During one match team #95, lost a match on purpose, to give the other team ALOT of qualifying points. It seemed like the absolute wrong thing to do. What do you guys think about doing this to get picked in the finals? I think if you’re not trying to win, then go home.
Please do not post accusations like this on this board. I think theres been enough mud slinging already this year. I don’t even care to know how you heard it - let’s be civil and professional enough to stop it right here. Thanks - so much.
*Originally posted by meaubry *
**Please do not post accusations like this on this board. I think theres been enough mud slinging already this year. I don’t even care to know how you heard it - let’s be civil and professional enough to stop it right here. Thanks - so much. **
I totaly agree. Lock this forum, and all the other forums about spreading rumors ASAP!!!
Although I disagree with my team mate’s lack of discretion…
Point shaving was a pretty big issue. I’m not going to put up team numbers, but in the pits I overheard a few at least suggestions of it, and we were approached and asked to rig a match once (we declined and won the match). This is actually technically okay to do apparently; there are no rules against strategizing with opponents as well as allies. We even asked the refs and judges about it after the rumors about 95 (no clue how valid those are, maybe someone should put up the footage so people can decide for themselves what happened). Instead of locking a discussion about this, I think it would do well to discuss it without naming teams or specific incidents.
I watched the match in question over the internet and was really puzzeled as to what 95’s strategy was. I think even Woody mentioned something once the match was over about what had happened.
From what I could see, they gave up a TON of QPs and would have seeded higher (I think they made the top 8) had they teken the match.
Regardless, I am very curious about that match.
Ok, I want to kill this one for the last time. I’m not going to explain it again.
WE WERE NOT THROWING A MATCH TO MAKE FRIENDS FOR FINALS.
Our partner was dead from the getgo, they told us in the pit’s their tranny was shot and they couldn’t move. Since the other teams were both goal handlers and we can’t handle goals for beans, we knew we would lose no matter what we did.
So we made the best of the situation.
We talked to the other teams and told them: you are going to win. We know it, you know it. But, if you let us play balls we can run up our score (95’s) so you get 3 times 40 instead of 3 times 20 or what ever it would have been. They get 3 times our score, and we get our score. Both sides won, they just happend to win 3 times as much as us.
WE WERE NOT THROWING A MATCH TO MAKE FRIENDS FOR FINALS.
I can’t say that enough. All we wanted to do was maximize our qpoints and that of our partner. So we told everyone to just let us play all the balls we could and have some fun and not kill each other. It is a perfectly valid strategy. If you had bothered to think about it, you would have been able to figure it out.
So please, stop saying we rigged the match, this isn’t boxing for christs sake.
-Andy A.
I would first like to comment to team 173 that, despite my loathing of one members COMMENTS, you had an awsome bot and I congradulate you on you accomplishments.
Listen, as a driver from team 95 I can also say that there is no reason in a very warm place, to say that we did what we did to get into the finials.
First off, in my opinion, we had a kick %%% robot this year and didn’t need to beg and pleed to get into the finials, we were second seed for quite some time. This is the best team that 95 has had in YEARS, and to say that we would do something THAT low just to get into the finials is a hitting below the belt
If you noticed in some of the finial matches there was a score of 0, and last I checked my math, factoring 0 into averages doesn’t do anybody any good.
Team 95 was backed into a corner, with a dead bot for an ally. We just had the frame of mind to do what was best for everybody involved. We lost by more than some people won.
So if anybody else has a problem with thinking outside the box then maybe they should go join battle bots.
Kaitlin Palmer (the driver with green dreds)
*Originally posted by Kaitlin Palmer *
**I would first like to comment to team 173 that, despite my loathing of one members COMMENTS, you had an awsome bot and I congradulate you on you accomplishments.Listen, as a driver from team 95 I can also say that there is no reason in a very warm place, to say that we did what we did to get into the finials.
First off, in my opinion, we had a kick %%% robot this year and didn’t need to beg and pleed to get into the finials, we were second seed for quite some time. This is the best team that 95 has had in YEARS, and to say that we would do something THAT low just to get into the finials is a hitting below the belt
If you noticed in some of the finial matches there was a score of 0, and last I checked my math, factoring 0 into averages doesn’t do anybody any good.
