"Collusion" and De-Scoring

[JAlpert]

I have read a great deal of posts about "collusion" and de-scoring but I would like to open up a more general discussion.

Here are my thoughts:

1. The game this year is highly score-dependent. I do not necessarily agree that teams should decide on a strategy with their opponents before a match. OFF-FIELD PRE-MATCH collusion is a shady practice. However, if both teams use good ON-FIELD strategy, the audience should think they had colluded because they would act in the best interests of each other. Thus, pre-match collusion should not even be needed to score high in qualification rounds becuase good, high-scoring strategy should be assumed.

My description of Qualification strategy follows:
If you and your opponent both have stacks of the same height, I do not see any reason to ever knock down either stack, as both teams will benefit equally from the multiplier.

To play this game with a limited scope (score many points for yourself and de-score your opponent) does not seem logical. It is my belief that the reason FIRST created a scoring system that factors in the score of the loser was to make matches more exciting, as both teams try to get the scores as close as possible. This type of on-field "collusion" should be used in every match, and both alliances should have an unspoken agreement to score as high as possible.

Again, this game is score-dependent, so I think whatever a team has to do to increase its score is not only within the rules and vision of FIRST, but is expected and embraced as sound strategy.

2. On that note, I would like to discuss de-scoring in the elimination matches. First, the team that wins the first round of an elimination match is at a great advantage, because both teams are generally trying to score high, so the gap between alliance EPs is great. From what I have seen, it is often hard to make up EPs in the second match of an elimination round.

Did FIRST envision an elimination match strategy that involved destroying one's own score to keep the other alliance from making up the EP difference? I don't know. Does the strategy work? Absolutely.

Score is the only thing that matters in the eliminations. Again, I believe that whatever a team must do to keep their EPs higher than the other alliances' is good strategy.

If a team is losing the first elimination match and there is no way to salvage it, there is no reason to go to the ramp. A losing robot on the HDPE increases the EP gap by 25 points, and makes it much, much harder to win the elimination series.

If Alliance A wins elimination match 1, then any boxes A leaves in its scoring zone at the end of the second match only brings the losing team closer to victory.

In the eliminations, winning is winning. In most cases (barring a few examples such as a DQ), any strategy that wins is a good strategy.

Elimination strategy is completely separate from qualifier strategy. De-scoring in a qualifier hurts both alliances, but de-scoring in an elimination after you have won your first match will help you win the series.

--------

If you have other opinions, please post them here. I am sincerely interested in the ideas of others on this subject.

Jeff Alpert
Team 469