Picking Teams

[Valley Raider]

This was a thought that i had given that Nationals is going to be so competitive at the top.

Lets say your the number one seed but your not the best bot out there. Your good but not on the same level as say 1114, 233, 330... You go and talk to say 1114 and see if they want to be on an alliance before the selections, this is done all the time at regionals, I imagine its the same at nationals. Team 1114 says no they are looking to team up with a stronger team and wish to form their own alliance. Lets say they are the third Seed. Now we go to the selections and you have the first pick, is it un-GP to ask 1114 to join your alliance knowing they are going to say no, just so the second seed, say 330 who 1114 would pair themselves with, from picking them? Also what about doing this for all eight Alliance Captains?

Of corse you wouldn't want to pick any team that you didn't want to be on an alliance with but if this tactic is use properly then it could stop deadly alliance that you could beat from forming and thus give you a better chance.

Were not going to national but just a thought.

[EricH]

Lets say your the number one seed but your not the best bot out there. Your good but not on the same level as say 1114, 233, 330... You go and talk to say 1114 and see if they want to be on an alliance before the selections, this is done all the time at regionals, I imagine its the same at nationals. Team 1114 says no they are looking to team up with a stronger team and wish to form their own alliance. Lets say they are the third Seed. Now we go to the selections and you have the first pick, is it un-GP to ask 1114 to join your alliance knowing they are going to say no, just so the second seed, say 330 who 1114 would pair themselves with, from picking them? Also what about doing this for all eight Alliance Captains?

Go look at Curie last year. 1114 was 5th or 6th, not 3rd, but that EXACT situation happened. There is also discussion of this elsewhere. It's perfectly legal. GP or not...well, that's up for interpretation. I think it's a legitimate strategy and GP, but someone else might not.

[Chris Fultz]

this is a strategy that is often used to keep the seeded teams from forming an alliance within themselves.

It can be an effective strategy, although tough on the ego of the team making the selections who keeps being turned down.

There are going to be people post on both sides (right / wrong) of this topic, but is is a strategy often used to keep known "friendly" teams from partnering.

[ttldomination]

I think that at nationals, it's more about forming strong alliances to move on...but then it's more about your team moving onto the championships...so i guess it depends on what you want more, your division to prevail or your team to move on but not do so good....it all depends.

[Tottanka]

i believe that if FIRST thought it was not GP, they would have changed the rule that says that if you rejected once, you cannot agree again.

[bigbeezy]

we actually thought talked about that as a good stategy (laughingly of course cause we would never intentionally do that), but I personally think that it is a good stategy and by no means un-GP.

[Cory]

This was asked and answered last week.

I can't recall what the thread title was. Anyone else remember?

[AndyB]

If its okay for a team to reject an offer in order to form a better alliance then they obviously have winning set as their number one priority (which I think is great for them).

It should then be okay for that same team to set winning as their first priority as well (by doing whatever they can to make sure that their alliance has a shot at winning, including breaking up powerhouse teams).

It's not GP, its not un-GP, its just a strategy.

I fear we'll start having threads saying things like "Scoring points for your alliance is un-GP because it hurts the teams you're playing against..."

Go watch the alliance pairings from the Midwest regional this year. It happened and I'd say it did a good job of leveling the playing field.

[seraphim33]

this was already talked about in a HEATED discussion because it ocurred at the great lakes regional some teams had very passionate awnsers on both ends but i personally think that you should first and foremost look to better the chances of your team winning out....but thats just me

[Ericgehrken]

Gracious professionalism is about giving it your all to win but treating each of your fellow competitors and teammates like there your brother. I agree with this move, if its in your best interest to win then go ahead. Do what you think is best to win. Give it your all to win. Even if its a typical top seed move.
Would you rather watch finals where each of the top teams had their own alliance and the matches were even or matches where there was one powerhouse alliance that could win any match?

[waialua359]

i believe that if FIRST thought it was not GP, they would have changed the rule that says that if you rejected once, you cannot agree again.


FRC. FIRST Robotics COMPETITION. :D

[XXShadowXX]

'dats why you scout, so you have more then one choice. Some times the best bots break from being over played or pushed to far. Also its about the alliance being able to work together, three amazing teams is good but if everyone is looking out for number one then well it won't be good.

Remeber there are 2 track balls and 3 to an alliance.

[Akash Rastogi]

It cant be said better than this. /\

FRC. FIRST Robotics COMPETITION. :D

Yup. totally agree, sometimes you gotta do whatca gotta do:cool: Like someone originally said above, its strategy, not GP or un-gp.

But that's just me of course.

[David Brinza]

Another way to describe the dilemma:

Does a team has an obligation to break-up a super-alliance in the selection process, giving their own alliance a better chance of winning their Division?

