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. :)