $0.02 -kevin

I agree, I think that teams should worry about their own score and if they are winning not how many RPs they will get out of the match.

I think that any team that feels the need to cheat the system to get a better ranking has let winning become to important to them.

[KenWittlief]

My psychic powers must be a little off today

I thought the idea behind giving the winning team the losing teams score was so that super alliances dont completely shut out a weak alliance.

If you got your own score, then you could - you could have 200 to 0 matches.

I would think that evenly matched alliances would see matches end up in low scores for both sides because the great offense was matched by great defense - thats what I saw in the finals, teams were winning with low scores by one or two points.

Now that I think about it somemore, I think the idea behind giving the winning team the losing teams score is this: The winning team gets the losing teams score! <= That is the game - play to win: the match, the best seed, the finals.

[Hutch]

It's not gracious. It's not professional. It's just plain insulting and rude.

If you're so bent on winning that you do that, then FIRST is not for you.

[Joel J]

not so long ago teams would get some multiple of the loser's score, if they won. This "tweaking" of points that we are seeing at some competitions is like a remnant of that frame of mind.

[Bill Moore]

Originally Posted by Joel J.

not so long ago teams would get some multiple of the loser's score, if they won. This "tweaking" of points that we are seeing at some competitions is like a remnant of that frame of mind.

Since I wasn't in FIRST before 2001, I can't speak for earlier years, but in 2002 you received some form of the losers score. That is the first year I remember watching teams "descore" to cause their opponents to have fewer "ranking points". The 2002 game had "tethers" back to the end zone for additional points, and robots that obviously had lost would drive out of the end zone so they wouldn't count for bonus points. It wasn't frequent, but it did happen occasionally.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Hutch

It's not gracious. It's not professional. It's just plain insulting and rude.

If you're so bent on winning that you do that, then FIRST is not for you.

Please excuse me, but maybe FIRST is not for people who think that FIRST is not for someone else.

[meaubry]

The only reason that this issue even matters is because of tie breakers in seeding. Teams with the same number of wins are then ranked by the points derived by the formula that promotes scoring for the opponent, once the win/loss has been determined.
Which is often by the end of the auton period or the end of the next period - leaving the final period when everyone can score to decide what they will do.
I don't advocate scoring for the opponent - because I think thats demeaning and not worth upsetting the opponents feelings, but I do realize and understand why others may feel differently about this - and that is their choice.
What could have been done to eliminate this entire issue, is when they decided to go back to seeding using this method (it wasn't always like this), they could have used a formula that didn't encourage this kind of behaviour.
The problem with that is, there are times when point differential isn't the issue - its more a problem of what attributes the alliance has, and the number of robots that are working and play in the match.
On top of the problem with unbalanced alliances, often their are 3 team alliances, where 1 or 2 teams can carry the 3rd team to victory regardless of the score for either team. Scoring teams provide the next level of seeding for everyone in the alliance - even if some of them cannot score at all. This doesn't seem like a good way to determine which teams should be seeded above others - to me. Teams playing great defense don't get extra points for the team, but they do keep the score down (which is opposite of what the next level of seeding is based on). Something is wrong with this concept.
Using score differential as the next level tie breaker in seeding implies that the teams CAN score, but often that is NOT the case. 3 Defensive teams can win matches by outnumbering the scoring teams that have little or no help - 7 to 9, 8 to 10, whatever. Low scores with little point differential. The teams playing defense cannot afford to let the other team score for them and as the match progresses the teams are too busy trying to get enough of their own points, let alone worry about scoring for the other team.
I think if you are going to use the points for wins method to determine seeding, the second tier for ranking is going to be very difficult to determine and make it so everyone is going to be happy - perhaps just draw straws at the time of the alliance selection process would suffice and drop the formula scoring differential altogether as the tie breaker. All teams with 0 losses draw straws to determine which is higher ranked for alliance selection, then those with 1 loss, and on and on until the top 12 are determined - after all, beyond the top 12 seeding doesn't much matter.

[Bill Moore]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Please excuse me, but maybe FIRST is not for people who think that FIRST is not for someone else.

Isn't this statement a Catch-22 ?

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Ricksta121

One match many years ago during an offseason event, one of our partners yelled at the end of the match for our team to get in the other allinaces home zone. We ended up losing the match by a small margin and that created confusion and lack of trust for other teams.

