Scoring For Your Opponents

FIRST General Forum
#21

but with the points system in this game they are not scoring for you, they are raising the score (points) that THEY will get.

If the other team did not get your points at the end of the match they dump points into your goal, then that would be weird (when they could dump them in their own goal instead).

How about the flip side of this, when a team knows they are going to lose, so they stop playing, knowing their low score will hurt the team that is beating them?

BTW, I was wondering - if you hold the reset button on the OI down, do the lights on the robot go off? Would it be possible for a robot to ‘play dead’ by doing this, and then come back to life, to win a close match?

#22

I definitely see your point. Yes, they are technically scoring points for themselves, but it is still demoralising when they send a barrage of poofballs towards your goal, on the scoreboard, giving you points. Ranking points are not displayed for everyone to cheer at - the game points are. When your alliance was so outplayed that the other team scored 30 points FOR you, you can no longer take credit for the score that is up there.

How about the flip side of this, when a team knows they are going to lose, so they stop playing, knowing their low score will hurt the team that is beating them?

If an alliance stops playing, knowing that the other team will be hurt by it, then they have already lowered the level of competition, and, as far as I am concerned, asked for their goal to be scored on. If they do not compete to the best of their abilities, to intentionally hurt the other team, they do not deserve to have pride.

#23

If the opposing alliance is scoring for you, just double your efforts and try to score even more. I’m sure that there are games in which one team, thinking they were ahead more than they were, scored for the other team and ended up giving them the game.

#24

Try to keep track of what they actually have, because if you don’t… Hey guess what, you could score posints for them and make them win!!!

HA HA HA!! That would be great.

To each strategy their are plusses and minuses, and this is a risk you will have to take on.

#25

i seen when you guys did that, i was surprised that you actually had that planned, i was thinking " no way, thats the first time i seen that this year "

#26

Personally i think it’s unfair.

the whole idea behind the ranking system factoring in how much or how little you won by is so that if you get matched with a awesome alliance, and the other alliance isn’t as great, you don’t get a giant boost in your rank for winning an easy match.

I think boosting your rank like this is very unfair. Is it legitimate? sure. But fair? no. That’s not fair to the team’s who truly WORKED to just pull out of a match and win by a single point.

My two cents, like it or not, it’s my opinion.

-Chrisms

#27

I think that scoring for your opponent is a good strategy to get higher in the leaderboard, but the whole purpose of having the loosing team score is this:

If an great alliance, lets say (1114,1503, 67), against 3 bots that dont score
score is: 80:7
you dont get awarded a good RP because it was oviously not a challenge.

ok … this time you score some for the other team.
the score is 80:55
do you deserve the better ranking for winning against really bad teams?

NO! … the purpose of using the loosing teams score, is to rank alliances higher if they beat a EVENLY matched team in a match, so your spoofing RP to make it seem like every match you played was a HARD game. If you can barely beat an great alliance, you deserve RP more then being the amazing alliance and beating a lower calliber team and spoofing RP.

PS: i dont have anything against 1114, 1503, or 67, i just used them as an example since they won GLR, and they are a great alliance! congrats to them at that!
thats my two $0.02 -kevin

#28

I agree, I think that teams should worry about their own score and if they are winning not how many RPs they will get out of the match.

I think that any team that feels the need to cheat the system to get a better ranking has let winning become to important to them.

#29

My psychic powers must be a little off today

I thought the idea behind giving the winning team the losing teams score was so that super alliances dont completely shut out a weak alliance.

If you got your own score, then you could - you could have 200 to 0 matches.

I would think that evenly matched alliances would see matches end up in low scores for both sides because the great offense was matched by great defense - thats what I saw in the finals, teams were winning with low scores by one or two points.

Now that I think about it somemore, I think the idea behind giving the winning team the losing teams score is this: The winning team gets the losing teams score! <= That is the game - play to win: the match, the best seed, the finals.

#30

I remember in 2003 when QP was such a roblem teams started brokering deals to keep their stacks intact so both alliances would score hefty QP points win or lose. THe debate split FIRST right down the middle.
Some saw it as a great strategy and others saw it as corrupting the ideals of competition. It gets real funny when you start thinking about QP points as much (if not more) tha the win, which is probably why FIRST started going with the W/L record over just QP points so it wouldn’t be as much an issue.
I’m not all that fond of the QP points but they are a part of the FIRST landscape so we live with them. If you choose to focus on them just understand the risk and be rprepared to take the consequences if they backfire.

#31

I’m curious as to how others feel about this? Would you be insulted if your opponent scored for you during a blow out?

Of course not! It’s all in the spirit of Cooperatition. The way the hen cooperates with the fox by being tasty.

#32

As long as the rules are like they are, people have to accept it and live with it. Unless it was intentionally rubbed in their face that their robot is not good enough and you are going to show them how it’s played, there is no reason to be insulted or embarrassed. They just had the chance to play against a greater robot and it should be fun. The competition is not about getting embarrassed or insulted, it is about having fun and that’s what everyone should do. Now go have fun!

#33

Yeah we did that numerous times. We also scored in their center goal, and had a whole alliance go on their ramp.
As long as there is no rule against it…i am completely fine with any team doing this. Heck if we were getting pulverized in a match, and the other team started scoring on our own goals, no way would i get in their way of scoring or be insulted. As said before, its more of an embarassment with how your own team performs, not that the other team is doing something wrong.
Besides, the other team could always miscalculate and put you over for the win… :wink:
In the match that we put up 137 points, we actually scored about 15 points for the other alliance.

