Disrupting Alliances
 

This is a hypothetical situation that I thought of while considering Joe Ross's simulations of the divisions:

We all know that the luck of the schedule plays into where teams seed in the rankings. In most of the schedules that Joe runs, the best team(s) come out on top. But in a few rare cases, a worse one does, simply due to luck. So let's say that a decidedly middle tier team becomes first seed, purely due to the luck of the schedule. In all likelihood, there will be a couple of selections within the top 8. They know that most if not all the other top 8 teams will reject their alliance request. Is it then acceptable for this team to attempt to choose every top 8 robot forcing them to deny and thus become unpickable? Is it considered part of the game in the name of big picture strategy and it giving them a competitive advantage? Or would doing so be considered rude and frowned upon by the community?

Again, not a real or probable situation, just wondering what peoples thoughts are.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Not real or probable? Check out the history behind the 2006 Newton alliance selections...

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

I've actually seen this done several times, and I fully support it. Whenever you pick someone there are two options, they either say yes or they can not be picked by anyone else. If they have a better robot than you do, both of those options are fantastic for you. Basically, picking the best teams possible is never a bad move.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

See 176 Newton 2006. They themselves will say how good of a strategic move it was.

Yes it is perfectly acceptable. Yes it is part of the game and the big picture. Doing so should not be considered rude or frowned upon.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

I think that it is perfectly reasonable and a totally legitimate strategy. If you are the number 1 seed and none of the other top 8 want you as their alliance mate then you will want and should have some kind of advantage. Getting to be the number 1 seed isn't easy even with a nice schedule. Besides, even if they all said to you no beforehand you may as well try in case some team changes their mind. After all you want to have the best alliance possible.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

The price of a scorched earth selection process is a drastically decreased chance of fielding an alliance that will succeed on Einstein...

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Part of the game. Legal. I REALLY don't want to hear any booing on a webcast if some team tries it!

Plus, who knows? One of the other top-8 teams might decide to accept, thereby throwing the team's strategy into partial chaos if they'd planned to pick outside the top 8 after breaking up all the powerhouses in the top 8. Now there's a switch...

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Raul of 111 advised 176 of that strategy in 2006 and said that was the only way they would accept being with them.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

We were probably hurt the most by this strategy...yet faced with the same situation as 176 we would have done exactly the same thing. It's the only smart thing to do.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

I don't know Cory, as I remember things there was a good chance of a 25+987 alliance too;)

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

You mean just like Vegas that year? :)

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Yup...but you would have to ask Shawn if they really would have chosen us again.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

It's the smartest thing to do and it is well withing the rules of the game. If you don't do it, you are doing the process a disservice in my opinion.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

I remember 2007 Curie was alot like this too... even 2011 Newton the number one seed had alot of declines... totally legitimate strategy. Top seeds shouldn't feel bad for doing this any more than the other top 8 should feel for declining. At least that's my opinion...

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Well, I don't want to say the year or division because it would call out the team. But I have seen the results of not doing the scorched earth strategy as well.
(FYI this story is not about 341, just something I observed)
It went something like this:
Seed #1 (not a powerhouse) was advised by the experienced mentor of a their potential top pick to select a subset of other teams before selecting them so that they had a chance. The top pick was a powerhouse team that ended up outside the top eight.

Seed #1 said no, because they claimed that their top pick was trying to "trick" them into doing something they did not want to do. Other mentors from multiple teams confirmed for the #1 Seed that this was a good strategy if they wanted to have any chance at all.

Seed #1 number does not accept the advice of their future partner and takes their first choice immediately anyway. The top pick is outside of the top 8 and has to accept, even though they would not take this really good advice.

Everyone in the Division gets crushed as two powerhouse teams get together. By not listening to their potential partners advice and not trusting, that #1 Seed singlehandedly sealed everyone's fate and formed the World Champions that year.

While the #1 Seed certainly had the right to do what they wanted, listening to good advice and trusting your potential partners is not a bad idea either. :)

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

If you are in this position to begin with, your prospects for winning Einstein are probably somewhat slim.

