Quote:
Originally Posted by EricDrost
Playing to your full potential is an optimization problem.
You want to maximize (YOUR SCORE) - (OPPONENT SCORE).
If the result is positive, you win. If the result is negative, you lose.
If you are not both trying to maximize YOUR SCORE and minimize OPPONENT SCORE, you are violating T7/T8.
In quals, you can argue that the goal is more aimed at maximizing your seed and minimizing opponent's seed so the bonus ranking points add wrinkles to this, but allowing the opposing alliance to select their own defenses is not minimizing opponent's seed.
6v0 in 2010 doesn't violate T7/T8 if brought up by somebody on the 0 alliance.
|
This is a false premise.
First off, T7 and T8 don't prohibit teams from playing beneath their own ability. They prohibit teams from
asking their opponents (T7) or partners (T8) to play beneath their ability. Both rules contain the following clause:
Quote:
|
NOTE: This rule is not intended to prevent an ALLIANCE from planning and/or executing its own strategy in a specific MATCH in which all the ALLIANCE members are participants.
|
The intent of these rules is stated in the box beneath the rules. The intent is
not to prohibit any alliance from engaging in a desired strategy for their match/alliance, but rather to prevent them from encouraging teams to throw matches to impact the standings. The scenario described in the OP pretty clearly fits as a match strategy (with willing participants).
Next, as you alluded to, there's a lot more to the ranking formula than the simplified equation you presented. There are numerous other factors that come into play in a tournament. To isolate the match score for each and every match as the optimization is not optimizing your chances of winning an entire tournament (or whatever your goals may be). You already mentioned that there are additional ranking points in play. When considering those rankings points, it's obviously preferable to obtain 3 or 4 rankings points as compared to 2 rankings points, even if it also increases your opponent's rankings points. Generally speaking, it's better to have a 4-2 margin of rankings points than it is to have a 2-0 margin (as increasing your own rankings points will have far greater impact on the standings that decreasing only 3 other members of the field). Even a 3-3 split of the rankings points is preferable to a 2-0 sweep of the rankings points.
But the single match vs. entire competition issue doesn't stop with the rankings points. There are plenty of scenarios where it makes sense to sacrifice your performance in an individual match in favor of increasing your performance in your overall goals. For the sake of simplicity, we'll assume the overall goal is to win the event. For example, it may make sense to keep your robot off the field for a match in order to make repairs. While it doesn't fit your optimization problem for that individual match, it may help you optimize your chances of winning the event. A less extreme example would be opting for a role or strategy you wish to test/practice, as you know it will help you in the long-run, even if it's sub-optimal for that individual match.
A lot of this discussion reminds me of
this thread from 2011. I stated many similar examples in my discussion there about why framing a competition as a series of individual matches that must all be won is a falsehood.