[gblake]

Originally Posted by EricH

Blake, in case you didn't notice, I did say the ORIGINAL situation. Hence the "completely different topic". I was not referring to your situation.

OK - Sorry

Your situation is a little far-fetched. Half the time, the #1 seed won't employ it at all; in fact, very few will. When it does occur intentionally, it is targeted at teams known to want to ally to create a formidable alliance.

OK - Let's say that they don't go down the entire list, and instead they only give a pseudo-offer to the team in question (in the #8 spot in this alternative scenario), knowing that the team in question will not accept (they would make a lousy alliance because their robots just don't go together well).

I'm not saying it won't happen; in fact, it might forseeably happen. The odds of it happening at full extent intentionally before the GDC figures up a stop for it are slim to none, but still, it may happen, at which point there will be massive complaints, and the GDC will say "It's legal by this year's rules" and possibly go figure up a solution.

I'm reviewing your original post. There are some things that don't sound right... Care to give a reason for the math? You know, not everyone plays that way. There are teams that make a living playing defense the right way. I don't care about the math behind this; I'm more of a tactician. "The best defense is a good offense", yes...but the defense is there to protect the offense's gains.

You are right - I was sloppy - How about replacing that "score the most points" statement with one about "maximizing the result of subtracting the opposing alliance's score from your alliance's score".

You might be right...but the better strategy teams already look at alternatives.

That's not strategy. That's tournament rules. There's a difference. Strategy is more of "What can we do, without breaking the rules, to win (or whatever it is the objective is)" at its highest level. Lower down, it's called tactics.

Not in the articles and texts I read, but that is a quibble.

That's reasonable.

Interesting--but I see your point. Such situations are rare, however. And you MUST weigh ALL the risks and benefits of such a move beforehand. If you're doing it to get your opponent's rook and you sacrifice your queen, is it worth it? Opponent's queen for a bishop? Queen for queen? It's not always the right move--consider the options first.

Odds of there ever being 7 declines: 0. Unless the team is SOO bad that they shouldn't be #1. That almost never happens. Also, you would need to ask all or almost all of those captains what their plans were. You won't get a straight answer for all of them, I guarantee it.OK. But, if those teams are even thinking of elims and aren't in the top 8, they won't go along. You'd need fairly bad robots in the bottom of the field--or robots who all do the dominant strategy of the regional and not very well. I'm not saying it won't happen, but the odds are slim.Simple. Do the math, based on human relations, for the strategy. It won't happen. If it was sure to happen, I might use it.

I didn't say that the #1 is bad. I said that the #2 and the team in question both believe that they are the best combination to create.

Listen, science and math includes psychology, does it not? Psychology deals with human nature, does it not? Human nature says your situation won't happen for quite a while yet, if ever. You only have two alternatives--full bore playing or not even showing up (the only way to guarantee the match outcome is in your "favor"--see the thread about 0vs2 match and who won).

Not showing up is in Fred's original hypothetical scenario; but it is never, ever an option in my hypothetical scenario.

From a game theory perspective, yes, from a math perspective, yes, from human nature--nope.


It is not wrong. However, not all teams use them in this way. Some teams just go out there to win every match. And, pro-style wrestling is to real wrestling as Battlebots is to FIRST.

I agree. That is why I wanted to remind everyone that you can not both tell teams not to worry about earning the Winning Alliance title, and at the same time surround it and those who win it with as much attention as they receive. Either it has non-zero value comensurate with its prominent, central place in FRC Regional and Championship Tournaments, or it doesn't. Once that debate is put to bed, one can move on to the ethics/GP question.

IF they do, then they better make sure that they actually reach it...and hope that #1 doesn't pick them.

Yep - In my reply to JesseK I acknowledged that being picked from the pool by the #1 in the first round is possible and would prevent an alliance between #2 and the team in question.

Here is where your entire situation falls apart. Suppose that #1 picks all down the top 8 and they all decline. They look back at their list. They ask for YOUR team. Do you a) decline or b) accept, now knowing that you only have one possible chance at the eliminations? I will almost guarantee you--teams that have a working robot and no travel plans that interfere will ALWAYS accept if they are not in the top 9-10.

See immediately above. We agree about that. The team in question would be briefly disappointed that they don't get to ally with #2. They will then turn their full attention to helping #1 beat #2 and the rest of the alliances.

Blake