Disrupting Alliances

[Ekcrbe]

If I can bring us back to the general subject, I don't think there is any definite problem with the "scorched earth" strategy because of one main reason: Using such a strategy isn't entirely gaming the system, because one could argue--however improbably--that they actually wanted every single one of the teams that they picked, thereby making the scenario not a strategic event, but rather an honest execution of the alliance selection system.

I would also like to note that any indefinite problem--i.e. those (like a morality issue) that are much more subjective than, say, a rules violation--is hard to find because***, while GP does include something like helping to fix the robot of an opponent, I don't think it extends all the way out to letting them create an alliance that is more advantageous to them and less so to you, so I think the GP argument is invalid. In the end, there is a competition afoot during alliance selections, and everyone wants to put themselves in a position to win, so long as it does not unfairly hurt the other teams. Being blocked out of picking from in the top eight could be just as much of a part of a fair competition as getting stuck with a bad schedule during qualifications for the second seed.

***I want to say this very carefully and with the utmost respect for the spirit of GP and its use

[martin417]

Originally Posted by JR.

I will preface this by saying I think trying to predict a situation that did not happen is very difficult if not impossible. But if 1771 had picked 111 and they had declined and then picked 1114 then who would 254 had picked? With 6 opportunities to pick within the top 8 I think it is likely that 111 would have been an alliance captain. Although I can't speak for 111 but if I was in their situation and 1771 had picked me then I would have declined because I would have the aspiration of winning my division and einstein not just making it as far as possible and I would not have had a favorable chance of beating a 254/1114 alliance that also picked a 3rd bot before I did. Furthermore in a very deep division I would have had a great opportunity to pick 2 very good bots from the 7 or 8 seed and form a very scary alliance like 217 did.

I would also like to add that my opinion/comments are in no way meant to offend anyone or criticize 1771 for picking 1114 in fact I commend them on seeding first in such a stacked division.

While I am not offended, I would like to point out that we were one of the better scoring robots in the division last year. We did have a very favorable schedule, and that helped us seed first, but we would not be considered a middle tier robot. We knew that we couldn't break up an alliance that would in all likelihood be the Einstein champions, but we chose the team that we thought gave us the best chance to go far. We didn't do as well in the eliminations as we had done the rest of the year, but sometimes things happen. For some reason, our mini bot, which had been perfect all year, failed every time during Elims.

We chose 1114 because we thought they would give us the best chance to win. We expected to face 254/111 in the finals, but thanks to 469 playing some stellar defense on 1114, and some less than stellar play on our part, we didn't make it that far. In the exact same circumstance, I would do the same thing again.

[AlecMataloni]

Originally Posted by JR.

I will preface this by saying I think trying to predict a situation that did not happen is very difficult if not impossible. But if 1771 had picked 111 and they had declined and then picked 1114 then who would 254 had picked?

254 likely would have picked 469, 40, or 2337, all solid picks that probably would have won them the division.

[Raul]

Originally Posted by AcesJames

The beginning of the plan to split up the top 8 on Newton that year actually stemmed from the fact that we (176) talked to many of the high ranked teams before selections, and many of them said they would not accept our invitation to form an alliance anyway. We had a relatively "easy" match schedule, and truthfully did not deserve to be ranked #1 in such a stacked division. We then went to 111 (who was outside the top 8), and colluded on the strategy to break everyone else up before selecting them, to better our chances of winning in elims.

Actually, look at the records on FIRST under the archived results. We were #8 seed and were debating whether or not to decline. The rest is history - what Glenn said is accurate. There is no doubt that had you not followed our advise, we would have declined.

We did pretty well to get to the finals against a lot of very good alliances.

When I think back about this, I often feel bad for the other teams who were so good and whose chances at winning it all were "scorched", as someone put it. I am glad to hear that most on this thread support what we did as accepted strategy, but I have lots of friends on those teams and still feel bad about it. Would I do it again - yes, and I would still feel bad while doing it. I just hope no team is put in that position at STL.

