ok, I created this thread to see what others oppinions on this matter are. I DID NOT WANT ANY FINGER POINTING!! Sorry team 519 for any accusing. I heard about that match but didn’t hit me cause it was the only high scored over 300. Watching the Central florida one with many high scoring matches made me wonder. Sorry again.
A quick way to get rid of all the controversy would be to change the scoring so that a team gets their score and thats it.
End of story.
We don’t need the current aggravation.
Let’s just score the competition the way these things are done in the sports world. I haven’t heard of any baseball teams getting their score plus double the opponents.
I think it is time to put this particular turkey (scoring system) to rest.
In the meantime, let’s all keep our cool, as the saying goes, and not make accusations.
Even if a team says they made agreements with the opposing alliance, the rules do not currently prohibit that.
The problem as I see it is that a few teams are playing a team of 4 game, whereas most are playing 2-on-2. That causes confusion which can lead players to suspect any high score as “arranged”. However there can easily be a high score without agreements, so NO FINGER POINTING, okay?
Let us hope that we hear from FIRST concerning its original intentions for this year’s game. Obviously there is no way to tell for sure if a high score is “arranged” or not, but if FIRST were to let all the teams know what their basic intention was for this year’s game with regards to opposing alliances making agreements, that should help to get us all operating on the same basis, using the same rules. Without that basic agreement, it is hard to maintain harmony.
Then we need to get the scoring changed!
Wow! I am glad we didn’t run into this last year.
*Originally posted by DougHogg *
**A quick way to get rid of all the controversy would be to change the scoring so that a team gets their score and thats it.End of story. **
You know, after all the years of complicated scoring, either way the scoring goes, your gonna score. Its gonna be the same. Its just the amounts change. Plus, changing it to just getting your scored would make it a lot easier for people watching for the first time.
Good simple thinking Doug
If each team gets their own score, that will only make matters worse. If you say “I won’t touch your stacks if you don’t touch mine,” it is all the easier to say yes, and you will ALWAYS reap the benefits in that case. You no longer would even have to worry about winning the match.
The best idea I can come up with is to just go with a scoring system similar to all sports out there: 2 (or 3) points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for a loss. That way, maximizing points for both sides doesn’t help both sides, and immediately stops any possibility for collusion. Then at the end of the competition, points are used as a tiebreaker (e.g. 3 teams are undefeated at the end of competition, and whoever has the greatest point differential is in first).
Of course, in the larger competitions where teams don’t play as many matches, the number of teams tied at a certain position increases, placing more emphasis on points, but at least there is less emphasis than there is now.
Also, SGK, the 10 second human player limit is for autonomous mode. If you are not back in 10 seconds, your robot does not start its autonomous. If you get back within 15 seconds, then your robot does not start in autonomous mode, but DOES start in remote control mode. So, all of the teams who did not have an autonomous mode programmed in their robot did not have to worry about getting back in 10 seconds, and thus took their sweet time, and just make sure they got back before the 15 seconds were up.
I watched a couple of the super high QP matches of the Central Florida and they were incredibly boring. Teams carefully drove around their opponents delicate human player stack of 8 so as not to disturb it. They fought hard on the top of the ramp to fit everyone in.
The collusion in these matches is insanely blatant. :mad: At least pretend to compete by pushing each other around a bit. **Watching fixed matches is like watching Professional Wrestling without the violence. **
Not all the high scores were fixed but some certainly were. Replic is absolutely correct that finger pointing only makes everyone mad and defensive so no good comes out of it.
After one of the matches the announcer said something to the effect of :
“The 3 highest scores in the nation have been right here at the Central Florida Regional. That is because we have the best teams right here.”
That statement was unbelievably disturbing. Manipulating the QP system was taking the spotlight off those who worked hard building great bots and putting it on those who could bargain their way to the top of the standings. Without fixing matches it would take a great deal of luck to achieve those high scores so the best teams with the best bots there were not necessarily getting that luck so they had reasonable lower scores that no one notices.
