This strategy only really applies to Qualification matches. I’m not posting this strategy because I like it or have ever used or been tempted to use it. In fact, I think it is very cheap and unFIRST-like. I just want teams to be aware of it because it will only benefit their team and the entire game if it is never implemented again (or is countered effectively). Teams should plan against this for crucial matches near the end of the Q-matches.
Any team that is in a match that looks pretty grim and is most likely low in the ranks and “doesn’t have anything to lose”, if one or two of the losing team’s robots is in their own end-zone, the losing team can simply pull their robots from the end-zone to spite the other alliance. It’s simple, it’s cruel, I despise it, and it’s almost ingenious. This implements a theoretical “chokehold” on the dominant alliance. The dominant alliance must accept a 30-60 point QP deduction, because if the dominant alliance applies any tactics to get the other alliance more points to compensate, then the losing alliance simply pulls back their robots to make their loss a win.
The only form of counter for this strategy (that I can think of) is to some how baracade their endzone so the robots can’t get in or out. This would be most effective by using goal carrying robot as a form of moving road block. Physically pushing robots into the endzone, is very tricky because you might end up in the endzone yourself. I am welcome to any other ideas.
I agree, this is very un-FIRST like, and should not be done. I know for a fact this was done in the Philly regional against MOE, making it a 0 to 0 score. Has this been done at any other regionals, and if so, what was the reaction? In Philly, most people said that they thought it was very bad, even if they didn’t like MOE they said they wouldn’t even think about doing it.
In one of our VA matches this happened. (I won’t mention the teams because that wouldn’t be nice), but they were really low in the standings near the end of the Q-matches and they pulled their robots from the end-zone. I don’t think the crowd really noticed, but the thing was, I went to one of those team’s pits and tried to give them suggestions for fixing one of their drive problems. I felt a little betrayed.
*Originally posted by srawls *
**I agree, this is very un-FIRST like, and should not be done. I know for a fact this was done in the Philly regional against MOE, making it a 0 to 0 score. Has this been done at any other regionals, and if so, what was the reaction? In Philly, most people said that they thought it was very bad, even if they didn’t like MOE they said they wouldn’t even think about doing it.
**
So let me get this straight - MOE has three goals in scoring position after ten seconds, and your opponents are supposed to push against you for 100 seconds without budging, and then go back in their endzone and settle for 20 points? That’s not what I would do. If you guys refuse to give up a goal, why should your opponent play nice and give you QP’s?
If they pull out, they’re trying to force you to score points for them. If you don’t, you both get zero. If you do, and they pull back in, they get lots of points. If you do, and they don’t pull back in, you get lots of points. It’ a very good strategy, and is not sneaky or underhanded.
Read this: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=22245#post21725
The 3X oppoonent’s score rule is there for a reason - and that reason is to make games between mismatched opponents more interesting, and strategies like this possible.
That said, 365 has often said that high QP’s are not the goal of their robot. Why do you care how many QP’s you get in a match like this? You get the win regardless.
How is that unFIRST-like? If those teams are playing with the best strategy they have to remain at all competitive, I say go for it. It seems rather selfish for a team on the opposing alliance to assume that it is the responsibility of the other teams to let them score points, even if they already know they are pretty much guaranteed to lose. If they are playing a competive alliance they can safetly assume that they are not going to want to accept zero points and will therefore try to score at least some points for their alliance. When they do this they leave an opening for the less-abled alliance to take advantage of their gamble and maybe pull out a win. The three-times-the-loser’s-score multiplier is what adds a level of strategy to the game that makes it interesting and keeps the game from being an easy, battlebots-like game. A strategy like this would never get you to the finals on your own, and it doesn’t matter, because in the finals where the best overall teams are determined, this strategy wouldn’t work. Calling this unFIRST-like is just displaying arrogance and selfishness, no alliance owes any other anything, this is a competition and that is the nature of the game.