Might as well play to make it as far as you possibly can, and see what happens from there!

I support breaking up the alliances 100%. Regardless of how you got there, you still "earned" that #1 seed, and have every right to maximize that opportunity.

Specifically for this year, the trickier question is whether you should KEEP a weaker team OUT of the #1 spot to prevent this situation from happening. Say you are in the top 8, and have a match against a weak team who will move into the #1 position with 2 CP. Should you decline co-oping with them so they don't get the #1 seed and break everyone (including you) up?

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

I hear this a lot, "I don't want to hear any booing..." ...In my 9 years of FIRST, I don't think I have ever heard a crowd "Boo" a team for turning down someone. I *have* heard "OOoooo" and personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It amps the excitement up and gets people interested in alliance selections.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

I don't have 9 years to my name, but I have certainly heard booing in alliance selection. The "B" was very defined. Maybe Michigan is just a very positive place? ;) I have no problem with disrupting alliances--even with refusal to Co-Op balance, as long as you're honest about it.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

The beginning of the plan to split up the top 8 on Newton that year actually stemmed from the fact that we (176) talked to many of the high ranked teams before selections, and many of them said they would not accept our invitation to form an alliance anyway. We had a relatively "easy" match schedule, and truthfully did not deserve to be ranked #1 in such a stacked division. We then went to 111 (who was outside the top 8), and colluded on the strategy to break everyone else up before selecting them, to better our chances of winning in elims.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

My point was not that the #1 seed suffered from the systematic effort to split top teams, but that the DIVISION suffered in regards to the forming of an alliance capable of going all the way...

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Can someone explain the 2006 Newton selection for me? I haven't been able to find good information on it. Same for "scorched earth" as it applies to selection.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

See two posts above you for what happened in 2006.

"Scorched earth" = There's a #1 seed. For some reason or another, other teams in the top 8 don't want to be on an alliance with the first seed, so they decline invitations from the first seed. This prevents a "super alliance" from forming as the top 8 seeds cannot choose each other.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

If you make it to Einstein, you can win. Point me to a division champ alliance that never had a chance to take it all. Look at 2010, a year where the champs were all but guaranteed... Then Newton happened with Galileo close behind. Or 2008, where Galileo lost their first match to Newton. Or 2007 where the Wall of Maroon pulled a huge upset. Or Archimedes 2006 when a team who had never won a regional before seeded first and became World Champs. Were any of these divisions "scorched earth?" I don't know, and maybe not, but if you can make it to the big dance, you might as well waltz.

I also don't see why scorched earth would matter too much, as Einstein alliances consistently pick outside the top 8 anyways. Last year, 217 picked 1503, 254 picked 111, and 987 picked 968. The only alliance that had inter-picking was the Archimedes division, where 2016 (1) picked 177 (6).

It isn't a tricky question. You can decide whether to to co-op or not. However, that is your decision and not your alliance's. If someone else on your alliance wants to try for those 2 extra CP, then what gives you the right to stop them? Who made you alliance captain? The best you can do is explain the situation to your partners and hope they agree with your strategy (a la 1625 in Galileo 2010, who did a 6v0 in their last match that led to a number 3 seed and a division title).

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Hmm... Is refusing to co-op to lower someone's rank still co-opping. I think in a way it is. Also I have no issues with splitting up alliances; it's in the spirit of the game. It just stings a little to be on the receiving end.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

[quote=iVanDuzer;1160863]If you make it to Einstein, you can win. Point me to a division champ alliance that never had a chance to take it all. Look at 2010, a year where the champs were all but guaranteed... Then Newton happened with Galileo close behind. Or 2008, where Galileo lost their first match to Newton. Or 2007 where the Wall of Maroon pulled a huge upset. Or Archimedes 2006 when a team who had never won a regional before seeded first and became World Champs. Were any of these divisions "scorched earth?" I don't know, and maybe not, but if you can make it to the big dance, you might as well waltz.

