Ranking Score strategy

[gbrettmiller]

This is my first year, so I'm not sure how scoring/ranking has worked in the past, but this caught my eye as a bit unusual:

9.3.5 All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive ... ranking points equal to the un-penalized score ... of the losing ALLIANCE. All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive ... ranking points equal to their final score.

Which is clarified a bit in the note to 9.3.8:

Note: because your ranking score is derived directly from the MATCH scores of your opponent ALLIANCES, it is in your interest that both your ALLIANCE and the ALLIANCES you "defeat" obtain a high score. The most valuable "WIN" results from a close, high-score MATCH.

BUT...the team seeding is based primarily on the qualification score, which is based on wins (2 points), losses (0 points), or ties (1 point). So it makes sense (obviously) to go for the win.

I guess the question is "how do you incorporate the need for your opponent to have a high score, but not too high, into a strategy based on winning the match?"

[Swerting]

This is only a rough thought, but I would scout out all the teams, and when paired with a roughly equal, in terms of ability, team, go for a close win, and for those tough matches, just go full out trying to win.

P.S. for the easier teams (which I doubt there will be since everyone is new to this floor) I would try to get a close win.

Like I said, a rough idea.

[Ironstorm]

In the only time I have seen a strategy work with this rule was during Aim High whena team went onto the opposite ramps. For this game though the only thing that comes to mind is throwing rocks into your own basket

[EricH]

Originally Posted by gbrettmiller

This is my first year, so I'm not sure how scoring/ranking has worked in the past, but this caught my eye as a bit unusual:

9.3.5 All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive ... ranking points equal to the un-penalized score ... of the losing ALLIANCE. All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive ... ranking points equal to their final score.

Which is clarified a bit in the note to 9.3.8:

Note: because your ranking score is derived directly from the MATCH scores of your opponent ALLIANCES, it is in your interest that both your ALLIANCE and the ALLIANCES you "defeat" obtain a high score. The most valuable "WIN" results from a close, high-score MATCH.

BUT...the team seeding is based primarily on the qualification score, which is based on wins (2 points), losses (0 points), or ties (1 point). So it makes sense (obviously) to go for the win.

I guess the question is "how do you incorporate the need for your opponent to have a high score, but not too high, into a strategy based on winning the match?"

Scoring and ranking this year is identical to past years.

You can, if you so desire, allow your opponents to score, or score for them. You do run a risk, however. Penalties. Yes, those little ten-point (or 20-point) penalties can ruin a close match.

[Tom I]

Throwing moon rocks into our own basket has been brought up as an option for increasing your ranking score in my team's discussions. In addition to risking losing it because of penalties, its could prove to be a difficult thing to explain to your alliance partners!

[~Mike()]

My team discussed throwing rocks into our basket also.
An interesting scenario that could happen at the contest would be if
Your alliance is winning by a significant amount that all of the teams on your alliance all of sudden start throwing rocks in their baskets
And they throw too many.
Communication to the other teams is important because if evryone thinks the same thing at once and nobody looks at what their alliance partners are doing
Than an easy win could easily turn around into a loss.
Plus as forementioned there is the risk of unnoticed penalties.

[Enigma's puzzle]

I would say that when you feel you can outscore your opponent, you don't play any sort of defense. and if you want to inflate scores, you must build an offensively minded robot.

HOWEVER, i am personally thinking, winning is my top priority, sometimes alliance captain isn't the best, it may make you seem unpickable by the other alliance captains.