Well, it’s quite obvious that MOE isn’t designed for scoring a lot of Qualification points, they’re an excellent elimination robot (sorry we broke your chain in VA ). MOE doesn’t leave much of an alternative for the other alliance other than push till your motors die, if they get all three goals. I wasn’t refering to match like that where one team monopolizes all of the points. I was more refering to a Q-match where an alliance sets up a score with a small point differential (like 35-34) and the team pulls their robots to get 35-14. I just got word that this happenned a LOT in NJ. In fact, we were victim of it twice and it cost us #1 seed. In fact, the common denominator was one team who did that in a lot of losing matches. As to the match with 365, maybe you should have stayed in the zone, but I wasn’t there to see the context of the situation. But believe me when I say that I know what it feels like to get whomped by MOE in a Q-match (good job MOE )
In response to Eric, ummm… ouch…
You’re right in that technically teams don’t “owe anything to eachother”, however, in this game, there is clearly no feasible counter or solution to this strategy. Please, don’t think I’m arrogant because I believe that this is un-First like. In the spirit of gracious professionalism, one team shouldn’t lower their own score just to hurt another alliance. Also, in the cases that I’ve seen, the team pulled out so late in the match that it was impossible to react in time. It wasn’t even as though they were trying to “fake out” the other team because there was no time to compensate so that the losing team could win. But still, that’s just my opinion.
To lower your score by pulling out of your zone to purposely lower your opponents score is both bad for you (it lowers your avg) and is unsportsman-like. I agree, no alliance “owes” anything to it’s opposing alliance (except gracious professionalism). I do not dissagree with a robot not pulling back to their homezone, but I do disagree with a robot pulling out of their endzone in the last few seconds to lower their opponent’s score. I believe this is un-FISRT like, and our team will never do it.
After watching at GLR and some other reigonals it doesn’t seem like the finals have anything to do with the qualifying even in the least bit. All of the robots that have the most power are the ones that are going to get picked regardless of how many QP’s they got in qualifying. Every match I watched in the finals ended up in a solid tug of war.
So is this a good or bad strategy or is it un-FIRST like? Who cares MOEhawk doesn’t need a 90 pt average to make it to the finals. I really don’t think QP’s mean a whole lot this year. If you built a 2 or 3 goal handling robot that is strong and even somewhat reliable you are probably high on the list of robots to go to the finals at every event. If you built a ball handler you have to be the best I think to even be considered this year.
*Originally posted by verdeyw *
**That said, 365 has often said that high QP’s are not the goal of their robot. Why do you care how many QP’s you get in a match like this? You get the win regardless. **
We care because we have to prove our strategy for the elimination rounds. If teams were to consistantly pull out of the endzone resulting in a 0-0, our alliance partner would not likely agree in going for three goals. If this happened enough (MOE not deploying for all three), we would not be able to show teams that we can do it (which we should be able to do after these modifications) and we would therefore not be picked for the finals matches. In sum, we care about QPs because our alliance partner cares about QPs.
Sorry to double post, but I think this needs to be said.
*Originally posted by Hubicki *
**(sorry we broke your chain in VA ). **
IT IS OK!
We built (heh, and/or modified) our robot to be abused. We knew going into this that our robot would be one to be attacked (and we have been). Please, we completely understand pulling and pushing on the goals in order to try to torque us around, this is perfectly legit. If you saw our second to last Qualification match at Drexel, you would know :). Our wing was mangled. Both teams on the opposing alliance were incredibly graciously professional and appoligized, even offered to help fix it. And it wasn’t just that match, it was all throughout the day.
To show our attitude concerning this, our team decided to introduce a new MOEward (our team awards): The MOE Mauler Award. This award will be given to the team that manages to beat us up the most. With the award will come a nice little piece of the robot to remember us by. But please, we award this in good faith that the intention was not to damage MOE, nor to win the award;), but to play the game.
Sorry to divulge from the thread subject, but again, it needed to be said.
There is no excuse for pulling out of your endzone, even when faced by MOE. It IS possible to get a goal away from MOE, even if you arent one of the stronger robots. (Sorry MOE, I love you but gotta tell the truth) Even smaller less powerful robots can do this, instead of pushing, try pullling the goals away. And gniticxe…thanx for the best cart award…though we really think it is funny as the cart tipped over of its own accord spilling all the tools all over the ground twice during finals at Philly…maybe we should shoot for the new award now??? IF we ever get to play you…
We realized early on that our grippers were failing- we didn’t experiance this at VCU for some reason. We were too busy in the pit to do anything big about it then, but you may have noticed that we only lost one goal on saturday. Also, I’ll just say that we are compensating for the problem of releasing when we don’t want to.
