Posted by Makana.
Student on team #359 from Waialua High School.
Posted on 1/25/2000 6:14 PM MST
I was wondering, if your robot drops a piece of sheet
metal which is still attatched to it by hinges, and its
alliance partner climbs onto that piece of metal. Is
that considered off of the playing surface and
therefore worth 10 point
Posted by Joe Johnson. [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
Posted on 1/25/2000 6:52 PM MST
In Reply to: A hypothetical Question posted by Makana on 1/25/2000 6:14 PM MST:
I think that this meets the definition of hanging given so, yes it would be worth 10 points.
I have a broader question though.
WHEN would teams use this strategy?
During the seeding matches, if a team is already winning, there is no point to doing this (winning by 1 or 10 or even 20 is all the same).
If a team is losing by less than 10, then perhaps it makes sense, but it also invites another team to come beat the tar out of you and your alliance partner.
I suppose that if you are quick and are losing by less than 5 points and your opponents are both on the ramp, it could be a great advantage. If one or both of the opponents comes off the ramp to try to stop you from getting your 10, then you ‘gain’ 5 by their getting off the ramp. If they they sit on the ramp watching, you pass them by gaining 10 points.
As you can see, I really don’t know how this whole thing is going to play out.
If you have strategy thoughts why don’t you share them?
Joe J.
Posted by Quentin Lewis.
Engineer on team #42, P.A.R.T.S - Prececision Alvirne Robotics Technology Systems, from Alvirne, Hudson NH.
Posted on 1/26/2000 7:35 AM MST
In Reply to: Sounds okay to me posted by Joe Johnson on 1/25/2000 6:52 PM MST:
: As you can see, I really don’t know how this whole thing is going to play out.
: If you have strategy thoughts why don’t you share them?
I see it as just another tool in your toolbox. You might bever take it out, but it is there for you, and it is much more in your control than say climbing on the bar. (especially if it is a ‘hidden feature’)
Posted by Karthik Kanagasabapathy.
Other from Sigh… No Team For Me.
Posted on 1/27/2000 6:23 AM MST
In Reply to: Sounds okay to me posted by Joe Johnson on 1/25/2000 6:52 PM MST:
How about this scenario, a team is winning by more than ten points, they lower their ramp-like device, in an effort to entice their opponent to get on. The winning alliance then receives 3x10 extra points, while the losing team increases their score by 10, which could marginally help if they were on the border of the top 8/16, or make them seem like a more attractive alliance partner.
Since I’m not on a team this year, (I’m suffering through major FIRST withdrawl) I haven’t been a part of any strategy discussions. In general are you expecting teams to keep scoring, even if they are losing by an insurmountable amount towards the end of a match. Where is the line between trying better yours and your partner’s chances and not adhering to the code of gracious professionalism?
-Karthik
Posted by Raul.
Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.
Posted on 1/27/2000 2:42 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: Sounds okay to me posted by Karthik Kanagasabapathy on 1/27/2000 6:23 AM MST:
I don’t see anything wrong with this scenario. How can it be wrong if both alliances gain? I know that most who are losing will do everything possible to maximize their points and maybe something goes wrong for their opponents in the last few seconds and they win after all.
Raul
Posted by Karthik Kanagasabapathy.
Other from Sigh… No Team For Me.
Posted on 1/27/2000 6:42 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: Sounds okay to me posted by Raul on 1/27/2000 2:42 PM MST:
Try this scenario out:
Team X comes into the last qualifying match(lets assume they’re having a total of 6 matches) of the day in 4th place with an average of 36 qp/match (it sounds kind of low, but let’s try it out).
Team Y comes into the same match, in 5th place with a 30 qp/match average.
At about the 1:45 second mark of the match, Team Y is leading Team X 40-12. If the match were to end at this point, Team X’s average would drop to 32 qp/match, while Y’s would raise to 31 qp/match. As it stands, Team X still leads Team Y in the overall standings.
But, if Team X were to hang within the last few seconds, the score would then become 40-22. This would result in Team X’s final score being 33.7 qp/match, while Team Y’s score would jump to 36 qp/match.
In this scenario, it seems that it is in Team X’s best interests to lay dormant towards the end of the match. Now, the chances of everything working out this way are slim, but as we all know, strange things can happen at the competitions.