#34

Surprisingly, I’ve never seen this strategy used on our own alliance before (Lucky?), though we have used it many times. I can see both sides of the argument, though it is beneficial to both teams. I may put a loss in, but with enough ranking points, I will seat higher than others in my win category. Its a very effective qualifying strategy.

*A story about scoring too many points for your opponents: At championships, 2003, 306 decided to get greedy. They scored up both sides as high as possible, intending to pull a win by a couple of points. However, by some cruel hand of fate, somebody miscounted, and though we scored the highest match in our championship division that match, we lost, and somehow by that, we stopped moving on, even with a robot that could’ve made it all the way. So just remember, play whatever strategy you want, but don’t get greedy!

#35

this system of scoring is very interesting to FIRST. Besides seeing teams letting their opponents score more points, I have also witnessed losing alliances give up points. For example, at the Finger Lakes Regional there were a couple of times that losing alliance robots jumped off the ramp at the last second to not give the winning alliance more points.

#36

First off, 116 has a long and storied history of high scoring matching. In just the last 2 years (and only counting our first competition this year) we have had 4 “high scoring” matches, won 2, lost 2.
2005 Chesepeake: 120-0, 0 side
2006 VCU: 86-34, 34 side
2006 VCU: 99-24, 99 side
2006 VCU: 76-18? (cant remember)-76 side

I wish that the opponents had scored some points for us, and I highly regret not scoring some for them.

The thought that opponents are scoring for you to “rub salt in your wounds” is looking at it the wrong way. It’s not a matter of insulting pride, it’s a matter of placement (for both you and them), and in truth, gracious professionalism. Consider for a moment the alternatives. If this thread doesn’t exist about The Triplets scoring for the opponents, instead it would be a thread complaining about why the triplets beat them 300-10. “Why not simply stop at 100 and gather up all the balls so you can win decently, and have no chance at losing at all because you are denying us any points? Instead you went and tormented our loss even further by running the score up!”
Let’s look at the previously mentioned sports analogies. Sure, they don’t score for the opponent, but niether do they run up the score, and when they do, they are critisized (especially in college athletics). And if scoring for the opponent somehow benefitted them, I’m sure they would score for them.
I beleive this rule exists for a few reasons. To eliminate, or at least reduce, blowout matches; and to promote cooperation without reducing competition (thus the W/L being the first ranking determination) between opponents.
It is not only beneficial to raise your RP by scoring for the opponent, it is in favor of GP. You’re not blowing them out, which IMHO is just as insulting as scoring for them -if not more- and you’re helping raise their rank as well.
As mentioned many times during kickoff events, the message FIRST is trying to convey by using this rule is that “Your opponent today, may be your ally tomorrow”. Therefore, you should aid them whenever possible (though obv not hurting yourself).

#37

Ranking points help you and your opponent do well. After all you might be with one of the teams in your next match. It’s all part of strategy.

Speaking of strategy…if there is an alliance with robots that cannot handle(pick up) balls well it would be a good idea to put balls in their opponents goals when you are on offense. That way your opponent can’t possibly score those balls and now your human players have control of them. You can then throw them to your side of the field or save them to fill up a robot.

It’s a rather back wards strategy but it might work really well if your shooter mechanisms weren’t working that match or you could only push balls.

#38

Nothing backwards about it, and I’ve already seen teams do it. It is actually quite an effective way to load up “top loaders”.

#39

  1. Sports analogies do not apply here. There isn’t a single major sport (involving a ball, at least) in which your playoff seeding is entirely based on your opponent’s score. This is because win/loss records usually suffice (i.e. there is no incentive for a basketball team to blow the other team out, because all that matters is the win). FIRST plays few games with many teams, resulting inevitably in lots of W/L ties. Thus, in FIRST, the tiebreaker is a key strategic element, where in most major sports, nobody cares about this rare event.

  2. Every team is at this competition to win. Period. Teams do what they have to do to win. If it is possible, within the confines of match play, to advance your position by scoring for your opponent, it would be a brutal mistake not to do so. The system is there for you to use.

  3. This topic comes up every year. In 2003, elimination rounds were set up such that the alliance with the highest point total at the end of two rounds won. The points an alliance received were a multiple of the loser’s score (I believe the multiple was 1 for the loser, and 2 for the winner). The dominant strategy was to win the first round no matter what, collecting 2x your opponent’s score, and then lose the second round as badly as possible. If you lost with a score of zero, you were in the best position possible, because neither alliance received any points in the second round, and your alliance won by default (because you won the first round). It was a terribly broken scoring system, but the teams that won used what they were given to the best of their ability. Teams complained it was “unsportsmanlike” to lose intentionally. Teams said FIRST didn’t intend the game to be played that way. But the fact of the matter is, whether FIRST intended the game to be played in that manner or not, they set the game up that way. De-scoring that second match wasn’t losing. It was winning within in the confines of the system. Just like scoring in your opponents goal isn’t showing off. It’s advancing your position (winning) in the confines of the system. And that is all that matters when you’re out there playing a match.

Jeff

#40

Thats not very nice. It could also hurt you even though you lose it will also lower your average points. Just think you tied for eight in wins but are ninth because of your QP’s and then you do not get picked.