I also don't see why scorched earth would matter too much, as Einstein alliances consistently pick outside the top 8 anyways. Last year, 217 picked 1503, 254 picked 111, and 987 picked 968. The only alliance that had inter-picking was the Archimedes division, where 2016 (1) picked 177 (6).


You are correct that any Division winner has a shot to win it all. Obviously as a member of the Wall of Maroon I am aware that upsets are possible...but I think they are called upsets because the odds are against the underdogs, which means statistically one is less likely to achieve success in the competitive arena when unable to ally with other teams that may have more strengths and form an even better fit with your team. Over time, one would find that stronger alliances are going to wind up on top more than "weaker" alliances which can be the result of a "scorched earth" scenario.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

There was a little bit of disruption in Newton last year (though it wasn't intentional and could have been taken much further if it was). Team 3138 was deservingly the number 1 seed and selected Team 16 (the 6th seed), who declined. They then immediately picked 233, who was ranked outside of the top 8. Teams 148 and 217 then both declined invitations to join the second seed, 1676, which prevented any combination of those three teams within the top 8 from pairing up.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

How about this scenario then. The weaker #1 seed approaches the other high power teams in the top 8 and tells them it looks like they'll be pursuing a scorched earth strategy. The #1 seed pick whichever top 8 powerhouse seems most likely and suggests they team up and use the scorched earth strategy to weaken all the other alliances. It's pretty similar, except you're pressuring one of those other top 8 teams to accept, because if they don't, you're gonna break up their chances at a powerhouse alliance anyways.

I think the most logical way this would go is #1 picks 3-8 expecting declines, then turns to #2. At which point, #1 is basically declaring it's a better option than whoever's left outside of the top 8. Or you plan on #7 or #8 being your "dare ya" pick, suggesting that #1 is a better option than who is left by the 8th pick.

Anyways, just a random thought on a different scenario. I think it'd still be perfectly legal and acceptable. I also think it's unlikely this year, as there's going to be enough strength scattered through the rankings that even a #8 seed would probably prefer its odds on making its own picks in a scorched earth Elims.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Hmm... I wonder why the MCs in a fair number of events are so quick to translate an "oooo" into a "booo" and call attention to it as a "booo" then. This isn't a minor thing either--I've heard it on the webcasts from multiple events.

The MCs have been doing a really good job with trying to tamp that down, with reminders that every team has the right to decline, and the odd "Hey! No booing! They can do that!"

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

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.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Ok, so say Galileo 2011 1771 picked 111 first and they declined (someone correct me if 111 was not one of the top 8 seeds). That would allow them to select 1114 next and thus ending any chance of 111/254/1114 forming an alliance together.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

111 was ranked 9th so 1771 did not select 111 as their first pick.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

That is correct, in theory.

However, 111 could see the intent and accept, allowing 254/1114 to ally. Throws a little wrench into strategy, doesn't it?

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

An alliance between 111/254/1114 was inevitably never going to happen. Even though 1114 was ranked outside the top 8, they were still the first choice for the first seeded team to pick and they had to accept.
Even if the first seeded team did not choose 111/254/1114 one of the 3 would have been snagged onto another alliance at the blink of an eye. Their robots were just too good last year to all have the chance to be on the same alliance.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Yep, I meant any combination of the two, not an alliance made up of 111 254 and 1114, arguably the top 3 robots from that year. That would be absurd. Anyway, I guess the only way to have split up the 3 robots altogether would have been to select 254 and hope they wouldn't decline, which isn't relevant to this thread anyway.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Well, why would 111 accept in the first place, if it meant going against 254 and 1114? I would think they would decline, hope that someone within the top 8 seeds would be picked so that they would become an alliance captain, and then form their own alliance.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Doesn't really matter, as there was picking from within the top 8 in Galileo.

