Chief Delphi - Disrupting Alliances

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - Disrupting Alliances (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105845)

Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:

Originally Posted by nighterfighter (Post 1160952)

Except because 111 was not in the top 8, they wouldn't have declined.

They might have if they were confident someone within the top 8 would have picked, making them an alliance captain.

Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:

Originally Posted by nighterfighter (Post 1160955)

And 1771 was first seed.

If 1771 picks 254, 254 declines. No big loss, as they are #2 seed.

If 1771 picks 111, they won't decline, since they aren't in the top 8.

If 1771 picks 1114, they won't decline, since they aren't in the top 8.

The only way 111 would have made it into the top 8 would be if 1771 picked someone else from the top 8.

Once again, 111 was 9th, and it's reasonable to assume that other teams in top 8 (besides 1771) would have paired up with other teams in top 8. I don't mean to argue that picking/not picking 111 was the right choice. I'm just trying to show that picking 111 was not an unreasonable option.

Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:

Originally Posted by EugeneF (Post 1160958)

Yes, you are right.

I was referring to 1771 attempting some form of a "scorched earth", as being discussed.

The way the alliances were seeded on Galileo last year couldn't really allow a scorched earth, while still allowing a chance for the alliance to do very well.

Sorry for any confusion.

Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:

Originally Posted by nighterfighter (Post 1160962)

I know this might be a pointless question, but in hindsight do you think 1771 might have tried to split any combination of 111/254/1114 by selecting 111, assuming they would decline?

Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmoryG (Post 1160964)

I know this might be a pointless question, but in hindsight do you think 1771 might have tried to split any combination of 111/254/1114 by selecting 111, assuming they would decline?

To be honest, we were discussing either 254 or 1114.
We were informed that 254 would decline us, (and because they were second seed, it wouldn't do anything to disrupt them) and we didn't think that 111 would decline us.

We felt we had a better chance of winning with 1114. We knew that 254 and 111 would then pair together, but we had no way of stopping it, unless we let 254 and 1114 pair together.

We thought it was the "lesser of two evils", so to say.

Note: None of these teams were, in ANY way, bad. It's just what our anecdotal scouting data told us. (We couldn't scout. Our team consisted of 6 students, including the drive team.)

Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik (Post 1160896)

Separate post, because I forgot I wanted to address the topic of "weaker" alliances somehow letting down their division on Einstein. Which is what JB987 seems to be suggesting by stating the division suffers from a scorched earth selection strategy. If that's not the case, then my apologies, and I suggest more artful phrasing than "the price you pay" and divisions "suffering".

Frankly, this makes no sense. Teams are under no obligation whatsoever to put the interests of the division ahead of their own. For all the encouragement of cheering on your division on Einstein, the whole process is obviously focused on individual teams striving to get as far as they can. Not on a particular division trying to win on Einstein. If they latter were the case, there wouldn't be a point to alliance selections at all. You'd just have a panel of experts pick the division alliance most likely to cream the other divisions.

It's nonsense even if your position is just that it's somehow morally wrong to do alliance selections in a fashion that "weakens" the division. If that were the case, then it'd be morally wrong for any of the "weaker" alliances to pick a non-Top 8 powerhouse team before the "strongest" alliance had a chance at it for a second pick. The only morally right strategy would be for everyone to stay out of the way of the formation of an otherwise completely improbable mega-alliance of 3 powerhouse teams.

So no, I don't think there's a thing wrong with a "scorched earth" selection strategy, and I don't think teams should worry one whit that they might be "weakening" their division by pursuing it.

I don't recall commenting on morality associated with alliance decisions and I basically feel that all's fair as long as the rules are followed..and the rules certainly allow for a number one seed to ask every other team to join them. And teams certainly should not feel obligated to make any decision that may benefit the competitive success of a given division on Einstein. Believe me, our team last year didn't decide to decline the number one seed and wait to pick 968 because we were thinking of what our division "needed". We chose them because they were ranked high on our scouting list and were a good match (same for team 51, our second pick). I am just suggesting that the consequences of some alliance decisions can affect the likelihood (odds) of success (either positively or negatively) for that team and the division going forward.

Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:

Originally Posted by EugeneF (Post 1160954)

They were 9th seed, so they would have made it to top 8 after teams paired. It all comes down to whether 111 felt they had a better chance at winning from a low seed (such as 8th captain) with 254/1114 broken up, or if they felt that 111/1771 could have beaten 254/1114. Either is quite possible.

As I recall it, 111 would have been on the outside looking in until #7 picked #8. That could have turned out disastrously for them if they had said no and 7 had not picked 8.

Re: Disrupting Alliances

Since 2011 Galileo has been mentioned, here is an interesting factoid: we lost our last match by 3 points, and it could have gone either way. A win would have put us at 9-1 and #2 seed. I don't know how that would have panned out, but I think we would have prevented 254 from picking 111.

Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cory (Post 1160987)

As I recall it, 111 would have been on the outside looking in until #7 picked #8. That could have turned out disastrously for them if they had said no and 7 had not picked 8.

It wouldn't have turned out disastrously. It would have turned out as an 8-way race to declare that your second pick "broke" and you need a back up bot (the next highest seed).

Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricDrost (Post 1161022)

It wouldn't have turned out disastrously. It would have turned out as an 8-way race to declare that your second pick "broke" and you need a back up bot (the next highest seed).

Exactly.

Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricDrost (Post 1161022)

It wouldn't have turned out disastrously. It would have turned out as an 8-way race to declare that your second pick "broke" and you need a back up bot (the next highest seed).

Watch out, the GP police are coming :D

Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricDrost (Post 1161022)

It wouldn't have turned out disastrously. It would have turned out as an 8-way race to declare that your second pick "broke" and you need a back up bot (the next highest seed).

The manual prefaces the the backup teams as being "eligible". Presumably, a team that declines is not eligible to be a backup robot.

Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cory (Post 1160987)

As I recall it, 111 would have been on the outside looking in until #7 picked #8. That could have turned out disastrously for them if they had said no and 7 had not picked 8.

Didn't 3 pick 4, 4 declined and then 3 picked 2337 which I think was 6?

Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Wright (Post 1161192)

Didn't 3 pick 4, 4 declined and then 3 picked 2337 which I think was 6?

3 picked 40 who was outside the top 8.

Re: Disrupting Alliances

I will preface this by saying I think trying to predict a situation that did not happen is very difficult if not impossible. But if 1771 had picked 111 and they had declined and then picked 1114 then who would 254 had picked? With 6 opportunities to pick within the top 8 I think it is likely that 111 would have been an alliance captain. Although I can't speak for 111 but if I was in their situation and 1771 had picked me then I would have declined because I would have the aspiration of winning my division and einstein not just making it as far as possible and I would not have had a favorable chance of beating a 254/1114 alliance that also picked a 3rd bot before I did. Furthermore in a very deep division I would have had a great opportunity to pick 2 very good bots from the 7 or 8 seed and form a very scary alliance like 217 did.

I would also like to add that my opinion/comments are in no way meant to offend anyone or criticize 1771 for picking 1114 in fact I commend them on seeding first in such a stacked division.