OR

Should a team's loyalty extend beyond themselves to helping insure their Division wins the Championship?

Who can fault a team wanting to achieve their highest level of success at an event? Would you criticize a team for NOT breaking up a potential super-alliance given the opportunity?

What is the GP thing to do?

That's a personal choice and it's NOT GP to criticize that choice.

[XXShadowXX]

GP to criticize that choice.

Never criticize, consructive criticism; what you can do better next time. Or what ' i ' think ' you ' can do better next time. (this is how my english teacher explain it i think its a little word that make criticism sound good)

[Mr. Freeman]

This was asked and answered last week.

I can't recall what the thread title was. Anyone else remember?

Wasn't that thread about intentionally losing matches to prevent the team from taking the #8 alliance slot?

[Uberbots]

This is a very valid and well used strategy known as alliance breaking. pick the team that you know the other powerhouse is going to pick, and get rid of the potential deadly alliance. Its a good way to even the playing ground.

[EricH]

Wasn't that thread about intentionally losing matches to prevent the team from taking the #8 alliance slot?Maybe, but I don't think so. It's related--the idea was to avoid getting picked by #1 as they went down the line keeping other strong teams from allying.

[Chris Herold]

Well, it definitely happened at the Seattle Regional with us. Our team, Team 1983 - The Skunkworks was 3rd Seed. Team 1778 was 1st and 1318 2nd. We were talking to team 1778 before the alliance picking and telling them we were glad that they considered us but we would-due to our strategy-decline their offer in case they would chose us in the official picking! So they picked another team, not us. 1318 then tried to pick us, what we didn't expect so we "respectfully declined!" Our strategy was to team up with team 2046, one of the teams we were working closely together with during build season. Well, we ended up with them and won the regional.
This story shows pretty much your scenario at regional level!

I really don't think that we did not practice GP. We informed team 1778 before the official picking that we would decline in case they tried to pick us. We also were always polite while team 1318 asked us to join them. That is what I think most important.
Even if you decline-and I think there is nothing wrong with it-you should be very polite all the time. It depends very much on the way you handle your decisions! The gracious professionalism means, for me, to cooperate, to communicate and to be friendly and polite all the time, even though you are competitive.

I don't like the whole idea of intentionally losing matches, though. Anyhow one can hardly prove that and on the other hand every team has the chance to get through by winning all their games...so until a team does not actually confess they did it, I would be very, very careful with this topic.

[Joe J.]

A similar situation happed at Great Lakes this year, there was some discussion in the Great Lakes Regional thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62995) starts around page 10, and Paul Copioli explains the situation here (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=727994&postcount=178)

[Laaba 80]

I honestly dont understand why this is such a big debate. The 1 seed is just that the number 1 seed. They earned the right to have the first pick, and do whatever will most benefit their team. Why should the 3 seed team tell the 1 seed what to do, they didnt earn it? I see nothing wrong with this strategy. Also, odds are they arent just picking them to break up the other alliance, they must actually want to play with them. Maybe that is just the team they think will help them the most, it doesnt always need to involve breaking up an alliance.
Also on the GP standpoint. I dont see anything wrong with this. GP I personally think is begining to have a little too much glory with it. I'm not saying I dont like GP in FIRST, but now it is being braught up with everything that happens. When I think about GP I think you should help other teams, and that is the end, it doesnt need to be a huge thing. I just feel like it is starting to mean less and less because some people are so strict about it. This thread is a perfect example. Why should a team get questioned for a perfectly legal strategy that will help their team? I really dont get it.
GP is also all subjective to different opinions. If one team does something that may disappoint another team the team that did it will think they did nothing wrong, when the other team may think they are being unGP. In this case I feel like people are just using GP as an excuse to try and knock something they dont agree with, and that really does anger me. I dont think a team should be yelled at for being unGP unless they are doing something offensive, or taking away the experience of the tournament from others.

Sorry for my rant, I feel very strongly about this topic. If you dont agree with me let me know, and I will try to explain how I feel in a different way.
Joey

[Nawaid Ladak]

i've said it before and i'll say it again, i will and always will criticize a number one ranked team for doing this... GIVEN THAT THE OTHER TEAM ALREADY SAID NO TO YOUR REQUEST BEFOREHAND. (if they didn't it's a different story.). I'm not going to say if it's gp or un-gp because it falls under that gray area. but in my opinion, your disrespecting that team if you do pick them when they already said no. on top of that, your making the other team look like their disrespecting you (which technicality is there right, if they think their better than you, then by all means, believe it.).... it's better to bring yourself up than to bring others down. when you do this, it always seems like your playing not to lose.... playing conservative....

in other words.... I THINK THIS IS A BAD IDEA FOR ANY TEAM

[dtengineering]

i've said it before and i'll say it again, i will and always will criticize a number one ranked team for doing this... GIVEN THAT THE OTHER TEAM ALREADY SAID NO TO YOUR REQUEST BEFOREHAND. (if they didn't it's a different story.).