Just something to think about.
-Karthik
Posted by Joe Johnson. [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
Posted on 1/27/2000 6:59 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: Sounds okay to me posted by Karthik Kanagasabapathy on 1/27/2000 6:42 PM MST:
The scenario gets worse with the-drop-your-lowest-score rule put in the mix.
If team X is slightly ahead in the rankings and has all fairly consistent scores, it has ‘one to give’ while Team Y may have already had their bad luck dose for the day where they scored a 0. As long as Team Y has done well in all their other matches the 0 score has not hurt them.
BUT… if Team X (in 4th place) is playing in the same match as Team Y (in 5th place) for the last match of the day, then Team X is in a very strange position. Regardless of the pairings, Team X can work to see that Team Y never has a chance to advance.
Team X can either work to pile on the score and win 45-0 if the teams are partners or lose 45-0 if the teams are on opposite alliances. Either way, Team X has nothing to loose by forgetting about the score of the match and focusing on lowering Team Y’s Q-points.
Question:
Is it within the scope of gracious professionalism to maximize your chances of winning the tournament (by having the highest seeding position possible) using such strategies?
Your opinions welcome.
Joe J.
Posted by Raul.
Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.
Posted on 1/27/2000 7:53 PM MST
In Reply to: It is worse than you know… posted by Joe Johnson on 1/27/2000 6:59 PM MST:
So, are you saying that a team would rather lower someone else’s QP by losing rather than possibly raising their own position maybe to 3rd seed by winning bigger than some of their other good scores?
To answer your question: In the spirit of FIRST, one should not hurt their alliance partner intentionally by manipulating the score (unless the alliance partner agrees with the losing strategy?). However, I think all is fair if they are on opposing alliances.
Raul
Posted by Joe Johnson. [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
Posted on 1/27/2000 8:48 PM MST
In Reply to: Only if one is really mean and want enemies posted by Raul on 1/27/2000 7:53 PM MST:
Raul,
I agree. We should always play to win. Even if losing is potentially in your best interest (at least in terms of the race for Q-point ranking).
One thing the new rule on picking teams being in the pool of potential pickee teams has done is that it will greatly reduce the incentive to NOT make the top 8 (or 16 at the Nationals).
I can tell you that at the Great Lakes regional and again at the Rumble at the Rock, there was a significant fraction of our team who would have rather NOT made it to the top 8/16 so that we could have been picked by a higher seed team. In fact, even I cheered at the Rumble when we thought (mistakenly) that we had been bumped out of the pickers into the pickee group.
With the new rule, I expect teams to be playing to win all the way through the seeding rounds.
My two cents.
Joe J.
Posted by Joshua Berthiaume.
Student on team #131, Chaos, from Manchester Central HS and Osram Sylvainia.
Posted on 1/25/2000 7:05 PM MST
In Reply to: A hypothetical Question posted by Makana on 1/25/2000 6:14 PM MST:
Yeah It is okay. Someone asked a question about it in an update and the answer is yes, I am pretty sure thats what it said, but you should check one of the updates to be sure. I think it was either in Update #1 or #2.
Josh
Team 131
Posted by Joshua Berthiaume.
Student on team #131, Chaos, from Manchester Central HS and Osram Sylvainia.
Posted on 1/25/2000 7:06 PM MST
In Reply to: A hypothetical Question posted by Makana on 1/25/2000 6:14 PM MST:
Yeah It is okay. Someone asked a question about it in an update and the answer is yes, I am pretty sure thats what it said, but you should check one of the updates to be sure. I think it was either in Update #1 or #2.
Josh
Team 131
Posted by Dodd Stacy.
Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.
Posted on 1/26/2000 6:26 AM MST
In Reply to: A hypothetical Question posted by Makana on 1/25/2000 6:14 PM MST:
Makana,
I agree with the others - that’s ‘off the playing field’ for your ally and 10 points for your alliance. And Joe is right - it’s going to be interesting how this tactic will play out.
Be careful tho’. If your opponent climbs up on the ramp piece that your robot lowers, it’s 10 points for them! I expect to see some spirited last second maneuvering as your ally and one opponent both try to get on, and your bot moves to help get the right outcome. It’s a + or - 10 point gambit. Should be good for some very exciting play. Make your little guy good and stout back there. Good luck.
Dodd