Picking 111 would have put them in a position where, if they accept, 254 and 1114 pair up and win, and if they decline, 1771 picks up 1114 and they get the 8th and 9th picks of the draft. Consider who 111 managed to pick from the 15th selection in the draft for a second and you can see the wisdom of going for the win from #8.

What incentive would 111 have to make an alliance that isn't their own better?

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

That's a decision they'd have to make, and anybody in the top 8 has to make.

You are a team in the top 8/9 teams. You are picked by the #1 alliance. Do you accept, and play hard against the powerhouses that get formed by the lack of a scorched-earth policy, or do you decline and take whatever you get from application of the scorched-earth policy, even if that is nothing due to being #9 when the scorched-earth goes through the entire top 8? Your call.

Short version, it's possible to accept just to block a scorched-earth picking. But doing that is a strategy that could bite you... Your choice.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

However, it would have been dangerous for 111 to decline. I would not want my elimination hopes riding on the selections of others. There was no guarantee that 111 would end up an alliance captain. It's easy to go and point to the fact that there was inter-8 picking, but beforehand, do you really want to take that chance?

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Everyone knows that if a weaker team seeds first, the best thing they can do to increase their chance of winning is break up the powerhouses. What I'm wondering is: How often does this work? How often does the #1 alliance win when a "scorched earth" selection policy is enacted to break up the best teams?

I've only been to 2 events that alliance captain #1 wasn't one of the best teams and used its power to break up the best teams. Curie 2007 had 1732 seed first; they chose 1114 and 330 first to make sure they didn't get together, then picked 67. We made it through some very controversial semifinals matches but our run ended in the finals. The other competition was 2008 Great Lakes, where 66 seeded first and chose 27, 33, and 67 before choosing 217 who was outside the top 8. That great alliance (66, 217, 910) made a great run to the finals before losing to the #7 alliance partly because 217 sat cold in 2 of the matches.

So, how often does this "scorched earth" policy actually result in the #1 seed winning it all? Does anyone have an idea of the percentage? I know that this is the best tactic for a #1 alliance captain who isn't the best, but I'm just curious as to how often it works.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

I was the representative from 1771 during alliance selection in 2011 on Galileo.

111 was NOT in the top 8, and neither was 1114.

254 was 2nd seed, and if we had picked them, they would have declined, (and that is perfectly acceptable, they have the right to do so) which wouldn't have affected anything.
So we decided to go straight to 1114, who had to accept (or not play).
Unforuntaley for us, that led to 254 picking 111.

We knew that either an alliance of 254/111 or 254/1114 was going to happen. We hoped that 1771/1114 could beat 254/111.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

1114 and 111 were both outside of top 8, however consider these scenarios

1. 1771 picks 111. 111 accepts and then 254 picks 1114.
2. 1771 picks 111 but 111 declines. 1771 then picks 1114. 254 can't pick 111, so they select a top seeded alliance. 111 becomes an alliance captain, forcing 111, 254, and 1114 into separate alliances.

I'm not saying the choices teams would have had to make for this to happen would have been the best choices, but I do think that the second scenario isn't entirely unreasonable and that it was possible.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

You mean 1114 and 111 were both outside of top 8. Regardless, the rest of your argument holds.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

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

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

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.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

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. (During the first picking, obviously)

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

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

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

Exactly.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Watch out, the GP police are coming :D

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

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
 

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

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

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.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

If I can bring us back to the general subject, I don't think there is any definite problem with the "scorched earth" strategy because of one main reason: Using such a strategy isn't entirely gaming the system, because one could argue--however improbably--that they actually wanted every single one of the teams that they picked, thereby making the scenario not a strategic event, but rather an honest execution of the alliance selection system.

I would also like to note that any indefinite problem--i.e. those (like a morality issue) that are much more subjective than, say, a rules violation--is hard to find because***, while GP does include something like helping to fix the robot of an opponent, I don't think it extends all the way out to letting them create an alliance that is more advantageous to them and less so to you, so I think the GP argument is invalid. In the end, there is a competition afoot during alliance selections, and everyone wants to put themselves in a position to win, so long as it does not unfairly hurt the other teams. Being blocked out of picking from in the top eight could be just as much of a part of a fair competition as getting stuck with a bad schedule during qualifications for the second seed.