Raul

[Paul Copioli]

Raul and I have a very similar mindset on this strategy.

The 2008 great lakes regional was a classic example of "make them all decline to get us in the finals" strategy.

Everyone knew 66 was going to pick us and we were at 13 or something like that. I went up to the mentors and students of 66 and said, "we will accept no matter what but please do the following so we can have a chance to make it to the finals" 66 was willing to do the "pick everyone" strategy and it worked.

We sat dead in 2 of the three matches in the finals due to the power distribution board that year (don't even get me started on that thing), but if not for that strategy I think we would have been out in the QC or sf.

As luck had it, 910 was available in the third round and played masterfully keeping both matches we were sitting dead ptty close.

I felt bad because a lot of my friends were on teams that we "scorched" but know they would have probably done the same.

Paul

[Jeremy Germita]

Originally Posted by Don Wright

Didn't 3 pick 4, 4 declined and then 3 picked 2337 which I think was 6?

Originally Posted by O'Sancheski

3 picked 40 who was outside the top 8.

For what it's worth, 399 was the #3 Alliance captain on Galileo. We initially invited #4, 469, and they declined. After that, we invited #6, 2337, who also declined. And after that, we invited 40 who was 15th.

[twetherbee]

Originally Posted by Raul

Actually, look at the records on FIRST under the archived results. We were #8 seed and were debating whether or not to decline. The rest is history - what Glenn said is accurate. There is no doubt that had you not followed our advise, we would have declined.

We did pretty well to get to the finals against a lot of very good alliances.

When I think back about this, I often feel bad for the other teams who were so good and whose chances at winning it all were "scorched", as someone put it. I am glad to hear that most on this thread support what we did as accepted strategy, but I have lots of friends on those teams and still feel bad about it. Would I do it again - yes, and I would still feel bad while doing it. I just hope no team is put in that position at STL.

Raul

As one of the teams affected by 176/111's stragety in 2006, I will say we were certainly disappointed that the "scorched earth" plan was put into place, but it is still one of the best strategic moves I've witnessed firsthand in my years as a FIRST mentor and I've always had a lot of respect for Raul and Co. for pulling it off. It got them to the Newton Finals, so I would say it was a success. We would have done the same thing and still would.

Newton was so stacked in 2006 that we still ended up with a great alliance with 1503 and 1718 and nearly knocked off 25/968/195's alliance in the semi's.

If only we would have won Qual Match 40....shoulda, woulda, coulda. Watching 229 fire ball after ball into the goal still haunts my dreams.......(101 to 92. Who scored 92 in qualifications and LOST a match that year?)

I agree with Raul that I hope it doesn't happen in STL this year, too. The Co-op bridge has certainly been the wildcard this year....

[IKE]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

...The 2008 great lakes regional was a classic example of "make them all decline to get us in the finals" strategy.
...

As one of the teams on the receiving end, you basically go through the stages of grief (DABDA).
I remember 66 coming to the pits and asking us if we would be interested in forming an alliance. We respectfully told them we would prefer to form our own alliance.
When they then selected us, we declined and went through disbelief/denial that we were picked above 217.
Then, it clicked what was happening, and there was Anger.
Bargaining is basically making your picks and thinking you stand a good chance at making it to the finals.
Depression occurs when you get knocked out in the QF or SF.
Acceptance comes when looking back, and understanding the reasoning that goes into the maneuver.
Most folks/teams go through this cycle when their dream of winning the event gets shattered by scorched earth. Many go through it in the timetable I stated above. Some folks are still in the Anger phase 5 years later (which is pretty unhealthy).

When executing a strategy like this understand that it will upset many (at least temporarily). Most will forgive. Few will forget. Some may never get over it. If you feel the need to be liked by everyone, you will likely regret implementing a strategy of this nature.

