Is this in the spirit of things...

FIRST General Forum
1

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 1/11/2000 6:24 PM MST

Let’s suppose that a particular match has 4 teams in line, two strong offensive teams, two strong defensive teams.

As it turns out, the offensive teams get paired together, leaving the defensive teams together.

The defensive teams look at each other and realize that they have about a 50% chance of winning but that the likely result will be that they will win with a very low score (likely to be in the low single digits)

These teams decide therefore not to try to win. In fact, they make it very clear to the other two teams that they intend only to park on the ramp and wait for the two minutes to pass (hoping that they offensive teams will believe them and rack up a 40-39 score).

Note that in this case, the 39 Qualifying points is more than they could have expected from WINNING.

Question: Is this kind of behavior in the spirit of FIRST?

Comments welcome.

Joe J.

Is this how

2

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 1/11/2000 6:36 PM MST

In Reply to: Is this in the spirit of things… posted by Joe Johnson on 1/11/2000 6:24 PM MST:

P.S. Yes I know that the offensive alliance will have trouble deciding if the defensive alliance is ‘playing possum’ and Yes I also know that the temptation for the defensive team to change their mind and tip the scales at the last minute will also be very great.

But, for the moment, let’s assume that these are honorable cheaters in that they would not dream of using such deceptions for their own gain.

The question at hand is a larger one: Is it within the spirit of the competition to maximize your Qualifying Points in ways that are not against the rules but do not involve trying to win.

JJ

3

Posted by Tony K.

Student on team #292, PantherTech, from Western High School and DaimlerChrysler.

Posted on 1/11/2000 6:51 PM MST

In Reply to: P.S. yes I thought of that… posted by Joe Johnson on 1/11/2000 6:36 PM MST:

No, it definitely isn’t, and I also mentioned this in my earlier post. It seems to me that this year’s scoring system can cause a few problems. Although it involves more calculation on the offense’s part (in any qualifying match), it can also rasie an interesting avenue for some teams to take for when they feel that they ‘just can’t make it.’ Although Dean mentioned that DQ-ing yourself will result in a 3x opposing score, they can’t prove this as cheating.

Again, I don’t like this new scoring :wink:

Tony

: P.S. Yes I know that the offensive alliance will have trouble deciding if the defensive alliance is ‘playing possum’ and Yes I also know that the temptation for the defensive team to change their mind and tip the scales at the last minute will also be very great.

: But, for the moment, let’s assume that these are honorable cheaters in that they would not dream of using such deceptions for their own gain.

: The question at hand is a larger one: Is it within the spirit of the competition to maximize your Qualifying Points in ways that are not against the rules but do not involve trying to win.

: JJ

4

Posted by Marc DeSchamp.

Other on team #125, someone who remembers Ramp N Roll, from Northeastern University and Textron Systems with the kids from Boston Latin School, Brookline High, and Milton Academy.

Posted on 1/12/2000 11:46 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: P.S. yes I thought of that… posted by Tony K on 1/11/2000 6:51 PM MST:

I agree that this year’s scoring system is confusing and impractical. For a couple of years, the folks at FIRST have said they were looking for a simple way to score the game, such that anyone walking by would be able to understand. Well, I think they missed again this year.
The idea of ‘yellow = 1, black = 5’ is legitimate, the hanging robots giving you poins is fine, but the average spectator is going to be mightily confused by the idea of a team scoring points for its opponents because the winner’s score is affected by the loser’s. It’s just not something you see anywhere else, certainly not in sports (which is what this event is so often compared to).
And yes, it definitely impacts the amount of trust teams will feel toward one another. The first time someone gets taken to the cleaner the way Joe describes, the entire attitude of the game is going to be affected. We all like to think that it won’t be, but reallistically speaking, we know that everyone will be thinking ‘I wonder if that’s going to happen to us.’
But hey, maybe I’m just a pessimist. Maybe it won’t come up. I would prefer it that way too. But I think it unlikely.

5

Posted by Thomas A. Frank.

Engineer on team #121, The Islanders/Rhode Warrior, from Middletown (RI) High School and Naval Undersea Warfare Center.

