Curie, match 100.
It’s funny how i see myself recording in that video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9EGAPBwgFU (HD 720p… i have a copy at 60fps, where can i upload where it would show that?)
I didn’t see much of the blue alliance, except for 1114. From the video, it appears they had communication trouble?
I guess because of this 1114 decided to help red score goals to increase their seeding score as a last-resort plan, turning a 1 vs 3 into a 4 vs 0. I guess it had the unintended side effect of possibly setting a record number of goals?
The other two blue alliance members were blocking the blue goals to stop red from scoring in them. 1114 decided on this strategy before the match in order to maximize seeding points as Karthik posted in the Curio 2010 thread.
Would have been awesome to see it in person!
Please look closely at the crowd gathered around the field to watch. The dome tilted a little to the northwest during that match.
yeah… i was there… you might be able to see me filming this but the energy was absolutely insane… people from all the divisions came to see this match… and Dana, not to be rude, but the final score was 29-0… not 28-0… but to everyone that was there… it was the match of the year
An excellent match! The one match I REALLY wanted to watch that day. I was wondering if 1114 was going to take their first loss of the year to go 6v0, soar up in ranking points, or go against them, chance a loss anyways, and not go up as far in seeding points. Nevertheless, it was an amazing match.
I, kinda, find it sad that what should have been the best contest of the year ended up being an exhibition.
Before anyone says I’m hating on these teams, I understand that it is a strategic decision (and a good one, from the teams point of view), I just wish it could have been more of an epic clash.
I totally agree, Daniel. Not much “tition” in the coopertition…
I don’t understand what’s invalid about competing against the whole field of teams by strategically maximizing your seeding points rather than competing against just three teams in a given match. It seems to me that both are competitive strategies, but if you’re trying to win the competition, only one makes sense.
I agree, last I checked losing 25 to 0 using 6v0 is better for both alliances than having two amazing robots tie. Case in point, team 217 and 469 at the Troy District. Qualification 20 they are against each other and play their hearts out and tied 5 to 5. Then in qualification 45 they were again against each other and play 6v0, the score was 25 to 0. In this case 217 and 469 each got 15 seeding points in the first match followed by 217 getting 25 points in the next match while 469 received 30. 1114 was very wise in their strategy of play since they were playing 469 along with 111 whom they were competing for position in the top 8.
Was 6v0 considered when the GDC created this game and seeding system, probably not as no one ever thinks of scoring for the other alliance in a tight match up. If we were using the old system of W-L-T, 6v0 would be nonexistent. There were no rules being pushed or broken, only outside the box thinking which is something we should be promoting among FIRST students and engineers, not hindering. Don’t judge some of the best teams in FIRST for how they play the game and use the seeding system to the best of its ability.
I highly doubt that especially since they patented the term “coopertition” last year and this is not the first time they’ve done this. It was either 2000 or 2001 and the game was called coopertition FIRST and it was a 4v0 game (no 3 team alliances yet). I didn’t participate that year but the whole “strategy” was for all 4 teams to work together.
Going with the coopertition theme:
The bumps were a pretty effective way to get alliances to work together, in order to score you had to pass the ball from one zone to another where your teammate could score it. This year more than others it was next to impossible for a single robot to carry an alliance due to the bumps (not all balls being in 1 place). This was a great field element that was very challenging but also forced teams to work together in order to achieve the goal.
I didn’t say it was ‘invalid’ (strawman argument). In fact, I stated that I understood the strategy. I was just was hoping for a competition, not an exhibition on how to shoot goals. If thats what we wanted why not just webcast the practice fields.
I didn’t mean to address you, specifically, as this is a discussion I’ve seen played out a few times – and some in response to my team’s own strategies at two events.
The part I don’t understand is how people don’t see this sort of thing as competition in the first place. The matches we play don’t exist in a vacuum and the results from each – this season more than any in recent years – are more important than simply scoring higher than your opponent. I’m sure you understand all of that and my post was simply to illustrate to folks that may not always see the bigger picture that any one person’s view of what “competition” actually is may be different than any other.
Originally I too had the impression that 6v0 was a strategy they had come up with to fall under the category of “Coopertition” with scoring for the other alliance to boost your score, but after reading this post 34 by Josh Fox (sorry, I don’t know how to just post a link to his exact post and searched but can’t find out how), he says that Woodie Flowers told team RUSH in a discussion that 6v0 was not intended or desired by this years game. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85368&page=3&highlight=Woodie+Flowers
I was very confused after reading this because I thought that 6v0 was a form of Coopertition on the playing field.
I agree … to a point.
The definition of ‘competition’ is probably the sticking point. Many see each match as a competition, while others see the regional/championship as the competition. Thus they have very different goals during each match.
The point I was trying to get at (and probably failing miserably) is that if FIRST wants a ‘spectator friendly’ competition, then they should create rules that foster/nurture that type of game/strategy. The rules, as they stand, create a strategic disconnect with attempting to win every match since it may be in an alliances interest to not play for the win.
Again, I understand the strategy and I understand why some will employ it (just like stuffing a defender into the goal … to get stuck). It’s a strategy, and it’s valid, but it’s also one that challanges ones ideals of what a ‘competition’ is about.
Not to nitpick, but they each got 15 seeding points in the 5-5 match (assuming no penalties)
The one quarl i may have about this post is If those Canucks were playing for the win, we would prbably get something like 18-13. an exciting match taht woudl fill up the seats. but it wouldn’t have it’s own thread on Chief.
On the other hand, what we saw on friday afternoon was truly exciting. It was the story of the Championships until alliance selection on Saturday morning. As great as QM 119 on Archimedes was, It was not talked about to the extent taht this match was. I was on the dome floor when taht match finished and heard people say “yesterday’s match was better”.
6v0 or 4v2 may not have been intended by the GDC. but it showed taht FIRST teams really do think outside the box and use unique stratedgies when they need them.
If you want to bring people to the stands (or the floor for that matter). you have to put on a show, case and point 18-13 wouldn’t have the sizzle that 29-0 had.
If people haven’t figured out that this game isn’t all about winning, please try to go undefeated winning matches 3-0 or 4-0… let me know how high up in the standings you are.
EDIT: speaking of Archimedes match 119. I should have that up on my youtube channel tonight.
I completely agree with you.
I have the utmost respect for 1114 and absolutely agree that they made the right strategic decision in this match; however, as a (webcast) viewer I was completely disappointed. 469 when paired with a quality scorer (like 111) was a juggernaut versus arguably the best all around robot in 1114. With supporting cast this had all the makings of a prize fight. Could 1114 starve the cycle where others had failed? How high could 111 and 469 go? Unfortunately, it ended with a KO in the first round with smiles and big paychecks all around (okay so maybe a little too much on the metaphor). I mean 32-0 pre-penalties was cool but 217-469 put up 26 through solid defense in MI districts and 1718-16-343 put up 34 pre-penalties without the benefit of 469 on Newton. For me, this will always be a memorable match for what might have been…