Team 95 was backed into a corner, with a dead bot for an ally. We just had the frame of mind to do what was best for everybody involved. We lost by more than some people won.
So if anybody else has a problem with thinking outside the box then maybe they should go join battle bots.
Kaitlin Palmer (the driver with green dreds) **
Team 95 … “3-2-1, GO…OMG, they’re done” … thats what we all said when we first saw you guys. You guys were no doubt the fastest ball grabber at the regional. When I spoke to you guys in the pits you said you put all your effort into making your ball grabber as good as it could be and as far as I saw you succeeded. As for ogre’s comments, I was there when some people from 95 told us what you guys did and it was exactly the same thing that Andy A said. BTW, you guys figured out how to turn those balls into popcorn yet? :)
*Originally posted by Andy A. *
**Ok, I want to kill this one for the last time. I’m not going to explain it again.WE WERE NOT THROWING A MATCH TO MAKE FRIENDS FOR FINALS.
Our partner was dead from the getgo, they told us in the pit’s their tranny was shot and they couldn’t move. Since the other teams were both goal handlers and we can’t handle goals for beans, we knew we would lose no matter what we did.
So we made the best of the situation.
We talked to the other teams and told them: you are going to win. We know it, you know it. But, if you let us play balls we can run up our score (95’s) so you get 3 times 40 instead of 3 times 20 or what ever it would have been. They get 3 times our score, and we get our score. Both sides won, they just happend to win 3 times as much as us.
WE WERE NOT THROWING A MATCH TO MAKE FRIENDS FOR FINALS.
I can’t say that enough. All we wanted to do was maximize our qpoints and that of our partner. So we told everyone to just let us play all the balls we could and have some fun and not kill each other. It is a perfectly valid strategy. If you had bothered to think about it, you would have been able to figure it out.
So please, stop saying we rigged the match, this isn’t boxing for christs sake.
-Andy A. **
Thank you for clarifying my view on that.
Team 95, you had a great robot. I watched one match and after the start buzzer went off I blinked or something and when my eyes opened you had 20 balls in your basket… amazing stuff - 6 seconds.
You handled yourselves well throughout the competition at UTC and in the finals. You impressed a lot of people, including us. Our coach nicknamed you “popcorn popper!” Best of luck this year.
~Synthia Tonn
Driver, Team 121
My original intent was to ask people opinion about fixing matches. I’m sorry fro offending or angering anybody. I’m still interested though, what does everyone think of fixing matches? We were approached at the New England reagional to fix a match. The way i saw it was that the opposing team came up to us, and said(the way i hear it, sorry if its not exact) 'you know your gonna lose, so we wanna let you so you will pick us for the finals. I take statements like this as a slap in the face. I took that very personally and made it a point to try and win th match, which we did. What do you think?
Again, i’m sorry for wrongly accusing people.
Post not when in anger.
If you’re in anger, keep your mouth shut.
It is 100% guarenteed to prevent you from saying something stupid.
Just a suggestion.
95 had a great machine, and I have not encountered any “rigging” of matches. However, I do see how it could be count as legal. It is a strategy. But for the record- team 25 will never do it. It’s kind of a honor thing.
FIRST is like no other game we know.
Getting QP’s is the name of the game until the Elims. We all know this going in. It is very weird, but we get more points when our opponents get a lot when we win or when we get a lot when we lose. This is no secret.
I think that telling your opponent’s your strategy if you want to is part of the game.
I have advocated de-scoring for yourself if a team takes all 3 goals and will not give them up. How can I be against what #95 did?
I have also heard of a non ball team that could get 2 goals and get home via a tether tell their opponents (who were ball handlers, mainly), “We are are going to get 40 points this match – you can try to stop us if you want but you will likely be unsuccessful and more than that you will likely get a very low score – If you get 41 points, you will win. Go for it.”
Is this any worse?
In another match our opponents said, “Let’s run up the score on this one!” Was that a wink and a nod they wouldn’t play defense? I don’t know, I don’t care. Was it some how against the spirit of the game? I really don’t think so.
Gathering QP’s is a weird business – by design! If weird situations arise, should we be surprised?
Play on…
Joe J.
I thinck andy did the right thing.
Instead of hurting both of the teams.
He helped both of the teams get higher qp points.
