<G14> during eliminations

[Mr. Freeman]

Originally Posted by Andy L

Have you ever been the team that is brutally beaten by the #1 alliance? It's not the best feeling, getting completely wrecked in the QFs.

Yes I have. No, it's not the best feeling, but a worse one would be for the other team to stop scoring because they're so far ahead of us. Even worse than having the other team stop scoring or being beaten would be for the other team to score for us because they're so far ahead.

Being beaten by the best is one thing, do do so poorly that the other team has to stop competing (or score for you), is another.

[Bob Steele]

Originally Posted by Andy L

I don't understand the big drama with <G14>, it seems to me like a rule people just aren't willing to give in that it's a rule.

I think I'd be looking for a bunch of G14s in my alliance partner pick.

I think people are over reacting to G14, and just move on.

My two cents

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. My questions in regard to G14 are not meant to be contrary to it. I just want to understand it as I understand any rule. With understanding of the way the rule will be used comes the ability to make a strategy to play the game.

In years past we have never had a penalty that would affect a different game than the one in which it occurred. This is new and I asked the GDC to determine how it would play out in eliminations.

I am not sure if it has occurred to many teams that you get a triple hit in eliminations from the rule. Alliances need to plan for this contingency.

As far as any action on the field being "morally" wrong... I believe that on the field you play by the rules... someone else has set those rules... and I don't think that we need to be mixing up the GDC with any "higher" power.

FIRST competition is about doing your best to succeed in the game. The only thing that most people don't see is that the "game" is the game of LIFE and not the robot game.

In the robot game you need to be cognizant of all the rules and how they play out. Strategies are just as important as that great "shooter" mechanism or that fantastic crab drive. Those are tributes to a fine team and a fine group of mentors working together to show students how real life works. Making strategies and working with other teams in Alliances is also a great exercise that speaks to us directly about what life is going to be.
All the pieces fit together so that students (and mentors) learn more about themselves so they can play the real game better...

I hope everyone learns a great deal from G14...
and from everything else they do in FIRST.... It is really all about the learning.... and the relationships we build with students and mentors...

Good luck in your build, your season and your life!!!

[spc295]

i still do not see why you would not ignore g14 and blow out the other allaince in qualification matches, in order to get a higher ranking.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

//snip// If you had a terrific alliance and outscored your opponents in the first round of quarterfinals 3X You would lose ALL of your supercells... 2 per team X 3 teams in your alliance... for a total of 6 lost supercells (I didn't ask the question if this would carry over to the next match.

Well, almost. Your alliance only has 4 Super Cells; you lose all of those. You also lose two of your 4 Empty Cells.

I can see an interesting strategy in which an alliance who has won the first match and seems to be losing the 2nd match dumps balls into its own alliance in order to gain the supercell advantage in the third match of the elimination.

Somewhat troublesome. I'm not sure what to do about that, or whether anything should be done about it.

I wonder how anyone is going to keep track of this during the qualifications...maybe they should have some kind of white flag they put on robots to identify them for future matches. A "2X" flag and a "3X flag" goes into your flag holder at the end of the match if you transgress.

Except that your flag holder gets left on the field with your trailer for the next team to use. (There is no on-robot flag holder this year.) A Q&A stated that the field management system would keep track of <G14>, but they haven't specified how that works.

Originally Posted by spc295

i still do not see why you would not ignore g14 and blow out the other allaince in qualification matches, in order to get a higher ranking.

Because you would not get a higher ranking. Read the rules on Qualifying Points and Ranking Points carefully (section 9.3). For several years it has been in a team's best interest to win while allowing their opponents to score a maximum number of points. <G14> only reinforces that.

[Adam Y.]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Somewhat troublesome. I'm not sure what to do about that, or whether anything should be done about it.

Fight fire with fire and do the same thing?

[Alan Anderson]

<G14> does not mention penalties. I wish people would stop referring to it as a "penalty rule".

I would call its provisions a "handicap", but it's not a penalty. I wouldn't even consider it a punishment. It seems to me like a reasonable experiment this year to try to help make the rankings better reflect the actual "consistent goodness factor" of a team and its robot. If you're really so good as to regularly outscore a competitive opponent by a factor of three, I don't think the loss of a couple of twenty-point bonus opportunities should upset you all that much.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

Or maybe they should just put a big 2x or 3x on the forehead of the commanders for the teams that will have disobeyed the rule...

Now that is a spectacular idea! I'm thinking some stickers or outrageous hats are in order.

But yes, the field will track the implications of <G14> as seen in this Q&A.*


*Update #3 had not been published when I wrote the question.

[Andy L]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

I can see an interesting strategy in which an alliance who has won the first match and seems to be losing the 2nd match dumps balls into its own alliance in order to gain the supercell advantage in the third match of the elimination.

I've seen this said all over the place, something like this just doesn't seem morally right to me

[IKE]

Originally Posted by Andy L

I've seen this said all over the place, something like this just doesn't seem morally right to me

Depends on your details within set of morals.
Point shaving is not morally right either, but this rule is essentially enforcing that.

