Disrupting Alliances

[Grim Tuesday]

This is a hypothetical situation that I thought of while considering Joe Ross's simulations of the divisions:

We all know that the luck of the schedule plays into where teams seed in the rankings. In most of the schedules that Joe runs, the best team(s) come out on top. But in a few rare cases, a worse one does, simply due to luck. So let's say that a decidedly middle tier team becomes first seed, purely due to the luck of the schedule. In all likelihood, there will be a couple of selections within the top 8. They know that most if not all the other top 8 teams will reject their alliance request. Is it then acceptable for this team to attempt to choose every top 8 robot forcing them to deny and thus become unpickable? Is it considered part of the game in the name of big picture strategy and it giving them a competitive advantage? Or would doing so be considered rude and frowned upon by the community?

Again, not a real or probable situation, just wondering what peoples thoughts are.

[JB987]

Not real or probable? Check out the history behind the 2006 Newton alliance selections...

[Cory]

Originally Posted by JB987

Not real or probable? Check out the history behind the 2006 Newton alliance selections...

We were probably hurt the most by this strategy...yet faced with the same situation as 176 we would have done exactly the same thing. It's the only smart thing to do.

[JB987]

I don't know Cory, as I remember things there was a good chance of a 25+987 alliance too

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by JB987

I don't know Cory, as I remember things there was a good chance of a 25+987 alliance too

You mean just like Vegas that year?

[JB987]

Yup...but you would have to ask Shawn if they really would have chosen us again.

[BigJ]

It's the smartest thing to do and it is well withing the rules of the game. If you don't do it, you are doing the process a disservice in my opinion.

[Austin2046]

I remember 2007 Curie was alot like this too... even 2011 Newton the number one seed had alot of declines... totally legitimate strategy. Top seeds shouldn't feel bad for doing this any more than the other top 8 should feel for declining. At least that's my opinion...

[OZ_341]

Well, I don't want to say the year or division because it would call out the team. But I have seen the results of not doing the scorched earth strategy as well.
(FYI this story is not about 341, just something I observed)
It went something like this:
Seed #1 (not a powerhouse) was advised by the experienced mentor of a their potential top pick to select a subset of other teams before selecting them so that they had a chance. The top pick was a powerhouse team that ended up outside the top eight.

Seed #1 said no, because they claimed that their top pick was trying to "trick" them into doing something they did not want to do. Other mentors from multiple teams confirmed for the #1 Seed that this was a good strategy if they wanted to have any chance at all.

Seed #1 number does not accept the advice of their future partner and takes their first choice immediately anyway. The top pick is outside of the top 8 and has to accept, even though they would not take this really good advice.

Everyone in the Division gets crushed as two powerhouse teams get together. By not listening to their potential partners advice and not trusting, that #1 Seed singlehandedly sealed everyone's fate and formed the World Champions that year.

While the #1 Seed certainly had the right to do what they wanted, listening to good advice and trusting your potential partners is not a bad idea either.

[Nemo]

Since 2011 Galileo has been mentioned, here is an interesting factoid: we lost our last match by 3 points, and it could have gone either way. A win would have put us at 9-1 and #2 seed. I don't know how that would have panned out, but I think we would have prevented 254 from picking 111.

[SamMullen]

I've actually seen this done several times, and I fully support it. Whenever you pick someone there are two options, they either say yes or they can not be picked by anyone else. If they have a better robot than you do, both of those options are fantastic for you. Basically, picking the best teams possible is never a bad move.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

Is it then acceptable for this team to attempt to choose every top 8 robot forcing them to deny and thus become unpickable? Is it considered part of the game in the name of big picture strategy and it giving them a competitive advantage? Or would doing so be considered rude and frowned upon by the community?
.

See 176 Newton 2006. They themselves will say how good of a strategic move it was.

Yes it is perfectly acceptable. Yes it is part of the game and the big picture. Doing so should not be considered rude or frowned upon.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

I think that it is perfectly reasonable and a totally legitimate strategy. If you are the number 1 seed and none of the other top 8 want you as their alliance mate then you will want and should have some kind of advantage. Getting to be the number 1 seed isn't easy even with a nice schedule. Besides, even if they all said to you no beforehand you may as well try in case some team changes their mind. After all you want to have the best alliance possible.

[JB987]

The price of a scorched earth selection process is a drastically decreased chance of fielding an alliance that will succeed on Einstein...

[Mr. Lim]

Originally Posted by JB987

The price of a scorched earth selection process is a drastically decreased chance of fielding an alliance that will succeed on Einstein...

If you are in this position to begin with, your prospects for winning Einstein are probably somewhat slim.

Might as well play to make it as far as you possibly can, and see what happens from there!

I support breaking up the alliances 100%. Regardless of how you got there, you still "earned" that #1 seed, and have every right to maximize that opportunity.

Specifically for this year, the trickier question is whether you should KEEP a weaker team OUT of the #1 spot to prevent this situation from happening. Say you are in the top 8, and have a match against a weak team who will move into the #1 position with 2 CP. Should you decline co-oping with them so they don't get the #1 seed and break everyone (including you) up?