The seeding system has always encouraged the winning alliance to ensure that its opponents had a somewhat high score, but to a lesser degree. Previously the opponent's score was used as the first tiebreaker. Now it's used as a part of the initial round as well as the first tiebreaker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathking
This a fascinating exercise in applied game theory. I actually think collusion (that is the game theoretic term, not meant to imply anything negative) between the two alliances, where one scores 0 points and they all try to score as many as possible for the winning side so that all six teams get the same number of seeding points is not a bad strategy. There is definitely a problem in that there is an incentive for the "winning" side to cheat at the end of a match. But the fact that elimination competition is based solely on wins and losses means that if you always use this strategy you will likely not be as prepared for elimination rounds as a team that does not use this strategy. Nonetheless, there are a lot of chances for such collusion/coopertition.
|
If you're working with the other alliance, it's much better for both alliances to rig up a tie.
You shouldn't have to apologize at all for wanting to have fun. This is supposed to be fun. You shouldn't gauge your level of enjoyment at the event based on your place in the standings. - Koko Ed [more] 
09-01-2010, 17:08
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode