FRC Blogged - What Do You Think? The ‘Invite to Decline’ Strategy

[Skinkworks]

The 'scorched earth' strategy doesn't seem possible to work; mostly I think that because my team's strategy for alliance selection always starts with "If someone above you picks you, say YES!". It's the "high confidence in others" strategy, and I would think a decent number of teams use it, and scorched earth doesn't work if many people use this strategy.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Skinkworks

The 'scorched earth' strategy doesn't seem possible to work; mostly I think that because my team's strategy for alliance selection always starts with "If someone above you picks you, say YES!". It's the "high confidence in others" strategy, and I would think a decent number of teams use it, and scorched earth doesn't work if many people use this strategy.

Please read Mr. Lim's post again. I quoted a relevant excerpt for your convenience.

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim

I wouldn't take away the opportunity for this strategy to happen, because I personally think it's a pretty great and ingenious way to build some pretty important critical thinking, reasoning and relationship building skills.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Skinkworks

The 'scorched earth' strategy doesn't seem possible to work; mostly I think that because my team's strategy for alliance selection always starts with "If someone above you picks you, say YES!". It's the "high confidence in others" strategy, and I would think a decent number of teams use it, and scorched earth doesn't work if many people use this strategy.

See, that's the thing. For many teams, that is their strategy. For many others, who happen to tend to be slightly better (or maybe more to the point, tend to end up in the top 8 more often than not), they might be a little more picky. They may have teams that they won't ally with, for whatever reason, regardless of situation. (Possible reasons may run back for quite a few years, but that's beside the point.) They may have teams that they really like to ally with, again for reasons that may run back a decade or more.

These teams are strategists and will look at the long picture. These are the teams who were playing 6v0 in 2010, or always going to the coop bridge in 2012. These are the teams who will decline if they think it will help them win. Many of them will have a strategy something like: "If we're picked by X, Y, Z, accept without hesitation. If it's F or D, decline. If A or B picks us, your call--see if you can chat with 'em in the mass of representatives."

It's the latter teams that will either play a scorched earth intentionally from the picking side, or "assist the play" from the defensive side. Because they tend to seed higher, they tend to be in better position to use it, and thus it gets used.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by EricH

See, that's the thing. For many teams, that is their strategy. For many others, who happen to tend to be slightly better (or maybe more to the point, tend to end up in the top 8 more often than not), they might be a little more picky. They may have teams that they won't ally with, for whatever reason, regardless of situation. (Possible reasons may run back for quite a few years, but that's beside the point.) They may have teams that they really like to ally with, again for reasons that may run back a decade or more.

These teams are strategists and will look at the long picture. These are the teams who were playing 6v0 in 2010, or always going to the coop bridge in 2012. These are the teams who will decline if they think it will help them win. Many of them will have a strategy something like: "If we're picked by X, Y, Z, accept without hesitation. If it's F or D, decline. If A or B picks us, your call--see if you can chat with 'em in the mass of representatives."

It's the latter teams that will either play a scorched earth intentionally from the picking side, or "assist the play" from the defensive side. Because they tend to seed higher, they tend to be in better position to use it, and thus it gets used.

Great points here.

11 hasn't normally had the opportunity to decline in the past, but this season they did. It was a call that was debated for hours the previous night and many situations and scenarios/potential alliances were presented and analyzed. When 11 declined as the first selection at Bridgewater district, we heard "boos" and "ohhhhh" and I frankly thought that was way more disrespectful than any decline I've ever seen. The call was risky and in the end, didn't pan out as planned, but it was one we had to take or risk playing against much stronger alliances that could have been formed because we felt the top seed had a slightly easier schedule than many others (and the data showed this as well)

Very honestly - I think Frank should address the issue of how declines are perceived by the audience and by many teams in FRC, instead of the rarely seen "scorched Earth" strategy. The one being declined should not take it personally or be upset, and the audience should not do anything to make the declining team feel embarrassed or bad about their decision. We hear the booing and the "oohhh"s way too often at other events too, this really should be discouraged by the higher-ups in FIRST.

[Chris is me]

I feel that the "real" problem here isn't with the act of declining, but how it looks. What if captains said "Thanks for the invitation, but we would like to form our own alliance"? That is better in so many ways. For one, it's less harsh than "we decline", which is a more obvious and outright rejection that can look petty or disrespectful. Secondly, it explains *why* they are declining - the team believes it can form a better alliance from a different seeding position.

I feel like if the presentation is change, attitudes about it will change as well. Right now the rationale is obscured, the ceremony is awkward, and the audience is left confused. If we fix it, maybe these won't be a problem.

[Kims Robot]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I feel that the "real" problem here isn't with the act of declining, but how it looks. What if captains said "Thanks for the invitation, but we would like to form our own alliance"? That is better in so many ways. For one, it's less harsh than "we decline", which is a more obvious and outright rejection that can look petty or disrespectful. Secondly, it explains *why* they are declining - the team believes it can form a better alliance from a different seeding position.

I feel like if the presentation is change, attitudes about it will change as well. Right now the rationale is obscured, the ceremony is awkward, and the audience is left confused. If we fix it, maybe these won't be a problem.

I can't say I've actually ever seen anyone just say "we decline"... Most I've seen say "Team xxx respectfully declines as we would like to form our own alliance" or occassionally I guess the "team xxx graciously declines" (which is annoyingly bad grammar, but at least trying not to be rude). Even those responses are usually met with a slight audience shock of "Ohhhhh". But I think the problem is "Ohhh" "Ooooo" and "Boooo" all sound a lot alike... I've had trouble before trying to figure out if the audience is ooo'ing or boo'ing. But I agree, some of it is the perception.

I also think its very much the job of the MC to take care of the "how it is perceived". A good MC will always explain to the audience ahead of the alliance selections that it is an alliance captain's right to decline & form their own alliance if they think they have a better/more complimentary strategy that way. And the MC will always deal immediately with any decline by reinforcing to the audience that the declining team has a different strategy. I am pretty sure I've seen Blair, Karthik and Eric deal very well with this before... I'm sure there are others... but really the MC's can really help mitigate the confusion.

But ultimately, I think its sort of always going to be a small shock factor, because I would guess that maybe 70% of the FIRST population is like Skinkworks' team and is just excited to accept, so they have very little understanding why a team "would not trust" a higher ranked team, or what the strategy could possibly be that could be better than playing with a higher ranked team.

In reality it's all like a chess match... you have to envision your ultimate goal in the whole competition, and if it's to win the event, you need to step your way backwards through every move/match/selection in order to maximize your potential of winning. If there is a path through the selections & eliminations that leads you to a better chance of winning in the finals, then its very often worth the shot.

When I used to develop pick lists with 1511, we always had our selection of 1-30, and at some point in that list we drew a line and said "if anyone below this line picks you, decline and form your own alliance". Sometimes there were teams ranked higher than us that were below that line, or even below our top 30. In that case our student would decline, because we could form a much stronger alliance on our own.

[rlowe61]

Originally Posted by KylerHagler

Yeah, the declining at TRR was a bit shocking to the audience. We as a team kinda expected to be declined because we aren't that well known. But hey, it ended up in our favor anyways.

This was the best example of preventing a powerhouse alliance I've seen. With 118 then 1477 declining that made for some pretty even alliances. though it was disappointing to see "Alamo" alliances reform.
I never had a chance to find out if that was the strategy, but it did work out for CRyptonite in the end.

Thanks.

[billylo]

Chris is right on. If the question is changed to 'would you prefer to join or form your own alliance?'

It takes the negative out and the audience who are not very familiar with this type of strategies would understand the rationale better.

And yes, more games = more fun = more accurate rankings.

[Jeff Waegelin]

Originally Posted by billylo

Chris is right on. If the question is changed to 'would you prefer to join or form your own alliance?'

It takes the negative out and the audience who are not very familiar with this type of strategies would understand the rationale better.

And yes, more games = more fun = more accurate rankings.

This is a great idea. Having the MC ask in this manner would remove some of the stigma and negative connotations. It frames the question as a choice for the team being picked - join or make your own selections - rather than a "yes or no" towards the team making the pick. Veteran FRC competitors understand this choice already, but this would make it more apparent to the inexperienced observer.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Jeff Waegelin

This is a great idea. Having the MC ask in this manner would remove some of the stigma and negative connotations. It frames the question as a choice for the team being picked - join or make your own selections - rather than a "yes or no" towards the team making the pick. Veteran FRC competitors understand this choice already, but this would make it more apparent to the inexperienced observer.

This.

[Kris Verdeyen]

Originally Posted by billylo

Chris is right on. If the question is changed to 'would you prefer to join or form your own alliance?'

It takes the negative out and the audience who are not very familiar with this type of strategies would understand the rationale better.

Definitely doing this next year. Great, great idea.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by billylo

Chris is right on. If the question is changed to 'would you prefer to join or form your own alliance?'

It takes the negative out and the audience who are not very familiar with this type of strategies would understand the rationale better.

And yes, more games = more fun = more accurate rankings.

If anything is taken away from this thread and the blog post by Frank, this should be it. FIRST should send out emails to all MCs that will be at events next year and tell them to call selections like this.

[Mr. Lim]

Originally Posted by dodar

If anything is taken away from this thread and the blog post by Frank, this should be it. FIRST should send out emails to all MCs that will be at events next year and tell them to call selections like this.

A challenge to all MCs:

Try and actually get the crowd to APPLAUD a decline by providing background/context/explanation during the picking process.

I'd NEVER thought I would see that happen - but that would be a pretty big triumph for an MC!

...and Billy Lo's suggestion above might already be enough to do it...

[Akash Rastogi]

Good work Billy and Picone!

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...-up-and-thanks

[Mr. Rip]

Originally Posted by KylerHagler

Yeah, the declining at TRR was a bit shocking to the audience. We as a team kinda expected to be declined because we aren't that well known. But hey, it ended up in our favor anyways.

When we look at alliance selections, one of our concerns is the formation of an alliance we really don't want to play against. Such was the case at TRR when 3310 asked us if we would say yes if asked to join their alliance. If that had happened, we were pretty sure 624 and 118 would get together. We looked at what might happen if we did not accept and thought that gave us a better chance of winning TRR. We ended up with 359 just as we expected.

We told 3310 that we would decline their invitation but they asked us anyway. I found that a little surprising as it did not affect our ability to invite other teams and we were the second seeded alliance so no one else could ask us to join them. We knew 3310 had a good robot and drive team but an alliance between 118 and 624 was a little frightening.

I like the idea of asking teams if they want to accept or form their own alliance. This was definitely our thinking at the Bayou Regional where we thought we had a chance at a wild card slot if we met 118 in the finals and we were the alliance captain.

Scott Rippetoe
Texas Torque