Posted on 1/11/2000 7:05 PM MST

In Reply to: P.S. yes I thought of that… posted by Joe Johnson on 1/11/2000 6:36 PM MST:

: The question at hand is a larger one: Is it within the spirit of the competition to maximize your Qualifying Points in ways that are not against the rules but do not involve trying to win.

Joe;

I would opine that this is a strategic decision, and fully within both the letter and spirit of the rules. Sometimes, in business (or in war), you simply back away…discretion is the better part of valor, that sort of thing…

Which leads into an observation of my own - the decision to disqualify a team if they decline to be allied when picked. This is the most absurd decision by FIRST (meaning Dean). Let’s say you’re the #2 seed. Your machine is highly optimized for one particular piece of the action. You know that another team is the perfect compliment to you. Together you can rule the field. So you really want to pick them. Then the #1 seed comes along and picks you.

Not only have you lost the opportunity to team with who you ideally want to, you’ve lost control over your own destiny. You are not the alliance captain…you have no say over the third team member…and even if you do convince the #1 seed to pick your ideal partner, what do you think the odds are that the alliance captain’s team will sit out and let you and your ideal mate fight for the glory?

This seriously diminishes the value of your seeding position, other than being #1.

In the real world, if you decline a job offer, it DOESN’T mean you never work again! Indeed, sometimes it gets you a better offer. FIRST should be the same way.

(Perhaps Dean approves of leveraged buyouts)

I find this particular twist highly unfair, and actually somewhat offensive.

I would like to see the rule changed to allow the top 8 seeds the option of declining without disqualification.

Tom Frank

6

Posted by Chris.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 1/12/2000 5:49 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: P.S. yes I thought of that…(FIRST, Please read!) posted by Thomas A. Frank on 1/11/2000 7:05 PM MST:

: I would like to see the rule changed to allow the top 8 seeds the option of declining without disqualification.

: Tom Frank

I agree that the top 8 seeds should be allowed to decline. The rest of the field should be disqualified if they choose to decline, but the top 8 should be allowed to do as they wish since they earned the right to pick their ideal partner.

7

Posted by Thomas A. Frank.

Engineer on team #121, The Islanders/Rhode Warrior, from Middletown (RI) High School and Naval Undersea Warfare Center.

Posted on 1/12/2000 11:46 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: (FIRST, Please read!) – Couldn’t Agree More. posted by Chris on 1/12/2000 5:49 AM MST:

: I agree that the top 8 seeds should be allowed to decline. The rest of the field should be disqualified if they choose to decline, but the top 8 should be allowed to do as they wish since they earned the right to pick their ideal partner.

Hello All;

And the scenario gets worse still…let’s say you are the #1 seed, and you know that teamed with someone way down the list (say #50) you are unbeatable. You also know that the only threat to your victory is the #2 seed…so you pick the #2 seed, your ideal partner (#50), and then you play with #50 while #2 sits out.

Not much fun, nor very fair, for the #2 seed, now is it? But it’s perfectly legal under the rules, and it IS a VERY viable strategy.

Tom Frank

8

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/12/2000 12:58 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: (FIRST, Please read!) – Couldn’t Agree More. posted by Thomas A. Frank on 1/12/2000 11:46 AM MST:

That doesn’t just apply to the #2 seed!

That is a good pessimistic scenario (don’t get me wrong, I like it), and it can happen to any seed, not just the top 8. This was another common reason used way back when, at the beginning of this whole no-rejection ruling last year. Think about it.

-DL

PS - I wish we didn’t have to worry about things like this. Can’t everyone just be nice??? =)

9

Posted by Lora Knepper.

Student on team #69, HYPER, from Quincy Public Schools and The Gillette Company.

Posted on 1/12/2000 5:17 PM MST

In Reply to: why do you say top 8/16?? posted by Daniel on 1/12/2000 12:58 PM MST:

That thought scares me, now that I think about it. The only way to prevent this, it seems, is to require that all 3 teams are required to play in some fashion, and/or that the top seeds can’t pick each other. I come from a team that was selected last year as the ‘back-up’ in the national, and though of course I wanted to play, I have no regrets to our ally’s decision not to put us on the field. It was their right, though I do think that rule was a little unfair.