***I want to say this very carefully and with the utmost respect for the spirit of GP and its use

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

While I am not offended, I would like to point out that we were one of the better scoring robots in the division last year. We did have a very favorable schedule, and that helped us seed first, but we would not be considered a middle tier robot. We knew that we couldn't break up an alliance that would in all likelihood be the Einstein champions, but we chose the team that we thought gave us the best chance to go far. We didn't do as well in the eliminations as we had done the rest of the year, but sometimes things happen. For some reason, our mini bot, which had been perfect all year, failed every time during Elims.

We chose 1114 because we thought they would give us the best chance to win. We expected to face 254/111 in the finals, but thanks to 469 playing some stellar defense on 1114, and some less than stellar play on our part, we didn't make it that far. In the exact same circumstance, I would do the same thing again.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

254 likely would have picked 469, 40, or 2337, all solid picks that probably would have won them the division.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Actually, look at the records on FIRST under the archived results. We were #8 seed and were debating whether or not to decline. The rest is history - what Glenn said is accurate. There is no doubt that had you not followed our advise, we would have declined.

We did pretty well to get to the finals against a lot of very good alliances.

When I think back about this, I often feel bad for the other teams who were so good and whose chances at winning it all were "scorched", as someone put it. I am glad to hear that most on this thread support what we did as accepted strategy, but I have lots of friends on those teams and still feel bad about it. Would I do it again - yes, and I would still feel bad while doing it. I just hope no team is put in that position at STL.

Raul

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Raul and I have a very similar mindset on this strategy.

The 2008 great lakes regional was a classic example of "make them all decline to get us in the finals" strategy.

Everyone knew 66 was going to pick us and we were at 13 or something like that. I went up to the mentors and students of 66 and said, "we will accept no matter what but please do the following so we can have a chance to make it to the finals" 66 was willing to do the "pick everyone" strategy and it worked.

We sat dead in 2 of the three matches in the finals due to the power distribution board that year (don't even get me started on that thing), but if not for that strategy I think we would have been out in the QC or sf.

As luck had it, 910 was available in the third round and played masterfully keeping both matches we were sitting dead ptty close.

I felt bad because a lot of my friends were on teams that we "scorched" but know they would have probably done the same.

Paul

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

For what it's worth, 399 was the #3 Alliance captain on Galileo. We initially invited #4, 469, and they declined. After that, we invited #6, 2337, who also declined. And after that, we invited 40 who was 15th.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

As one of the teams affected by 176/111's stragety in 2006, I will say we were certainly disappointed that the "scorched earth" plan was put into place, but it is still one of the best strategic moves I've witnessed firsthand in my years as a FIRST mentor and I've always had a lot of respect for Raul and Co. for pulling it off. It got them to the Newton Finals, so I would say it was a success. We would have done the same thing and still would.

Newton was so stacked in 2006 that we still ended up with a great alliance with 1503 and 1718 and nearly knocked off 25/968/195's alliance in the semi's.

If only we would have won Qual Match 40....shoulda, woulda, coulda. Watching 229 fire ball after ball into the goal still haunts my dreams.......(101 to 92. Who scored 92 in qualifications and LOST a match that year?)

I agree with Raul that I hope it doesn't happen in STL this year, too. The Co-op bridge has certainly been the wildcard this year....

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

As one of the teams on the receiving end, you basically go through the stages of grief (DABDA).
I remember 66 coming to the pits and asking us if we would be interested in forming an alliance. We respectfully told them we would prefer to form our own alliance.
When they then selected us, we declined and went through disbelief/denial that we were picked above 217.
Then, it clicked what was happening, and there was Anger.
Bargaining is basically making your picks and thinking you stand a good chance at making it to the finals.
Depression occurs when you get knocked out in the QF or SF.
Acceptance comes when looking back, and understanding the reasoning that goes into the maneuver.
Most folks/teams go through this cycle when their dream of winning the event gets shattered by scorched earth. Many go through it in the timetable I stated above. Some folks are still in the Anger phase 5 years later (which is pretty unhealthy).

