Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

That's happened to me also at one of our events this year. It was actually a really smart strategy of a team to do that; so they could have the guaranteed best alliance possible, but it takes all of the fun out of realizing your top picks were already gone when you're out on the field :rolleyes:

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

For Leav:

1) Generally, top-8 teams will be talking to other teams that they'd like to pick. Not talking to them can result in bad things like them beating you in the eliminations. It's happened before.

2) I've never heard of it happening.

3) Pick one of them and see what happens. If they don't like it, they can decline.

For Wayne:

Certainly acceptable to ask. However, you may get such answers as, "We have a list, and you're on it [unspoken] at the bottom[/unspoken]." Worst case, they don't answer at all, or say, "We don't give out that information" or "Play well today and we'll consider it".

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

having a hard time reading between the lines here.. do you mean teamA didn't talk to teamB and so teamB were picked by another alliance somehow, that went on to beat teamA's alliance?

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

Team A (top-8 high) went to talk to (top-8 low) Team B, who didn't respond. Team A picked someone else, and proceeded to beat Team B handily when they met a couple rounds later.

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

A bit of advice:

Let's say a horrible robot ends up #1 seed. You are sitting in the #4 slot with a pretty good machine and are hoping to either pick Super Duper bot ranked 12th or Really good bot ranked #2. If the #1 seed comes running over to see if you will say yes, be polite, but don't tell them yes or no as far as accepting their offer. If you say no, they may ask you to make sure you can't match up with the #2 seed. If you say yes, but don't mean it, then you have to tell a lie. Instead, we would consider it. would you care to share your list so that we can discuss a third?

IKE

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

In a game like Breakaway, selecting alliance partners based on their rank might not be as great of a strategy as selecting your alliance partners to suit your needs. In Breakaway, as we all know, the field is divided into three zones. In the ideal alliance, you might want to consider selecting partners that specialize in a particular zone to play each match effectively.

This strategy kind of goes along with the idea that one should build their robot to excel in one particular aspect of the game.

While selecting, consider your strategy, do you want a robot in each field, two in the midfield? two in the near zone? (Now, if it is your game strategy to have everyone to move about the zones, perhaps a diverse alliance is not what you need, but similar robots)

Many teams out their may have the strategy to have an alliance to specialize in each zone. Therefore the ideal team in the far zone will have the ability to remove the three balls in autonomous and then be quick and agile to defend.
The team at midfield ideally will be able to recycle the balls from overhead to the near zone. The robot in the near zone should be quick, agile, score effectively at close range, and perhaps get balls out of corners.

It is to my belief that this is the best strategy, and I think it is this strategy that contributed to the victory of the underdog alliance of 3357, 1243, and 1254 over the first ranked alliance of 1718, 1918, and 1896 at the WM District Competition.

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

This is true regardless of game. Selecting alliance partners based on rank is generally a very bad idea and should only be done if you have no scouting data, can't find anyone that will let you have a copy of their scouting and alliance selections are in 1 minute.

And it is my belief and that of a number of others I have talked to that this is generally (there are certainly exceptions) a bad strategy and is the reason a few alliances lost matches they definitely could have or in some cases should have won. This weekend should sort help out which strategy is really the better one.

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

Let me start by saying that making any request of another team is perfectly fair. I have seen number 2 happen before. In 2007 in Boston my team seeded #2. I forget whether it was 126 or 69 that seeded, but one of them was either 4th or 5th, but they both approached us and told us not to pick either one of them because they wanted to play together. So we honored the request and didn't pick either one. This is the only time I've ever been asked by one team not to select another. They beat our alliace in the semis, so it worked out for them.

Personally I think this is fine. Teams don't have to honor other teams requests, and teams reserve the right to decline, so making requests of other teams is fine because if they are seeded higher they can choose to ignore requests, but it deosn't happen very often.

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

That was us (Team 70). It is a good thing, I think, to know who your first pick is going to be simply because you need to begin thinking about the best possible second pick so that you can balance out the alliance with a good robot that both you and your fellow alliance partner agree on.

Although, you're right. I think that going out there and just seeing what happens is quite fun (though you really have to have a lot of lists written out for what you are looking for and what teams are available).

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

I think teams have been asked just about every question about who and when they will pick.

There are a few reasons to let a higher seeded team know your intentions (if they ask, i would not just volunteer this).

* It gives them time to make alternate decisions and avoid frustration during selections.

* It lets them decide if they will be embarrased by a "decline" response, and don't want to do it.

* It lets them decide if they want to pick you anyway to break up another partnership.

In all cases, be careful about "promising" anything, by anyone on the team. Especially in a game like 2010, the rankings can change quickly with one really high or realy low scoreing match. Everyones selection strategy can quickly change.

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

Alliance selections can be more than just someone picking the good teams. Although this is not huge at Championships due to so many good teams in attendance, but at regionals it can become a larger example of this:

There are 4 really good robots among many not so good robots at a regional or district. One of the top robots is seeded first, another second, the third sixth, and the fourth outside the top 8 due to poor seeding points in a match even though they are really good. Your top 8 look something like this:

1. A
2. B
3. x
4. x
5. x
6. C
7. x
8. x

D- Lets put them at 9th.

Team A is a very good robot and teams B,C, and D are each good robots, but all in their own way and are near equal in their average scoring in a match. Team A sees that team D sticks out more than team B. They pick team D and team B picks team C. This puts all 4 of the best robots in the event on the top two alliances. This might look like something many of us have seen at many events and these two alliances face each other in the finals. How could this have been prevented? In reality, team A should have picked team B knowing that either captain 3, 4 or 5 would have picked team C or D, or would have had very bad scouting data to not pick one of the two other top robots. Yes, this may have decreased the offensive power of alliance number 1 by a slight margin, but it would have taken away any chance for the other two top robots to get together and almost seals the deal for a regional win.

Man I need to remind myself that official season is over and time to get back to life! :)

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

My take is that almost everything is fair game during alliance selection. There is a set of rules that everyone is playing by and like everything in FIRST there is a strategy to it. If you earned a spot in the top 8, you have the right to pick whoever is left and at the same time decline whoever picks you. What I don't agree with is lying to people or promising a pick. If a team asks if you are on the list or if they are going to pick you, people should be honest. Telling them you are not going to share the information is fine, as once again you have earned the right to do what you want as a top seed.

-Eric