PS~Daniel, I agree with you. We should all be nice, but a little heated debate never hurt anyone! :wink:

Lora

10

Posted by Thomas A. Frank.

Engineer on team #121, The Islanders/Rhode Warrior, from Middletown (RI) High School and Naval Undersea Warfare Center.

Posted on 1/18/2000 12:48 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: (FIRST, Please read!) – Couldn’t Agree More. posted by Thomas A. Frank on 1/12/2000 11:46 AM MST:

Thanks FIRST!

Tom

11

Posted by Justin Ridley.

Engineer on team #221, MI Roboworks, from Michigan Technological University.

Posted on 1/12/2000 7:41 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: P.S. yes I thought of that…(FIRST, Please read!) posted by Thomas A. Frank on 1/11/2000 7:05 PM MST:

This seems like the same argument that was heard over and over again last year, with a little change. The simple fact is however that the number one seed has gained the right to pick who they want to play with. That is thier prize so to speak for being number one. If they want to play with number two, number two shouldn’t have the right to say no. If they were number one then they could have that control, but they arn’t. There would be a whole new number of problems that would arrise if the rule was changed to being able to decline. In fact we’ve seen some of those problems at the very beggining of competition last year.

12

Posted by Justin.

Other on team Blue Lightning Alum from RWU sponsored by FIRST-A-holics Anonymous.

Posted on 1/11/2000 9:30 PM MST

In Reply to: P.S. yes I thought of that… posted by Joe Johnson on 1/11/2000 6:36 PM MST:

Okay this one is taxing my brain. As I understand it the defensive teams take up a postion that effectively prevents the other teams from hanging on the goal or getting on the ramp (and possibly even getting 2 the other side if they can’t go under the bar). So this would mean that the offensive teams can only score from the human player station…it would also mean that the offensive teams would have 2 score for the defensive teams. So my question is what do the defensive teams gain here?? I guess that what’s going on is the offensive teams are still wining but scoring more for the defensive teams then the defensive teams would have on thier own??

Thanks for the clarification,
-Justin

13

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/11/2000 10:14 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: P.S. yes I thought of that… posted by Justin on 1/11/2000 9:30 PM MST:

: Okay this one is taxing my brain. As I understand it the defensive teams take up a postion that effectively prevents the other teams from hanging on the goal or getting on the ramp (and possibly even getting 2 the other side if they can’t go under the bar). So this would mean that the offensive teams can only score from the human player station…

If I understand Joe’s intention, you’re reading too much into the position of the defensive robots. I believe he was attempting to convey that they were in a neutral position and not participating in the match, allowing the offensive robots to function unimpeded.

:it would also mean that the offensive teams would have 2 score for the defensive teams. So my question is what do the defensive teams gain here?? I guess that what’s going on is the offensive teams are still wining but scoring more for the defensive teams then the defensive teams would have on thier own??

Correct!

: Thanks for the clarification,
: -Justin

14

Posted by Dodd Stacy.

Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 1/12/2000 7:46 AM MST

In Reply to: P.S. yes I thought of that… posted by Joe Johnson on 1/11/2000 6:36 PM MST:

Joe,

I think your scenario would prove uncommon. Trying to garner maximum losing points by a ‘passive defense’ strategy will not (IMHO) result in seeding the rascals in the top 8/16 teams. Even if half (or more!) of the teams played this strategy, the other half (the teams playing to win) will take the ranked seeds.

Now the Eliminations are a whole different game, and agressive and capable defense may prove to be very important. But the passive defensive teams you are worried about would have shown nothing of their capabilities during Qualifying, so how are the seeded teams supposed to assess their value as defensive partners and choose them for the Eliminations?

I believe that teams without the offensive competance to consistently win by controlling the flow of the game scoring will choose to showcase their defensive competance during Qualifying, in order to be chosen by a seeded team for Eliminations. A team that loses every one of its Qualifying matches 0 to 1 by playing killer defense might prove pretty attractive as a partner in the winner-take-all part of the tournament. Just my $.02. We’ll see how the game gets played.

Dodd