When executing a strategy like this understand that it will upset many (at least temporarily). Most will forgive. Few will forget. Some may never get over it. If you feel the need to be liked by everyone, you will likely regret implementing a strategy of this nature.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Our team was left with this same dilemna in 2008 on Curie. Somehow we ended up seeding #1 and we had quite a few teams come up to us and told us not to pick them; some even being teams that didnt even win the right to.(they werent in the top 8-10) We sat there for atleast half of the time between our last match and alliance selection arguing if we should split up each alliance by just going down the team list till we go to the team we wanted.

Time ran out and we just decided to pick the team we wanted first. Looking back at it, I think we could have done better by splitting up everyone but I dont think we could have been a better alliance than what we sent to Einstein from Curie that year.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

I don't understand why people get mad over "scorched earth". The only reason I would get mad is if there was a specific team I wanted to pair up with. BUT the good thing about scorched earth is that NONE of the other really really good teams have really really good partners either. In fact, if I am outside the top 2 seeds and I know that the top seeds are not going to pick me, I absolutely want scorched earth to happen. I want a non-power to seed first and split everyone up.

67 would have been a goner in 2008 GLR if 66 hadn't seeded first and broken up alliances such as 217+33, 217+27, 27+33 and the like. Instead the "scorched earth" policy made for some of the most exciting elimination matches I've ever seen because all 8 alliances were solid contenders.

What's wrong with "scorched earth"? It's a great strategy in my opinion, and I want to see it MORE often at the Championships. All of you naysayers that would hate to see it, well all I can say is this: If it happens you can be sad, but I will sit back and get some quality entertainment out of my Saturday afternoon!

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Just for clarity, I have submitted a request for clarification on this matter to the FRC Q&A. We'll see if it gets answered in time...

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

I've never been part of a Scorched Earth play, but i've witnessed it, and is it exciting! It's much better to see from a spectator's point of view than one alliance blowing everyone away. It's part of the magic that is FRC. If I were in a "scorched Earth" play and on the receiving end, I would probably be more excited than angry, just because of the intense action that I would encounter. It's a strategic challenge now, every alliance is about even, and the ones with better strategy and execution will win.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

I would actually more say that I would be anxious more than any other feeling; because if 1-8 have teams that you thought would end up as the 1-4 alliances but now you have a killer every round, that would make me anxious to see who really makes it more than angry, sad, or happy.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

I understand and agree with the strategy. I don't think that anybody should feel bad about trying to create the best alliance they can and doing it in a way that creates the best chance for their alliance to advance.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

[quote=

What's wrong with "scorched earth"? It's a great strategy in my opinion, and I want to see it MORE often at the Championships. All of you naysayers that would hate to see it, well all I can say is this: If it happens you can be sad, but I will sit back and get some quality entertainment out of my Saturday afternoon![/QUOTE]

Nothing wrong with this strategy as I have stated earlier but the resulting parity and exciting matches are more likely to be found at the Division level than at Einstein under this scenario if all divisions didn't do likewise...I still contend that the odds would favor the division(s) that managed to avoid "scorching earth". Could a number 8 seed win it all? The 2007 Championship banner in our shop shows it's possible but living in Vegas shapes one's betting behavior;)

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

We (294) were with you in that match, so we're in the "lost with 92 points" club. I was 294's human player, and I missed a few shots into our hopper, so you can at least partially blame the loss on me. It was definitely one of the most frustrating losses of my high school career.

Looking back at our match results from Newton that year still kind of haunts me. Against 111 (L), against 25 (L), with 987 (L), with 968 (L).

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Thanks, you beat me to it...

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

This is not true. Look at Newton 2006. Top robots that year: 25, 111, 254, 968, 987, 1503.

