[FTC]: Scoring points for the opposing alliance

[Ringo5tarr]

So I suppose I don't completely understand, but what was the team changing the beacons trying to do? Raise the other alliance's ranking points or their own?

[Whatever]

Originally Posted by Ringo5tarr

So I suppose I don't completely understand, but what was the team changing the beacons trying to do? Raise the other alliance's ranking points or their own?

They were trying to increase their own rank points. They were ahead by more than 40 points after autonomous so the outcome of the match was not really in question.

[bobbysq]

But why have the first alliance partner switch them in the first place if they were seemingly throwing the match, I assume, in a variation of the infamous "6v0" to help out the other alliance?

[Whatever]

I was not in the discussion (for the record, I am not associated with any of teams involved - we were there as spectators). My assumption is the alliance partner did not agree with the plan and were trying to maximize their match score. They may have been just filling the 2 minutes though.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by bobbysq

But why have the first alliance partner switch them in the first place if they were seemingly throwing the match, I assume, in a variation of the infamous "6v0" to help out the other alliance?

Sounds to me like the team doing the switching was going rogue.

This was a philosophy debate years and years ago in FRC, before the ranking systems shifted to other tiebreakers. Some (myself included) will argue there's nothing wrong with playing the big-picture game and maximizing your own ranking. Others will argue that it's not in the spirit of the game not to maximize your alliance's score.

[wgardner]

My opinion is that there's nothing wrong with scoring for the opponents when you're way ahead to maximize everybody's ranking points. All 4 teams in the match benefit from this.

However, I think you should talk about it with your alliance partners ahead of time so they understand what you're doing.

[Whatever]

I wanted to thank those that voted.

The reason I started the poll is my daughter is helping with scouting/strategy across 6 teams at the middle school. At least 3 of these teams are going to the state tournament where this strategy may come up. She needed to come up with some suggestions on how to handle the situation to make sure they are prepared. Obviously if it was going to be viewed as unGP that would be a major consideration. That appears to not be a significant concern.


Based on some of the other points they have come up with over the past week I think they are going to avoid the strategy in general though.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Billfred

Sounds to me like the team doing the switching was going rogue.

This was a philosophy debate years and years ago in FRC, before the ranking systems shifted to other tiebreakers. Some (myself included) will argue there's nothing wrong with playing the big-picture game and maximizing your own ranking. Others will argue that it's not in the spirit of the game not to maximize your alliance's score.

But the one thing just about everybody agrees on is that if you're going to play big-picture, and playing big-picture isn't the same as playing to win the match, you need to make sure your entire alliance is on the same page, and agrees to play that way. Otherwise, you look really bad to potential elims partners ("can we trust them to follow the strategy?").