This brings up a good point - MAKE SURE you are comfortably ahead before you start scoring for the opposition, especially this season. We obviously cannot always rely upon real time scoring to give us any true indication of how the match stands. To avoid any potential heartache/devastation/what have you out of your alliance should you score TOO MANY points for the opposition, make sure the scoring gap is wide enough to proceed, and don't get TOO greedy.

If this strategy backfires on any alliance that attempts it, they will have no one to blame but themselves. Be smart - know the risks before proceeding.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Kate771

I have pride. .. to have another team ...humiliate me by scoring for me, makes me lose respect for myself and my robot and alliance partners,

...the rules make it so that your robot .. cannot even have the dignity of losing respectfully, I don't much like the rule.

This sounds a bit like some weird Klingon or gladiator form of pride, where a warrior would rather be put to death by an opponent that led away on their feet as a loser.

In engineering you cannot guarantee results, all you can do is guarantee your best effort will be applied to the project. I have been on projects that did not turn out well, I have been on projects that were cancelled. We still had end-of-project parties, and we still had the same level of pride in our work

because we did the best we could under the circumstances.

Besides, sometimes no matter how good you are someone else will one-up you and do better. Sometimes pride is great. Sometimes humility is called for. No one can humiliate you if you are already humble in the presence of greatness.

[Kate00]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

This sounds a bit like some weird Klingon or gladiator form of pride, where a warrior would rather be put to death by an opponent that led away on their feet as a loser.

In engineering you cannot guarantee results, all you can do is guarantee your best effort will be applied to the project. I have been on projects that did not turn out well, I have been on projects that were cancelled. We still had end-of-project parties, and we still had the same level of pride in our work

because we did the best we could under the circumstances.

Besides, sometimes no matter how good you are someone else will one-up you and do better. Sometimes pride is great. Sometimes humility is called for. No one can humiliate you if you are already humble in the presence of greatness.

First off, I'm not a klingon or a gladiator. I'd like to hope I'm better looking then that. I may have too much pride in my robot, or just too much pride overall, I will admit that. I also have no problem in being blown-out, one-upped if my alliance/robot deserves it. I do have a problem with when they not only one-up me and do better, but also show that they recognized just how much better they are, and instead of holding back, score for me.

FIRST is not just engineering. FIRST is a sport, in which opposing teams play against each other. In hockey, in baseball, in soccer, opposing teams would never score for you, not only because they are competitive, but because they have respect for your effort.

I'm not saying that this is what would be going through the opposing team's minds when they score for you, but it's what some people will get out of it.

There is a fine line between humility and humiliation, and for some, who certainly have humility, this may cross that line.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Kate771

I do have a problem with when they not only one-up me and do better, but also show that they recognized just how much better they are, and instead of holding back, score for me.

but with the points system in this game they are not scoring for you, they are raising the score (points) that THEY will get.

If the other team did not get your points at the end of the match they dump points into your goal, then that would be weird (when they could dump them in their own goal instead).

How about the flip side of this, when a team knows they are going to lose, so they stop playing, knowing their low score will hurt the team that is beating them?

BTW, I was wondering - if you hold the reset button on the OI down, do the lights on the robot go off? Would it be possible for a robot to 'play dead' by doing this, and then come back to life, to win a close match?

[Kate00]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

but with the points system in this game they are not scoring for you, they are raising the score (points) that THEY will get.

If the other team did not get your points at the end of the match then dumping points into your score would be weird (when they could dump them in their own goal instead).

I definitely see your point. Yes, they are technically scoring points for themselves, but it is still demoralising when they send a barrage of poofballs towards your goal, on the scoreboard, giving you points. Ranking points are not displayed for everyone to cheer at - the game points are. When your alliance was so outplayed that the other team scored 30 points FOR you, you can no longer take credit for the score that is up there.

How about the flip side of this, when a team knows they are going to lose, so they stop playing, knowing their low score will hurt the team that is beating them?

If an alliance stops playing, knowing that the other team will be hurt by it, then they have already lowered the level of competition, and, as far as I am concerned, asked for their goal to be scored on. If they do not compete to the best of their abilities, to intentionally hurt the other team, they do not deserve to have pride.