The #1 seed has the right to invite any team that they wish to form an alliance to form an alliance.

Asking a team to form an alliance solely to prevent them from being selected by another team is not GP. Not because it is not gracious... but because it is not professional. You should only ask a team to join you if you think that will enhance your chances of winning the event.

You should only ever ask teams to form an alliance if you truly wish to form an alliance with them. After all, that team that initially said "No" might just change their minds and you'll be stuck with them.

So let's quit looking at the "gracious" and start looking at the "professional". Is it GP for the top seed to invite any team that they wish to join them, if they believe that will improve their odds of winning the regional, regardless of whether that team "wants" to? Absolutely... that is why top seed is valuable. But to ask a team that won't make your alliance a strong one, just so they won't ally with someone else? That's just silly.

If you are top seed, always pick your number one pick, regardless of what they have told you. If they decline... that is their choice... but you should always make your best choice first. Anything else cannot be GP as it is not professional.

Jason

[GaryVoshol]

Should a team's loyalty extend beyond themselves to helping insure their Division wins the Championship?I don't understand this concept of division loyalty. Your team is placed, more or less randomly (except for Juggernauts ;) ), into a division. You had no loyalty connection to most of those teams 10 minutes before the division assignments were published. Now your job is to make sure that your division wins on Einstein, even if that means you sacrifice your own team's chance to appear on Einstein? Sorry, I don't get it.

[Alan Anderson]

I don't understand this concept of division loyalty. Your team is placed, more or less randomly (except for Juggernauts ;) ), into a division. You had no loyalty connection to most of those teams 10 minutes before the division assignments were published. Now your job is to make sure that your division wins on Einstein, even if that means you sacrifice your own team's chance to appear on Einstein? Sorry, I don't get it.

Do you similarly not understand the concept of alliance loyalty? It's the same sort of thing, just on a larger scale and for a longer term. The only significant difference is that your own team's share in the victory is highly diluted.

That difference crosses the threshold between winning a trophy and not, so I can understand not wanting to "take one for the division", but the concept seems valid.

[Rick TYler]

Should a team's loyalty extend beyond themselves to helping insure their Division wins the Championship?

The US Marines say they believe in God, country, and Corps. In FIRST that would have to be engineering, alliance, and team. I don't remember anything about "division."

[Macdaddy549]

My answer to this is to not allow to pick within the top 8. I've seen too manytimes supper alliances created. Lets try evening the playing field in the elimination matches and we'll see more interesting matches. No mercie killings. Try it for one year and seen how it works.

[Sunshine]

If you are the number one seed why even ask others their intent before hand? Your number one goal is to pick the best alliance for your team......... It only seems logical to always pick teams that are best for your chances to win.

If you pick the team that is best for your alliance makeup, you are always doing the right thing.

It makes no sense to pick a team that would hurt your chances only to break up another possible alliance. If they say yes, you just hurt your chances. If they told you prior to the picking that they did not want to be with you, you have achieved nothing by asking them if you already decided that they would help your cause. You should pick them anyways. Their opinion of the best alliance is for them and is not necessarily in your best interests.

Pick the teams that are best for you and if you breakup possible agreed upon alliances along the way, so be it.

IMHO, never pick a team that you really do not want to be with you in an attempt to breakup that alliance. It can also backfire on you. What if they say yes? Are you going to be mad at them because they changed their mind and rethought their options after you put them in a possible bad situation?

It makes no sense to me to ask before hand if you have done your homework and the scouting team has a plan. Go with your plan and the strengths that the scouting team has put together. It's always the best that you can do.

[65_Xero_Huskie]

Im pretty sure this is not un-GP.
You yourself wants a strong alliance, so you would try to pick the strongest alliance. I know there are many teams who would NOT tell you what they are going to do in alliance picking if they are in the top 8. So going up and asking them would be your doing, which means it would be your call if you thought it was un-GP. The #1 seed at GLR picked alliance partners in the top 8. They all said no. Im pretty sure this was Defensive picking, However, They were all strong partners and im sure they wouldnt have minded them being on their team if they by some chance had said yes.

[EricH]

My answer to this is to not allow to pick within the top 8. I've seen too manytimes supper alliances created. Lets try evening the playing field in the elimination matches and we'll see more interesting matches. No mercie killings. Try it for one year and seen how it works.I think they might have tried that in the early years of alliances, maybe the first one. I'm not sure, though, so I'd have to look it up. It's also been done at offseasons. It makes for a more interesting eliminations, but teams aren't going to be happy that they can't pick the powerhouse next door--and then you get teams throwing matches to avoid the top 8, which has been discussed elsewhere.