*Originally posted by Alex Forest *
**(Sorry MOE, I love you but gotta tell the truth) Even smaller less powerful robots can do this, instead of pushing, try pullling the goals away. **
Muahahaha – with the old grippers this was possible. Actually, it was not the pulling away that opened the latch on the gripper, but rotating the goal in the gripper (which was attached to the flange above). But tonight, I saw with my own eyes our new grippers…pulling wont quite work anymore.
well, no comment there- about the mentors scouting gripper designs. however, we did like some ideas, and sort of put together a awsome design that will no let go. I will tell you though, while your grippers were great, I don’t believe that we borrowed any concepts from you.
If your alliance partner is really worried about QP’s this year chances are they don’t have a robot that will be really good in the finals. GLR’s finals were all about having the pulling and holding power which are totally the opposite in my mind of scoring huge QP’s. With lots of pulling power you can normally hope to score matches with 30-60 QP’s win and 10-20 losing.Robots that score huge amounts of balls on both teams easily got the scores into the 30-40 on both sides and thats where the big QP’s came from. These robots however are not the best for Elimination matches where you grab 2-3 goals and sit there for 2 minutes.
if you’ve only got 20 points (your two bots in the endzone), it could very likely be your lowest score (don’t think you should ever get lower unless it’s delibrate, you don’t have to move to get 20 points)… under the fact that the lowest score is dropped, what’s it matter if it’s a 20 or 0 that drops? And if dropping a zero means lowering your opponents points in process, that’s part of competition.
Not saying it’s right, but Grandma watching would ask me why we lost… why did we just sit there at the end… why not keep fighting…?
The zero-point strategy is just that, a strategy. It’s not a deception, it’s not a low blow… it’s a valid strategy you should plan for… you can’t rely on your opponents being nice guys to get your points, you need to earn them. If I know my team is losing and I haven’t been able to acquire any goals/points to win… I would come out of the endzone and start subtracting points from my opponents… not to spite them but to force them into action… If they want their points, they’ll have to make the move to score them… and we’ll appropriately counteract.
You can’t take offense by strategical play… sometimes you have to sacrifice or risk big to get more… Teams with capitalizing robots have to be prepared for this challenge… and when you come up in a match against robots you can’t beat with speed or strength, you simply have to out strategize them and force them to action…
Seems like you could turn lengthwise and have a goal in each scoring zone to get QPs. And what is your partner up to? Should be able to score for the other team if they pull out of their zone, or yea even not be able to get back to their zone. You can’t expect/depend on your opponents to score points for your alliance.
First of all, I pose this question to Moe…would you rather get lower qp’s and have a fully functional robot in the elims or would you rather have one of the arms of your robot bashed into little bits and pieces, thus hindering your ability to compete well in the elimination matches? (and I don’t care how much you do or don’t show off your strategy, with a robot like that, you are gonna get picked and used!)
I see the chokehold strategy as just that, a viable strategy that forces other teams to have to produce points in order to get higher QP’s. The best teams in NJ were able to do all the scoring quite easily (i.e. team 95). Fact of the matter is, if you try the chokehold strategy, your not exactly doing yourself any favors because your killing your own QP’s anyhow, in which case if the oponent is smart and just pushes a goal into the goal zone and parks it themselves they will get either 60 or 0…60 if they team applying the chokehold is smart and realizes that they aren’t doing themselves any favors by also taking a 0 in QP’s, 0 if they aren’t very bright, or have absolutely no hopes of seeding high enough or even getting picked (Because a maneuver like that wouldn’t rank high on the team inteligence scale, thus I probably wouldn’t want to pick them personally). So in a nutshell, yes it is a viable strategy, but it really isn’t the best strategy for sucess in this game.
Have fun,
Andy Grady
). MOE doesn’t leave much of an alternative for the other alliance other than push till your motors die, if they get all three goals. I wasn’t refering to match like that where one team monopolizes all of the points. I was more refering to a Q-match where an alliance sets up a score with a small point differential (like 35-34) and the team pulls their robots to get 35-14. I just got word that this happenned a LOT in NJ. In fact, we were victim of it twice and it cost us 
)
). **
IF we ever get to play you…