A novel strategy: Always score for your opponents

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

If both alliances are scoring for the other alliance, wouldn't it be better just to score for your alliance?

I'm beginning to wonder if I should just flip a coin and tell my team to score in whichever goal the coin says.

[Kevka]

Basically, you have to score into your own goal, keep your oponents from scoring into their own goal and then there are two more things to consider:
1. How do you get your oponents to get penanlties?
2. If your strategy is to loose anyway, you can get as many penalities as you want. What does this allow you to do.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Kevka

Basically, you have to score into your own goal, keep your oponents from scoring into their own goal and then there are two more things to consider:
1. How do you get your oponents to get penanlties?
2. If your strategy is to loose anyway, you can get as many penalities as you want. What does this allow you to do.

Clearly you havent read the rules. Winning your qualification matches is not nearly as critical as it has been in years past.

[StevenB]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

If both alliances are scoring for the other alliance, wouldn't it be better just to score for your alliance?

No, because you can lose points that you score for yourself. You can't lose points you score for your opponent. Penalties don't hurt you if you don't have any points to lose. I'm not suggesting that you should commit penalties because you can - I'm merely saying that they're a huge part of this game, and they will happen to your alliance, whether you like it or not.

From the webcasts I saw today, it was not uncommon to get five or more points in penalties. Nearly every match seemed to have a penalty on one side or another. With this kind of unpredictability, reliably winning by a small margin seems nearly impossible.

[Molten]

Ok, I'm not really competing in this years game...but reading this thread has been shocking. Any previous year this strategy would have been seen as unethical and means for not getting picked. I believe it has been brought up more then once for previous games and has never gotten this response. I'm not debating the ethics or the effectiveness. I just wanted to comment on how confused your going to have the audience if this becomes common. Also, how do you explain to sponsors that you averaged 5 points for the opponent? Finally, why is there a game that these questions have to be asked?

[Grim Tuesday]

I would just like to note the fact that this was used AND WORKED at Fingerlakes regional today (no less, from a rookie team). They got into it with their alliance and the amazing thing was, the MC understood what they were doing. However, few teams followed their lead, due to gracious professionalism. In fact, however, their score on yourself thinking got them into number 3 seed, and well into the semifinals...

EDIT: Winning qual's arent very important, unless you get into the top 8. Our team was in 27 seed, and were the first pick of a 7 seeded team. And we would have done even better if both of our alliance partners hadent pooped out during the match (lol we scored 5 points, and played all three zones)

[Bill_B]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

.... In fact, however, their score on yourself thinking got them into number 3 seed, and well into the semifinals...

So that is what you tell your sponsors, Molten. How you got to the semifinals will not seem important to your sponsors. The amount of time their name was in front of the audience will be a major concern to them.

[WJF2011]

Yes, at peachtree regional scoring for your opponents ended up working. In one seeding match 1771 and 1466 were allied together and were up 10-0, 1771 then started launching balls towards the opposing goal so their opponent could shovel them in. Final score 10-4, and 1466 got the highest seed and the coopertition award. Everyone on an alliance should talk to the other alliance and talk about not playing defense, letting the game get up to something around 10-10 then play for real.

[WJF2011]

.

Originally Posted by StevenB

With this kind of unpredictability, reliably winning by a small margin seems nearly impossible.

Actually, not true, most games we played in were close at peachtree, we even tied 0-0 3 times, our record at the end of qualifying was 2-1-3 but we were ranked dead last due to no points in a 0-0 tie. We were picked for an alliance because they knew teams ahead of us were worse than our robot and we ended up going well into the semis.

[pfreivald]

We saw this strategy and we thought that it was very much against Gracious Professionalism, and poor gamesmanship besides. We played every game to win, no matter what...

...and we were first seed, and at the end of the day, Regional Champions. (*AND* we won the 'Cooperatition(TM) Award' to boot.)

My suggestion: just play the game. It worked for us, *and* it gives the other teams' scouts a better idea of what your robot is capable of when winning is all about who has more points at the end of a match.

The top eight teams are *so* fluid this year because of the scoring system, that scouting is that much more important -- we went from 13th to 1st in three games. Too many people seem more focused on a mathematical trick than they are on the psychology of scouting -- and IMO that is a big mistake.

Patrick

[Laaba 80]

Originally Posted by Bill_B

So that is what you tell your sponsors, Molten. How you got to the semifinals will not seem important to your sponsors. The amount of time their name was in front of the audience will be a major concern to them.

Try explaining to them that the majority of the time their name was in front of the audience it was scoring for the other team, and letting them win. This strategy will make matches much less entertaining to watch, turning away many newcomers, and those who enjoy watching hard fought FRC matches.

[WJF2011]

my vote: change the qualifying so it is hard fought. Also, I agree with your scouting plans, in Peachtree the bottom three teams were picked for alliances due to scouting. However some people do not scout and those teams will leave skilled robots out of competition because those robots could not get in the top 8.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

I would just like to note the fact that this was used AND WORKED at Fingerlakes regional today (no less, from a rookie team). They got into it with their alliance and the amazing thing was, the MC understood what they were doing. However, few teams followed their lead, due to gracious professionalism. In fact, however, their score on yourself thinking got them into number 3 seed, and well into the semifinals...

Pardon my "bolding", but since when did being unable to comprehend the rules equate to "gracious professionalism"?

A better phrase might be "few teams followed their lead due to a desire to win the match rather than advance their ranking".

Just because the rules of this tournament are different from other tournaments doesn't make them any less the rules... and make no mistake, the rules are the rules whether we think they make sense or not.

Jason

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

We saw this strategy and we thought that it was very much against Gracious Professionalism, and poor gamesmanship besides. We played every game to win, no matter what...

...and we were first seed, and at the end of the day, Regional Champions. (*AND* we won the 'Cooperatition(TM) Award' to boot.)

My suggestion: just play the game. It worked for us, *and* it gives the other teams' scouts a better idea of what your robot is capable of when winning is all about who has more points at the end of a match.

The top eight teams are *so* fluid this year because of the scoring system, that scouting is that much more important -- we went from 13th to 1st in three games. Too many people seem more focused on a mathematical trick than they are on the psychology of scouting -- and IMO that is a big mistake.

Patrick

You guys were great at FLR. Loved the robot!
I think that the qual ranking system this year is FUBAR. Smart teams should just not look at it, or they will get false hope, or become depressed. We got picked as a first choice for an alliance even though we were seeded in the high 20's. The team that picked us knew that we were good, despite a bunch of lousy scoring matches.

BTW, GoW, were you the guys we played with in the match when we had 2 bots with no field connection and we scored 5 goals on our own?

[dtengineering]

Just for the record, going for this strategy does not require "collusion" or cooperation between two alliances... one alliance can do it by themselves fairly effectively.

They can just park one robot in front of each of their own goals, to make sure that the opposing alliance doesn't "helpfully" score on their behalf, and then use the third robot to pass balls towards the opponents end of the field, making it easier for them to score.

Boring match, yes. Not a great way to show off your robot for alliance selections? No. But a good strategy to employ should you ever face off against a notably superior alliance? You bet.

The rule of the game this year, whether we like it or not, is "if you think you're outmatched... give in."

Jason