The only thing that was achieved was that no combination of 25/254/111/987 was able to be made. Wildstang ended up with an average partner instead of being picked by 987/25/254 and we ended up with 71 instead of 987/25/1503. 987 and 25 both ended up with their first pick being one of the top 5 bots in the division.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Yes 25 and 987 wound up with some top 5 partners...just not each other:(

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

I've lost a lot of sleep thinking about this situation. If there's enough interest and time, I'll probably talk about it in my seminar in St. Louis.

Short version, we probably should have declined from the 10th spot. It might have given us our best chance of winning the Championship. There was a very likely chain of events that could have created an 1114, 973 and 341 alliance from the 8 spot. It takes a LOT of courage to decline from the 10th spot, but in certain situations the decision can be mathematically justified.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

I think you have us getting picked way too early in that draft ;)

I love the alliance we ended up on, but that sounds like a great time too.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Sure, but then 1771 could have used scorched earth and gone down the rest of the seeded teams, making it much harder for alliance captains to pick each other and leaving you still in unseeded land. So it would have been extremely gutsy of you to decline.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

We had you 6th or 7th on our picklist. I still don't understand how you ended up as the 23rd team to enter the elims. A travesty of scouting.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Same thing with us. The only reason I can think of is that 973 basically did not have a working autonomous and the threat of us plus 111 triple uber tubing drove teams to value autonomous too much. Even then it was still stupid that they did not get picked before the draft got back to us...not that either of us are complaining.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Opinion: a "victim" of a scorched earth strategy is completely justified in feeling upset at the circumstances that prevented them from winning an event. I would be feel upset and cheated, too, at least initially.

The victim is not really justified in being eternally angry at the top seeded team, though. They are just trying to give themselves the best chance to win the event. It is not incumbent on the top seed to conclude that they don't deserve to be the top seed and then proceed to choose a picking strategy that gives a lower seeded alliance the best chance to win. If I'm up there, I'm going to invite the powerhouses and hope they accept, and if they don't, I'm going to at least try to avoid facing two of them at the same time.

I would argue further that the alliance captain has a responsibility to its partners to give them them best possible chance of winning. If you pick Good Team D without exercising the option to prevent Powerhouses A, B, and C from allying themselves, you're not doing everything you can to help your allies win.

If we're talking specifically about the Championship, then there is the extra argument that scorched earth will reduce the division's chance to win it all. My reply to that is that a team has the right to do all it can to maximize their (likely once in a lifetime) chance of setting foot on Einstein. Once again, no team has a responsibility to recognize that they are less worthy and then make decisions that will make it easier for somebody else's alliance to win.

Any "victim" could have rectified the situation by.... Wait for it... Seeding higher ;). Obviously the schedule isn't under your control, but what you do with it somewhat is.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Karthik,

If you had declined, we would have strategically picked within the top eight to "scorch", only picking teams we thought would decline. then we would have gone straight to 111. That would have actually been beneficial for us, even though we believed you the better bet because it would have split up any potential super alliances like 254/111. It would have forced 254 to pick deep. That would create several very strong alliances that had the potential to knock out some of the stiffer competition before we faced them.

It certainly would have made for some interesting matches.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

I thought about something related a couple weeks ago... if a VERY good team ends out outside of the top 8 somehow and declines someone, might teams in the top 8 intentionally avoid picking each other in order to leave that team out of eliminations? It would be quite an act of collusion, but that could be a strategy with some value. It also depends on the answer to the question asked earlier, about whether teams that declined can be backups...

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Assuming that 1114 declined and maybe ended up 9th, can an alliance who "loses" a teammate pick them up as a 4th robot per the rules?

That is also a strategy in itself.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

On a similar note, an interesting rule is:

Totally not GP to "lose" a teammate, but if you really needed a backup, you could end up with one of the most unbelievable alliances ever on Einstein...