If FIRST wants to move into the realm where this event is televised on a commercial station, they needs to stop match fixing because no one wants to watch a sport where teams dont try their hardest to beat each other. FIRST needs to abandon the policy of giving the winner points based on the loser’s score or go back to the 4 team alliances of 2001. Sure this QP system keeps more capable bots from blowing away less capable bots, which would discourage the less capable bot makers from competing. However, awarding QP’s based on the loser’s score has lead to the “chokehold” strategy (score 0 so the other bots get 0) of last year and match fixing this year. Koci has the right idea for a qualifing system. Unfortunately, it depends too much on the strength of schedule in your random pairings, but what are you gonna do? Please dont say BCS system. At least FIRST didnt make the same mistake as I-A College football.
P.S. Strange how quickly so many threads turn into ones about match fixing isnt it?
Unfortunately, the simple solution of keeping your own score only complicates the matter. If you think about it, it makes fixing matches much more tempting. Not only this, but the amount of ties for posistions will be much greater. There may be, depending on the game (if similar to 2002), several exact ties for 1st.
Also, a team that dominates 100% of the game would gain more. Meaning- you can shut out the opponnent and get no reprucussion for it. This is the exact opposite of what FIRST wants. They do not want shut outs!
Sorry for my poor writing and spelling, for I am tired.
Repubic
FOR THE LOVE OF… LOL Can ANYONE get my name right on the first try? Geez, go type it in google and get a ton of hits (the first one being my web page).
*Originally posted by Koci *
**If each team gets their own score, that will only make matters worse. If you say “I won’t touch your stacks if you don’t touch mine,” it is all the easier to say yes, and you will ALWAYS reap the benefits in that case. You no longer would even have to worry about winning the match.The best idea I can come up with is to just go with a scoring system similar to all sports out there: 2 (or 3) points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for a loss. That way, maximizing points for both sides doesn’t help both sides, and immediately stops any possibility for collusion. Then at the end of the competition, points are used as a tiebreaker (e.g. 3 teams are undefeated at the end of competition, and whoever has the greatest point differential is in first).
**
Hm… good thinking. That would be better. I hereby change my vote to your point system.
*Originally posted by Koci *
**If each team gets their own score, that will only make matters worse. If you say “I won’t touch your stacks if you don’t touch mine,” it is all the easier to say yes, and you will ALWAYS reap the benefits in that case. You no longer would even have to worry about winning the match.The best idea I can come up with is to just go with a scoring system similar to all sports out there: 2 (or 3) points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for a loss. That way, maximizing points for both sides doesn’t help both sides, and immediately stops any possibility for collusion. Then at the end of the competition, points are used as a tiebreaker (e.g. 3 teams are undefeated at the end of competition, and whoever has the greatest point differential is in first).
Of course, in the larger competitions where teams don’t play as many matches, the number of teams tied at a certain position increases, placing more emphasis on points, but at least there is less emphasis than there is now.
**
I can see where you’re coming from. I still think this will make teams think about doing only the bare minimum to win a game. FIRST wants high excitement- high scoring close rounds that are constantly moving, fast, furious, and not fixed. In other words- they are trying to remove the domination team and level the playing field while bringing in more and more viewers.
Sorry about writing three messages in a row people. I simply did not see the messages before each sending.
*Originally posted by Replic *
**FOR THE LOVE OF… LOL Can ANYONE get my name right on the first try? Geez, go type it in google and get a ton of hits (the first one being my web page). **
Sorry about that. I am a horible typer and rely on the spell check to correct that. It doesnt work for names. I actually noticed it and edited it before i read ur last post.
im sorry but just because the human player stacks stay up does not mean that the match was fixed. im sure a few matches were but its not fair to say that they all were.
more teams are beginnning to realize that leaving your opponents stacks up is very beneficial for their own score. in a match we had today at Great Lakes we had a score of 75 to 85, with both teams still having a stack of 5 in their zone and 0 robots on top(neither team counted due to a pushign match on top where both were touching the ramp). they werent up because the match was fixed they were up because it was a close match(2 bin difference) each team had a robot protecting the stacks and both teams were willing to take the risk of losing for a high QP.
if teams were more focused on a high score they would leave their opponents stacks up if it was a close match. if you loose you may still have a high score (75 instead of 17) and if you win you would get 150 from your opponent rather than 34
just my feelings, leave em up unless you absolutely need the win and arent willing to risk a possible loss
Has anyone thought that FIRST could be pairing the teams like they are on purpose. Because at kickoff I distinctly remember hearing that the game this year will not be fair. Maybe this is just an extension of that same idea.
