"Strategic" Alliance selection
 

This is obviously a delicate matter so please forgive me if this comes across as rude or not in line with the spirit of FIRST. I won't beat around the bush here, i'd just like a primer on FIRST etiquette with regards to "Strategic" alliance selections at champs.

We've only been to the championship once before (Israeli RAS in 2008), and were too dazed to understand what was going on.. :)

So, to the point:

1. If someone is going to select you, will they talk to you and set it in stone? (so that you can tell others to not plan on you etc.)
2. say TeamA is seeded below you and would like to select TeamB, would they (TeamA, TeamB or both) approach you and ask you not to select TeamB?
3. Is it general practice to honor such a request if it is made?

I'll stick my neck out and say my honest opinion: I don't think a request like #2 is something that should be acceptable, and in that light I would think that honoring such a request would be pretty naive, and would really gut the seeding point system of it's meaning.

Knowing what the general FIRST etiquette suggests would be insightful for a foreign team :)

(Manners in a different country are always important!)

Thanks for your help, and hopefully this doesn't rub anyone the wrong way.
-Leav

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

By my experience (which is by no means extensive), usually only the first or second seeds will talk to their first selections, and it will often only be near the end of qualifying on Saturday. In most cases, a team will honor that request, but that's because it's the #1 or #2 seeded team! Otherwise, I think a team would be understanding if you wanted to seek other possibilities.

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

This is what I think.

If you want to break up any potential alliance, go for it. If you are seated above teamA and teamB (both in top 8) go ahead and chose teamB, they can accept or deny, either way you prevented them from pairing up.

I don't know if they will ask you not to pick TeamB, but if they do politely tell them that that is not within your strategy. It is your right as an alliance captain to pick any team you want for any reason.

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

1. Generally if someone is going to select you, they come and talk to your team. For example, at Palmetto, we had three teams that were going to pick us if we were around to be picked. Just turns out that the first seed alliance took us first. Nothing is really set in stone, but it helps to know if you're going to be picked or not.

2. I haven't heard of that happening, and I don't think that's a very courteous move. That's like "We want to win, but I don't think we can do that with you guys, so don't pick us." It's extremely disrespectful and a bit hurtful.

3. Since I've never seen this come up, I don't know how much of an issue it will be, but if someone had the audacity to make the request, I wouldn't pick either team simply because I don't want to end up picking TeamB and then TeamB be grumpy throughout the finals.

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

My personal opinion, #1 seed takes whoever they want. If you want to work with Team A you better seed high enough to ensure you get them. Some teams may be cool with your request but many will ignore it.

Some people will talk to you ahead of time about selecting you. More often it is the other way around, teams ask you to select them. The former is logical, the latter is just irritating. Coming to us 1 hour before and giving us a 2 page flier about your robot saying, "You should pick us" should be avoided. If your robot showed what your flier says and it is what I need then I would pick you. If not, then I won't. There is a pretty good chance that the decision has already been made.

Now, there are times (GLR 2008) where the #1 seed will choose people they know will say no to them in order to lock them out of picking each other. Some people claim it is "un-GP" but it is a legal strategy.

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

1. The number 1 seed does for their first pick sometimes, and similar high ranked alliances may or may not. This discussion is by no means guaranteed, and is more common in years like 2007 where direct robot interaction required pre-pick variation.
2. I've never heard of this happening.
3. Absolutely not.

As for alliance selection, picking teams you know will reject you is a good strategy and should not be discouraged, since to the victor go the spoils. In my personal opinion, I'm not going to pick someone JUST because they'll reject me, but I'll pick someone that I would want on my alliance if they had an impulsive change of heart, even if I'm certain they won't. (I.e. if I'm 469, I'm not going to invite 469 clones 1, 2, and 3 just to get them to reject, but if 1114 said they'd reject me, I'd try to pick them)

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

1. Yes, at least for the first and second picks. The #1 seeded team usually talks to the team it wants to pick as its first selection. Often, the two teams will compare their lists of teams and combine them so they both agree on the same list for their potential second picks. If the #2 team thinks it's obvious who the #1 team will pick, then the #2 team will talk to the team that it wants as its first selection, after the #1 seeded team has picked its first selection. The third ranked team can do the same thing, although it is a little bit more variable whether or not they will get the team they want.