[Cory]

My answer to this is to not allow to pick within the top 8. I've seen too manytimes supper alliances created. Lets try evening the playing field in the elimination matches and we'll see more interesting matches. No mercie killings. Try it for one year and seen how it works.

In 2001 there was autopairing (example: seed 1 automatically is paired with seed 5), and then teams could choose who they wanted.

There were questions of whether or not teams would throw matches back then to get into a better position to be picked. Can you imagine how often this could potentially happen if you weren't allowed to pick among the top 8?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

The #1 seed has the right to invite any team that they wish to form an alliance to form an alliance.

Asking a team to form an alliance solely to prevent them from being selected by another team is not GP. Not because it is not gracious... but because it is not professional. You should only ask a team to join you if you think that will enhance your chances of winning the event.

You should only ever ask teams to form an alliance if you truly wish to form an alliance with them. After all, that team that initially said "No" might just change their minds and you'll be stuck with them.

So let's quit looking at the "gracious" and start looking at the "professional". Is it GP for the top seed to invite any team that they wish to join them, if they believe that will improve their odds of winning the regional, regardless of whether that team "wants" to? Absolutely... that is why top seed is valuable. But to ask a team that won't make your alliance a strong one, just so they won't ally with someone else? That's just silly.

If you are top seed, always pick your number one pick, regardless of what they have told you. If they decline... that is their choice... but you should always make your best choice first. Anything else cannot be GP as it is not professional.

Jason

Jason,

You and I usually see eye to eye on most topics, but here I must disagree with you.

The object of the alliance selection of the game is to form an alliance that will win the regional. You can do this one of 2 ways:
1> Form the strongest alliance at the regional
2> weaken any possible threat to your strongest alliance.

As such, reducing your potential rivals strength is a good, and professional strategy. As a matter of fact to intentionally not do your best (IE possibly break up a potentially better alliance, having the option to do so) would be unprofessional ... IMHO.

[dtengineering]

Jason,

You and I usually see eye to eye on most topics, but here I must disagree with you.

The object of the alliance selection of the game is to form an alliance that will win the regional. You can do this one of 2 ways:
1> Form the strongest alliance at the regional
2> weaken any possible threat to your strongest alliance.



I think we both agree that the concept of "gracious" in making this decision is not particuarly relevant. Top seed has earned top pick, and is to use it to the best advantage of their team and alliance. Thus it is the "professional" aspect that matters.

From my perspective, I would be very hesitant to choose a team with which I did not wish to be allied, even if I expected them to decline the invitiation. This is a risk/reward decision... is the risk of them accepting worth the reward of them declining and thus forfeiting other inviations. My sense is most often not... but I can see where you are coming from in saying sometimes yes.

Fortunately, however, when we finally get into such a position, the decision will be up to the students. I think they might be somewhat less risk-averse than I.

Jason

[Shankar M]

I think the solution to this "dilemma" is to simply have a good pick list.

I know the way we pick works around our pick list (makes sense, eh?). All the deliberations and discussions of whether or not we can win with a team, or whether or not we can work with a team happens long before Saturday afternoon when the alliance selections occur.

On Friday night we have an extensive meeting to determine our list, and after watching a significant portion of matches on Saturday, we update the list appropriately and get it down to 24 teams in the order we want to pick them. Each team going down the list is the next best (best defined to be whatever we feel is important to helping us win the regional) team available. Whether we are ranked first or fifth, we go down our list.

If the list is structured properly there is no concern about which alliance to break up. The team that we feel has the best shot at helping us win gets picked first. Therefore, we are not worried about whether the next alliance down is going to pair up with a superpower and defeat us, because if we felt we were able to have a better shot with any other team, then we would have chosen that other team. If we are declined, we simply move down the list.

The list also answers the question of when to decline (although there is a little bit more guesswork involved at times). If the team that picks us sits lower on the list than other teams available, and we feel that we have the opportunity to pair up with a higher team on the list, it becomes an easy decision to decline. Obviously, there lies some guesswork in the process the lower we fall in the selection process, but there is no one to fault for this uncertainty than ourselves - if we had finished higher, we would have had a better chance of ending up with the teams we wanted to work with.

I think the important thing to note when picking teams is that it shouldn't be about making snap judgments. There is plenty of time prior to the alliance selection process to make decisions on the teams with whom you can win, whom you regard as the best. Taking advantage of this time greatly simplifies this "debate" at hand.


On a bit of a side note, I generally don't like this whole business of applying an "un-GP" tag to anything in the alliance selection process. In terms of what happens on the field (booing occurs off the field), I don't think anything in the process is "un-GP," just strategic maneuvers that people don't like very much - often because they are very good ideas.