As a member of 762 (one of the teams with in Florida with high scores) and the winner of the seeding matches. I feel obliged to say that there was no collusion in our matches. One of our higher scores was won by one of our opponent’s robot not functioning and the other was tipped upside down in autonomous mode. After that it was easy for us to take advantage of the situation to maximize our score. Another of our top scoring matches was won by good strategic blocking of our highest stack.
As the Florida Driver of My team ( 710 ) I will say that fixing on saturday did go on in just about every single match that took place today…
It started with one of the first matches ( won’t mention it ) and a when judge came to look at our bot later she even comented that they most likely had made an agreement
The fixing that went on is plain and simple No one knocks over stacks everyone gets a big score get as many bots as you can to the top, the only thing it did was guarentee high score for the winner, it did nothing to actually dertimine the outcome of the game
Dan
*Originally posted by chriscauf *
**Has anyone thought that FIRST could be pairing the teams like they are on purpose. Because at kickoff I distinctly remember hearing that the game this year will not be fair. Maybe this is just an extension of that same idea. **
FIRST would not, under any circumstances, expect one team to do better than another. In other words, they don’t play favorites in any way.
… how honest and fair the chief delphi driver coach is, those accusations would not have been claimed. I should know, I’m his son.
I am not mad about the accusation, and can sympathize with some that may want to look at the situation in the light you did. 304 qualifying points was untouched all weekend. But I can assure you that it was (as team 519 put it earlier) pure luck.
In order to do what people have claimed to have happened, this is what needed to occur…
-
Both teams would need to know exactly how many bins each team had in scoring position… not an easy task with so many obsticals in the way.
-
If they wanted to really run the score up, why choose stacks of 4 and not the Florida version stacks of 8? By the way, those watching the match in question would have seen Delphi take out an opponents stack of three (not being able to see the stack of 4 out of sight on the other side of the field behind another robot)…
-
All teams would have had to AGREE to let each other on the ramp… if you can say that happend you were watching a different match!
All in all, I am 200% positive that no collusion was involved and I believe that by looking at the facts so can anyone else. I thought that the Great Lakes regional was very well played by every team in attendance.
It appears to me, that there is alot about this particular game that forces each person to check themselves and what level of morality they put on this competition.
If asked if they would change anything about the game, now that they seen it, would FIRST change anything at all? I wouldn’t, if I were them.
Why should they? I believe they have accomplished exactly what they wanted to do. Part of which is, providing you… the teams… with choices and grey areas. That’s ethics, that’s life, and I commend them if that was their intent! And you thought this game was all about knocking over a wall of plastic tubs…
Live with the fact that FIRST will not change the scoring system. Imagine the NFL announcing that field goals were worth 6 points right smack-dab in the middle of the season.
The only way to resolve this conflict would be to have everyone sign a agreement… and that’s not likely to happen- Team 68 has already tried valiantly…
Remember that if one, one team says no, the match cannot be fixed. You all have the chance to be that one team.
Well put.
First of all, the petition DID work in AZ.
Second, I really like what Jason said
I believe they have accomplished exactly what they wanted to do. Part of which is, providing you… the teams… with choices and grey areas. That’s ethics, that’s life, and I commend them if that was their intent! And you thought this game was all about knocking over a wall of plastic tubs…
Although I do not believe it was FIRST’s intent, I think that a lot of kids (and mentors, too) have learned something about ethical behavior. I think we should continue in this spirit and try to turn this into a positive learning experience for all of us.
This “fixing” matches in my opinion has gone to far here. Loo, some teams will do it, it is very tempting. I say, accept it happens and move on. It has been obvious this year that teams that should be winning arn’t, it is just the game. Since everyone seems to have a solution, I figure I may as well give mine. 
Those opposed to “fixing” matches, don’t do it; I know my team won’t, but also don’t accuse a high scoring match to be fixed. Let’s just be Gracious Professionals, smile and move on! That’s my $0.02.