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

::rtm:: I believe the concerned rules are as follows:

emaphasis mine

Declining a pick would then preclude a team from becoming a backup robot because they are no longer eligible. In this situation, had 1114 declined at #10 and then not move up to the top 8, an alliance calling in the back up robot would not result in them being the back up robot because although they would be the highest seeded remaining team, they would not be the highest seeded remaining eligible team. So declining a pick to be called in as a back up for some ridiculously strong alliance is not within the rules.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

^ That issue was actually brought up earlier in this thread (around post 55). I just checked, and the Q&A question Jared341 submitted is still pending...

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

I agree that this is a reasonable interpretation, but the fact that 5.4.1 says "that team is not eligible to be picked again" and NOT something like "that team is not eligible to join another Alliance" leaves a bit of a gray area. A backup bot is not really "picked".

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Wow, it would take a lot of, um, uh--bravery!--to decline while in 10th seed... After watching 610 decline their way out of the tournament at FLR 2009 while in 9th seed, I can't imagine ever taking that chance.

Speaking of alliance disruptions, the other alliances might choose not to pick in the top eight first time through just to lock a powerhouse team like 1114 out of contention. (By the way I'm not saying that's what happened to 610 in 2009 -- as far as I know there wasn't even a hint of collusion in that regard. I'm also not saying I'd approve or disapprove of a lock out like this, either -- just that I could easily see it happen.)

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

A final thought about declining a first pick from the 10th seed position. To even think about doing so, you would have to assume you could get a better partner after seven picks have already occurred (assuming that a team in the top eight picks another in the top eight twice). the #1 seed would have to be less capable than at least five teams that seeded 11th or worse. I don't see that as a very likely scenario. If a 10th seeded team did decline a first pick, then somehow ended up in the 8th position, it is doubtful that they could get a better partner than the #1 seed, but they could definitely get a great second pick. Would it be possible to create a better alliance that way? maybe, but I haven't seen many #8 alliances win it all.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Ahh, but would the 1st seed be able to beat the 8th seed? Keep in mind that on Newton, the 7th seed went to Einstein if I remember correctly, and an 8th seed won Einstein one year. Last year it was a race of minibots, if the 8th seed deployed faster than the 1st seeded alliance, it was over; also one reason why I hated minibots.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

This is true; however, the 8 seed does have the luxury of back-to-back picks. This allows them to build a strong alliance (admittedly out of the remaining robots, but when there are 85 teams left in the division, the pickins aren't exactly slim)

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Agreed. It very much depends on where the drop-offs are in the field. If the field is very deep through 24 robots, then the 8th seed doesn't get much advantage with their 2nd pick compared to the 1st seed's 2nd pick. If the field drops off severly after 17 robots (and there isn't much dropoff in the top 15), then being 7 or 8 seed can be an advantage.

The alliance of 217, 68, and 247 in 2009 were world finalists from the 7th seed (I believe) after 217 declined a top pick. I remember the reason being that they felt the dropoff in the field made the 7th seed a more attractive spot.

In 2007, we (team 65 at the time) were division finalists from as the 8th seed captain. Similar reasons - the field dropoff was such that 8th seed was a great spot to be. To be honest, I thought we had the best alliance in the division that year - had a couple small things gone differently, we probably would have won it.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

This was true in Curie 2009. There were several robots that seeded very high in the top 5 that were good robots but it seemed that the top robots in the division were in the bottom of the top 8.

The only time when you should decline a first pick by the higher seed is when you know that you can pick AND the number of stronger robots is greater than the difference in positions. For example, you are seeded 6th and are picked by the number 1 seed. You look on your scouting data and see that while they are a good robot, there are 7 other robots seeded below you that you view would compliment your robot better meaning that if you decline, you would be garunteed 2 of the 7 by the time it is your turn to pick. This tactic becomes risky when you are 9th or 10th seed. The only times you should decline as a 9th or 10th seed is when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there will be inter pickings. At a regional you sometimes will have the 9th, 10th, and even 11th seeds move up but at Champs there is a lot of picking outside the top 8 from my observations.