Quote:
Originally Posted by mathking
This a fascinating exercise in applied game theory. I actually think collusion (that is the game theoretic term, not meant to imply anything negative) between the two alliances, where one scores 0 points and they all try to score as many as possible for the winning side so that all six teams get the same number of seeding points is not a bad strategy. There is definitely a problem in that there is an incentive for the "winning" side to cheat at the end of a match. But the fact that elimination competition is based solely on wins and losses means that if you always use this strategy you will likely not be as prepared for elimination rounds as a team that does not use this strategy. Nonetheless, there are a lot of chances for such collusion/coopertition.
|
This is essentially what I was going to post. 6 robots working together to shuttle the balls from the midfield and score them on the same goals is has a high probability of achieving a higher score than a 3v3 match with defense, ball possession fights, traffic jams, etc.
Obviously the strategy won't be applicable to all robot designs (defensive, and even potentially end-game specialists). It may well also run into issues dealing with <G29>, depending on the implementation and robot design. And obviously not every alliance will be willing to do it. And the tie-based scenario is much higher-reward (though also higher risk, both in terms of cheating and just honest mistakes and miscues).
However, I can guarantee you we will see it attempted at least once per regional event.