Playing two different games this year?

[David Brinza]

One outcome from coopertition-based scoring is the possibility of playing two very different Breakaway games. Will your team adopt this strategy? Or will you play to maximize coopertion bonus (close, high scoring matches)?

To avoid negative connotations, I'll avoid the word "collusion" in describing the game played in qualifications. If ALL teams at a regional agree to play qualification matches according to a "fully-cooperative" strategy, then no harm is coming to the teams as a result of pre-match agreements. Here's the "full-cooperative strategy" for qualification matches:

1. ALL scoring will be for only one alliance in the match (RED or BLUE), it won't matter to the teams in the match.
2. NO defense is ever played.
3. NO autonomous scoring for the "losing alliance"
4. NO robots elevated or suspended for the "losing alliance"
5. NO penalties (always a good idea).
6. The objective for the teams is to achieve the most lopsided score possible: (i.e. 30 - 0, 40 - 0, or more).

Teams on both alliances will get large seeding scores.

The game in elimination matches are competitions where it's all about winning. Defense is back (and probably important). Scoring in autonomous and hanging/suspended robots are important. This is the game that won't require any special explanation to spectators.

Do you want to play Breakaway like this??