Asking your students to not do their best might be considered morally wrong too, but you have said instead that is noble.

Should the #8 alliance have an equal shot as the #1 alliance? There is already a serpentine draft, now G14. Maybe the #1 alliance should have to wait 60 seconds before it is their turn to play.

========================================

All that being said, it is a rule and we should follow it. Some will use it as a strategy though. Many of the teams complaining the loudest remeber the 2002 game where you could nullify another teams victory by shaving points on your side (QPs were 3x the loosers score for the winners, and the loosers score for the loosers thus if the looser scored 0 it was like the match never happened).

[Koko Ed]

If your alliance is capable of pounding the opposing alliance into mush the previous match what does it matter if they have supercells if you can so readily outscore them with ease? They'll probably just probably be more inclined to score evenn more points so the supercells won't be a factor. I think the supercell is this year's stack. A major game component that'll end up not being as big a factor as it was first thought out to be.

[jgannon]

Enforcing <G14> during eliminations makes sense to me, kind of. Carrying <G14> over from the last qualifying match to elims doesn't at all. I can imagine that bubble teams (as in, teams you'd expect to be picked toward the end of the second round) being burned by playing their last qualifying match with a team that's too good to care about <G14>. Ed is right that super cells will probably not make as big of a difference as some are expecting, but all other things being equal, I'm going to pick the team that's bringing all their cells to our alliance.

[Andy L]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

If your alliance is capable of pounding the opposing alliance into mush the previous match what does it matter if they have supercells if you can so readily outscore them with ease?

EXACTLY what I was thinking

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

I wonder how anyone is going to keep track of this during the qualifications...maybe they should have some kind of white flag they put on robots to identify them for future matches. A "2X" flag and a "3X flag" goes into your flag holder at the end of the match if you transgress.

Your have to "wear" this badge of "dishonor" until your next match...

That'll be hard... though I guess each trailer can last several matches. Tracking which team is in which pole will be hard, though.

All right, own up: who's built a flag holder already when it's not required?

OK, I'll settle for the sticker...

[PhilBot]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

I can see an interesting strategy in which an alliance who has won the first match and seems to be losing the 2nd match dumps balls into its own alliance in order to gain the supercell advantage in the third match of the elimination.

My first reaction to this strategy was: "That's terrible, it's like throwing the match. How un-GP".

But then I started to wonder. A LOT of thoughts came to mind.

1) How practical is it to know the likely outcome of the game anyway. Even if the real-time scoring says 40-20, that's only a difference of 2 super-cells. Would you really have enough knowledge and determination to start scoring on yourselves, rather than trying to even the odds a bit and win with a super-cell or two.

2) Since the human players have control over the Super-Cells at the end, how quickly are you going to be able to assess their final scoring capability, and make the determination that you're better off NOT trying to win, but instead hold-back to get better handicap next game.

In other words, the final outcome of the game can be tipped either way with one or two well/badly placed super cells, so I think most teams would be hard pressed to back off. It will be a VERY HARD LESSON to learn.

But perhaps FIRST really is trying to get us to learn it.

FIRST is always about teaching us Life Lessons.

They tried "teamwork" in Aim High, making us help our alliances onto the ramp at the end. Exponential reward for additional robots.
---> Impromptu Cooperation...

They took it further in Rack 'n Roll, where we had to be innovative about lifting strategies so that unknown alliance robots could work together.
--> Cooperation by design...

I think this year they are teaching us that sometimes we need to PLAN to sacrifice our own "glory" to ensure that those around us also have a shot at success.
--> Strategic cooperation.

It's the ultimate "Not winning at all costs" lesson. You actually have to PLAN A STRATEGY to assist your compeditors so that you can both succeed.

Phew..... I get it.

Phil.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

I wonder how anyone is going to keep track of this during the qualifications...maybe they should have some kind of white flag they put on robots to identify them for future matches. A "2X" flag and a "3X flag" goes into your flag holder at the end of the match if you transgress.

Your have to "wear" this badge of "dishonor" until your next match...

Or maybe they should just put a big 2x or 3x on the forehead of the commanders for the teams that will have disobeyed the rule...

I love this idea.

It's like an awesome indicator.

Except that instead of being from one's ego, it would have been mandated by the rules.

And just to clarify, if you are at the receiving end of G14, you aren't breaking or disobeying any rules. The rule clearly states a condition for which the number of available bonus balls is dependent on your alliance's score ratio. Regardless of whether you are on one side of that ratio or not, you aren't breaking any rules.

EDIT:

If you had a terrific alliance and outscored your opponents in the first round of quarterfinals 3X You would lose ALL of your supercells... 2 per team X 3 teams in your alliance... for a total of 6 lost supercells (I didn't ask the question if this would carry over to the next match.

I can see an interesting strategy in which an alliance who has won the first match and seems to be losing the 2nd match dumps balls into its own alliance in order to gain the supercell advantage in the third match of the elimination.

If the alliance really is good, then why would they even have to sandbag their second match? Why not just score into their normal goals and just win? Even if they don't show a blowout in their second match, a win is still a win, and all you need is two to move onward and upward.