Variation of the Prisoner's Dilemma

[JewishDan18]

I did a little analysis at kickoff, and I came to the conclusion that the robots would never score on the same alliance, since it is more profitable to score on whichever team the opponent isn't scoring on, both if they are losing or winning (as long as there is a good difference between scores. If they are tied, trying to win is better).

The cycle would go like so (assuming team A can score better than B):

A scoring points for A
B scoring points for B
-----
A gains a good lead
-----
A scores points for B, go get a higher number of points
B scores points for A, to maximize their points
-----
B catches up to A, since A is a better and is scoring for them
-----
A scores points for A, to regain their lead
B scores points for B, to try and take a lead
-----
back to start

If B knows A is better, then they might just keep scoring for A, but they generally do not know this.

6v0 matches split the points evenly, but the total number of points given remains constant (assuming no defense). I remember 1519 came to 20's pits, asking that we don't play defense. I agreed with them, since that is (imo) the best way to maximize points while seeing how well the robots perform.

[Ken Streeter]

Originally Posted by JewishDan18

6v0 matches split the points evenly, but the total number of points given remains constant (assuming no defense). I remember 1519 came to 20's pits, asking that we don't play defense. I agreed with them, since that is (imo) the best way to maximize points while seeing how well the robots perform.

From our perspective, not playing defense during the qualification rounds was a very evident conclusion; nearly everybody within 1519 was agreed on this point, and we believed that we could convince other teams (both alliance members and our alliance opponents) that the "no defense in qualification matches" approach was a better strategy than playing defense. Attached is a "No Defense Briefing Sheet" that we wrote and distributed well in advance of each qualification match in which we participated -- first to our alliance members to get their buy-in, and then to our alliance opponents. At least half of the alliance opponents we talked to about this thought we were trying to "pull a fast one" with them on this matter.

In all honesty, I was amazed at how few teams had seriously pondered the ranking strategies before the tournament and didn't realize that win/loss was no longer used for determining seeding rankings (even low-numbered veterans; team 20 was one of the rare exceptions that had clearly thought the matter through beforehand). At least half of the drive teams we spoke with had no knowledge of the new seeding approach and were hearing it from us for the first time, even into Saturday morning.

Internally, our team is split on whether the collective best strategy for qualification matches is to play a "3v3" match with no team playing defense, or to have all 6 teams collude to play a "6v0" match. Personally, I believe that the "6v0" match will likely be better for all teams, given two significant assumptions: (1) that in a "no defense" 3v3 match, average qualification round scores would be around 6-5, and (2) that in a "collusion" 6v0 match, the total number of goals scored would increase by about 30-50% over a "no defense" 3v3 match, since all balls are always going in the same direction, and specific roles can be assigned to all 6 teams to work together, to play to the strengths of each of the 6 robots.

Given the above assumptions, in a 3v3 match resulting in a 6-5 score, the winners would receive a total of 16 points for ranking, and the losers would receive 6 points. However, if the same teams played 6v0, I think they would score approximately 40% extra goals, resulting in a total of around 15-0, giving 15 points to all 6 teams. In such a scenario, I personally would advocate the 6 teams work together to get that 15-0 match.

We had wanted to be in a 6v0 match at the Granite State Regional. However, we encountered enough trouble trying to convince 5 other teams to not play defense that getting all teams in a match to collude on a single coopertition strategy was right out of the question.

I'm hoping that by the time we get to the North Carolina Regional (week 5), we'll be able to participate in a few 6v0 matches!

PS: Oh, and by the way, as was clearly evidenced in the GSR finals, we don't suggest a "no defense" approach in the elimination rounds...

[davidfv]

I think the NO DEFENSE strategy will not work entirely. In order to get the coopertition bonus, you have to win or tie. Therefore, when it comes down to which alliance will get the bonus defense will come into play. Preventing a team access to the tower prior to the 20 seconds, stop the other team from scoring when the score is close, etc... The best outcome for all teams is a high score tie. A 8-8 game (no penalties) will give all teams 24 seeding points. A 8-7 game will give winners 22 points and losers 8. If you are maximizing the points for your own alliance, then WIN and keep the score close. Let your opponents score some points.

Coaches and Drivers will have to keep a close eye on the score, use minimum defense, but not NO defense.

The game changes in the elimination rounds.
Each team will want to do their best to show off their robot's capability during the qualification matches, because come the alliance selection, you are going to want to have the teams that handle the ball well and can score. Your third robot may be a pure defensive robot. The scout teams will be very important, the rankings will not give the best evidence of the "best" robots when picking your alliance.