[dodar]

Our team was left with this same dilemna in 2008 on Curie. Somehow we ended up seeding #1 and we had quite a few teams come up to us and told us not to pick them; some even being teams that didnt even win the right to.(they werent in the top 8-10) We sat there for atleast half of the time between our last match and alliance selection arguing if we should split up each alliance by just going down the team list till we go to the team we wanted.

Time ran out and we just decided to pick the team we wanted first. Looking back at it, I think we could have done better by splitting up everyone but I dont think we could have been a better alliance than what we sent to Einstein from Curie that year.

[JABot67]

I don't understand why people get mad over "scorched earth". The only reason I would get mad is if there was a specific team I wanted to pair up with. BUT the good thing about scorched earth is that NONE of the other really really good teams have really really good partners either. In fact, if I am outside the top 2 seeds and I know that the top seeds are not going to pick me, I absolutely want scorched earth to happen. I want a non-power to seed first and split everyone up.

67 would have been a goner in 2008 GLR if 66 hadn't seeded first and broken up alliances such as 217+33, 217+27, 27+33 and the like. Instead the "scorched earth" policy made for some of the most exciting elimination matches I've ever seen because all 8 alliances were solid contenders.

What's wrong with "scorched earth"? It's a great strategy in my opinion, and I want to see it MORE often at the Championships. All of you naysayers that would hate to see it, well all I can say is this: If it happens you can be sad, but I will sit back and get some quality entertainment out of my Saturday afternoon!

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

The manual prefaces the the backup teams as being "eligible". Presumably, a team that declines is not eligible to be a backup robot.

Just for clarity, I have submitted a request for clarification on this matter to the FRC Q&A. We'll see if it gets answered in time...

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by JABot67

I don't understand why people get mad over "scorched earth". The only reason I would get mad is if there was a specific team I wanted to pair up with. BUT the good thing about scorched earth is that NONE of the other really really good teams have really really good partners either. In fact, if I am outside the top 2 seeds and I know that the top seeds are not going to pick me, I absolutely want scorched earth to happen. I want a non-power to seed first and split everyone up.

67 would have been a goner in 2008 GLR if 66 hadn't seeded first and broken up alliances such as 217+33, 217+27, 27+33 and the like. Instead the "scorched earth" policy made for some of the most exciting elimination matches I've ever seen because all 8 alliances were solid contenders.

What's wrong with "scorched earth"? It's a great strategy in my opinion, and I want to see it MORE often at the Championships. All of you naysayers that would hate to see it, well all I can say is this: If it happens you can be sad, but I will sit back and get some quality entertainment out of my Saturday afternoon!

I've never been part of a Scorched Earth play, but i've witnessed it, and is it exciting! It's much better to see from a spectator's point of view than one alliance blowing everyone away. It's part of the magic that is FRC. If I were in a "scorched Earth" play and on the receiving end, I would probably be more excited than angry, just because of the intense action that I would encounter. It's a strategic challenge now, every alliance is about even, and the ones with better strategy and execution will win.

[dodar]

I would actually more say that I would be anxious more than any other feeling; because if 1-8 have teams that you thought would end up as the 1-4 alliances but now you have a killer every round, that would make me anxious to see who really makes it more than angry, sad, or happy.

[rick.oliver]

I understand and agree with the strategy. I don't think that anybody should feel bad about trying to create the best alliance they can and doing it in a way that creates the best chance for their alliance to advance.

[JB987]

[quote=

What's wrong with "scorched earth"? It's a great strategy in my opinion, and I want to see it MORE often at the Championships. All of you naysayers that would hate to see it, well all I can say is this: If it happens you can be sad, but I will sit back and get some quality entertainment out of my Saturday afternoon![/QUOTE]

Nothing wrong with this strategy as I have stated earlier but the resulting parity and exciting matches are more likely to be found at the Division level than at Einstein under this scenario if all divisions didn't do likewise...I still contend that the odds would favor the division(s) that managed to avoid "scorching earth". Could a number 8 seed win it all? The 2007 Championship banner in our shop shows it's possible but living in Vegas shapes one's betting behavior