2. Usually this does not occur, and sometimes it will be the complete opposite. An example is the Curie alliance selections in 2007. Team 1732 (#1) knew that 330 (#2) wanted to pick 1114 (#5 I think) so they chose 1114, who declined. That way, 330 could not pick them. Then they picked 330, who also declined, and then picked the #8 seeded 67, who accepted. By earning the #1 seed, 1732 had the ability to break up a potentially powerful alliance, and then created a powerful alliance of its own. It's all strategy.

3. I don't think I've ever heard of a team not choosing another team because a lower seeded team wanted to pick that team. It's not strategically sound.

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

The responses given by ttldomination and Chris is me follow my own experiences. I have never heard of scenario #2 happening.

Hope to meet you in Atlanta: Will you be shaving your head like your WAI photo again? (It'll make you easier to find :rolleyes: )

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

Just one thought: if you are going to do #1, actually pick the team then. In the past a team has told us they would pick us if we were available. We were and they picked someone else. It all worked out in the end for both of us, but it still looks bad.

I would only tell a team that we are going to pick them if we are #1 seed. Too many things can change by the time its your time to make your selection.

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

When I am picking I try to get a feel for what everyone in the top 8 is thinking. At MSC when I was helping out team 70, we talked to 1918, 33, and 573 (all seeded ahead of us) to figure out what they were thinking for their selections. This allowed us to run through plans on who we would pick in both rounds so we can always be prepared for any situation that arises (even though we were prepared, we still were shocked having 910 available for our first pick).

Having a high seed allows you to ask any team you want even if someone below you wants to pick someone else. I have only heard of this happening once and it was a really unique situation.

If someone asked me to not pick a team, I would either ignore it or take it as a joke.

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

1. It all depends on the team, and if they talk to other teams. I know that I do not talk to other teams, unless I know that I'm in a situation in which I have access to the full field of robots. (1st or 2nd seed).

2. This to my knowledge has never happened, and never should happen.

3. A team does not have to honor a request if it is made. This is actually what happened last year; we requested assistance from another team, and they politely told us that they would decline our offer if it was made.

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

I appreciate the feedback and happy to see that GP has taken over common sense! :)

Hopefuly all this talk of alliance selections won't be just for fun!

-Leav

p.s.
I'm bringing a shaver, hopefully i'll find someone with the skill to do it!!

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

That's too general a question for me to have a pat answer, so let's talk specifics:

Say the planets aligned on Curie in such a weird way that 2612, 469, and 1114 seeded 1st, 2nd, and 9th. We share two sponsors with 469 and one with 1114. We share parts with and cut parts for 469. We spend hours talking FiM/FIRST with them. We want them to win; we want to win; we want Curie to win; we want MI & GM & TARDEC teams to win.

In that specific case, with all those relationships, and since it ain't gona happen anyway. I think we'd hire Big Mike from MoTown to come down and make the rest of the captains an "offer they couldn't refuse" to leave 1114 for our second pick. :eek: Or would that only present yet another moral dilemma?

EDIT: Changed 1114 from 3rd to 9th seed to make the scenario possible.

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

I have to say that I appreciate this sort of thing... some alliances are just so beautiful you'd hate to break them up!
But this is a competition... :)

Re: "Strategic" Alliance selection
 

Here is another situation related to pre-selection etiquette. A high seeded team, not #1, might approach a higher seed team on Saturday morning with some version of the following question: "Do you plan to pick us? We're not asking you to, and its fine if you don't. However, we would like to know in advance so we can plan accordingly."

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