View Single Post
  #89   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-03-2010, 23:54
XaulZan11's Avatar
XaulZan11 XaulZan11 is offline
Registered User
AKA: John Christiansen
FRC #1732
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Milwaukee, Wi
Posts: 1,329
XaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to XaulZan11
Re: A novel strategy: Always score for your opponents

After talking to pfreivald, I learned that we were approaching the situation and this discussion from pretty different starting spots. Once we talked in the same 'common denominator' I think we came to the same conclusion or atleast understood the other's opinion better. So, hopefully this may help some the confusion:

My definition of 6v0 was different than his definition. I thought a "6v0" was when both alliances agreed before hand to only score for on alliance. However, he viewed it as any match where either alliance did not play full out to win. Basically when he said 2 of his matches were 6v0, I thought that they must have pre-planned it and scored for just one alliance. That was not the case, however, because we had different ideas of what a '6v0' was.

Secondly, in match 70 at FLR has been called a '6v0', but I think that is a mistake. As discussed in this thread and the FLR one, once two of the one alliance's robots did not work, the final alliance partner decided to sit infront of the goal and did not score, which would have given the other alliance 2 points for each goal. Many (including myself) feel that was a very smart play by that team as they did not want to fall further behind in the rankings. But, from the other perspective, it hurt the other alliance as their ranking points were abnormally low because that team did not partake in the match. I can understand how someone would feel upset and how the other alliance " purposfully quit so we couldn't get ranking points".



I think the 6v0 (my definition) strategy is a legitimate strategy that is well within the rules and GP. That, however, does not mean I will use it in every single match.
While I understand how someone can feel that other team 'quit so we couldn't get ranking points', I compare it to playing defense (in previous years). Both are well within the rules of the game, and impede the other alliance from scoring so your alliance benefits. I know some disagree that playing defense and this 3v0 strategy is unGP. Although I understand their opinion, I respectfully disagree.