Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically

[Mr. Van]

I find this discussion very interesting...

In 2003 (Stack Attack), there was a strategy of agreeing with your opponents to not knock each other's stacks down. If both alliances agreed, then the scores for each alliance were much higher and both alliances rose in the rankings, regardless of a win or loss. Since the wining ranking points were three times the loosing score, and the loosing ranking points were the score of the winning alliance, this making this sort of agreement could be very beneficial to all teams in the match.

This strategy was designed into the game that year - at least members of the GDC said that they knew about it as a possibility and wanted to see how teams would deal with the situation. Even though it didn't involve any "throwing" of the match (each team did their best to achieve the highest score), it was roundly criticized as collusion and at subsequent events teams proudly posted signs in their pit saying that they would not form any "agreements".

I find it very interesting that there seem to be a good number of people who feel that "playing the tournament" may be more important than "playing the match" and that throwing a match might be a valid and acceptable strategy, while a decade ago, there was nearly universal opposition to the Sack Attack agreement.

For me, the answer is simple: Play to win every match. There is a chance that one of the teams on the alliance will be attending their only regional. They may have been struggling the entire season. They may be winless at that point in the competition. For them, just having one good match might make their season. To do anything other than playing to your best ability is doing them (and your opponents) a disservice.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox
Team 599