*Originally posted by Joe Johnson *
**I have also heard of a non ball team that could get 2 goals and get home via a tether tell their opponents (who were ball handlers, mainly), “We are are going to get 40 points this match – you can try to stop us if you want but you will likely be unsuccessful and more than that you will likely get a very low score – If you get 41 points, you will win. Go for it.”
**
This is similar to one of the strategies our team discussed. One of our engineers advocated going up to the opponent and telling them that one goal was theirs, and that we would never touch it. Weended up deciding against it because it was just too weird.
I think that going up to another team and saying “YOU are going to loose, so lets run up the score” is not only rude but poor sportsmanship.
However if you are partnered with lets say a dead bot, or if neither bot can handel a goal AT ALL and it is obvious that the match can’t be won, than the team should concider talking to their opponents.
It is in NOBODYS best interest to have a low scoring game. And lets face it, unless your bot is GOD than bad things happen and you may in fact be broken down to the detriment of your ally.
But again, telling another team that they are going to loose is just wrong. So I can see where team 173 would be angered.
*Originally posted by Joe Johnson *
**I have also heard of a non ball team that could get 2 goals and get home via a tether tell their opponents (who were ball handlers, mainly), “We are are going to get 40 points this match – you can try to stop us if you want but you will likely be unsuccessful and more than that you will likely get a very low score – If you get 41 points, you will win. Go for it.”
**
If someone says that to me, for SURE I would do my very very best to win (and winning would be better than winning the competition). Nobody can say “We are are going to get 40 points this match”. If you say that it’s because you didn’t read those items listed in the back side of the SME card.
Rodrigo Ribeiro
#383 - The Brazilian Machine
We have used some very unusual strageties in the past. In one match at the West Michigan Regional we talked with our opponents and decided that each team would throw their playerstation balls in their opponents goals. The intent was to merely get more balls in both goals without really giving a competitive advantage to either team. This sort of arrangement is where gracious professionalism is a must.
Other strange arrangements might include an agreement to not steal any goals in the last ten seconds of the match. The result should be everyone in the endzone! Again not necessarily a competitive advantage to either team, just higher scores.
Before one match at one of our regionals, we were talking to our alliance partner, and our opponents walked up. They then proceeded to tell us what their strategy was, and what they wanted us to do. I have no idea what they were doing, and it was absolutely the most bizarre thing I have ever seen in FIRST. I don’t know if they were trying to get us to fix the match or what, but I do know that we listened to them and proceeded to do what we originally intended before that odd interruption.
*Originally posted by verdeyw *
**This is similar to one of the strategies our team discussed. One of our engineers advocated going up to the opponent and telling them that one goal was theirs, and that we would never touch it. Weended up deciding against it because it was just too weird. **
What is so wierd about using negotiation as a strategy? Perhaps if the warring parties in the Middle East would be willing to do this, the world would be a safer place. This doesn’t have to be a zero sum game (1 winner, 1 loser). We should be teaching this to our students. I think that this is consonant with FIRST’s philosophy. Our drive team (all students, no adults) considered all of the possibilities, and figured out for themselves that everyone including us would make out better by adopting a cooperative strategy with our opponents. This turned out to be correct, we got more Q points losing this match than we did winning 2 other matches, and had fun as well (do you remember the dancing bots at either end of the field?). I think that this speaks to a larger issue in the FIRST community. I heard some comments this year about the game shifting more to a “football” or “sports” model, because last year’s game was supposedly “boring” due to lack of head banging. In my opinion, nothing could be farther from the truth. I thought this year’s game, with a few exceptions, was extremely boring, the same pushing and shoving match repeated over and over again. I’ll admit that last year’s scoring was just a tad complex for the average math dummy, but the spirit of FIRST rang true. It didn’t this year, to me. A coach came up to me and said “wow, there were a lot of zero point matches, that means the play was good!” I tried to explain what we had done in the above mentioned match, and he just didn’t seem to get it. Try this analogy: “Hey, none of the labs working on a cancer cure was successful! That means they are competing well and not sharing any valuable information that would lose their shareholders money!” GET IT? FIRST espouses a philosophy of wanting to change the culture. Why? I think it’s because they believe it’s our only hope for survival. I am extremely proud of all of our students, and was especially proud when they came up to me and asked if this strategy would be ok. That moment was worth all of the hours I’ve put in as a coach. They give me hope for the future.