View Single Post
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-03-2010, 21:16
Tknee Tknee is offline
Spectator
AKA: Mike Huang
no team
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Ontario
Posts: 12
Tknee has much to be proud ofTknee has much to be proud ofTknee has much to be proud ofTknee has much to be proud ofTknee has much to be proud ofTknee has much to be proud ofTknee has much to be proud ofTknee has much to be proud of
Re: Playing two different games this year?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Integral View Post
The absoult worst thing about a 6v0 stradgy is that it does NOT maximize the seed points. In fact it minimizes them.

Consider a 16-0 score each teams get 16 seed points. Not to bad, right?

Now consider those same 16 goals split evenly for a 8-8 tie, Here each team gets 24 seed points!

Looks to me like a tie is the way to maximize seed points. Why in the world would you want to leave one side scoreless? The alliance which through strong defence skunks the other alliance hurts only themselves.

Play no defence and strive for a tie.
I think with TU 16, it is generally agreed that the mutual 6v0 strategy is no longer a preferred option (though it may still occur for reasons I will list below). Let me be clear that I was not a big fan of 6v0, but understood there may be times when it may have been appropriate.

First of all while I fully agree that 6v0 does not maximize seed points, it does not minimize them. In a match, points scored for the losing alliance do not benefit the losing alliance. With 6v0, every goal helps both alliances. Further the argument was that under 6v0, more goals could be scored than under a 3v3 situation.

I also grant that a tie is the best outcome to maximize seeding points betwen two alliances working together. However a tie is much more difficult to engineer than simply scoring all your goals on one side. I believe to properly execute it, you almost need to predetermine the final score, which I feel is one step too far in the argument of collusion. There was also the argument that when engineering a tie there is a much larger incentive to backstab. I didn't like this argument because I feel that is definetly unprofessional and that one's reputation is far more important than seeding points.

Lastly, I think most of its advocates understood that 6v0 does not maximize your score but reduces risk. It's the question of whether you would prefer to have $2, or play a game where a die is rolled that paid $6 if the result was even. The $6 pays better; even the expected value $3 pays better, but there may be situations where all you need is the guaranteed $2.

As an aside, strong defence has its place in qualification matches. Not all teams are aiming to be in the top 8 seeds. For some teams, the qualification matches are there to showcase their abilities which may include impressive defensive capabilities. For others, the win resulting from strong defence may score better than the loss that results without it. Sweeping generalizations on what is the optimal strategy are rarely correct in complicated games.

Last edited by Tknee : 10-03-2010 at 21:22. Reason: Added a )