Rule 8.4.1 [Archive] - Chief Delphi

Matt Adams

07-01-2006, 23:29

I think that it's an interesting change... I suppose I'm pretty neutral on if I "like" it or not.

One thing it notably does is increase the amount of head scratching that the #1 seed alliance needs to do. A huge perk of being the #1 seed is not needing to spend all the time to try to order 20+ teams since you'd be picking 1st and 9th.

Now the #8 seed has the short pick list.

We'll just have to wait to see how it turns out!

Matt

sanddrag

08-01-2006, 00:07

What about who plays who in the first matches of the finals rounds? How does that work?

As for this, I think I like it.

Goobergunch

08-01-2006, 00:10

The ladder in 8.4.3 looks the same as last year's....

Ian Curtis

08-01-2006, 15:24

Personally, I'm a fan, although that stems from the fact we were the 7th seed last year. I think it makes the matchs more even, especially at the smaller regionals. While it does make first seed less advantageous, it makes the eliminations more exciting.

Conor Ryan

08-01-2006, 16:34

You'll see soooooooooo many more quality matches this year in Playoffs. 1st and 2nd Seeds wont be able to stack their alliances as much as they used to be able, and 7th and 8th seeds, now have a shot at doing well. So you'll see some intresting matches and upsets this year, its a much fairer system.

One thing that I think maybe more intresting is the Championship because of this system. Noticible in the 2005 Championship was teams that had easier schedules and an Above average robot were able to remain undefeated and within the top 4, now what you may see is teams with better robots than the undefeated teams really get a chance to show what they got by picking better teams in the 3rd round.

Beth Sweet

08-01-2006, 18:16

Alright, I'll be the non-conformist, I don't think that this will be my favorite change of this season. Personally, I think that if you've acheived #1 status that you deserve the top picks of each round. Yeah, I know that creates somewhat inequal matchups, but there have been many more than 1 times when I have seen alliance 8 move on...

J Flex 188

08-01-2006, 18:25

I agree with Beth. While this may make for more interesting finals, the first and second placed teams finished there for a reason. Sure some of the Top 8 may have finished on the laurels of others, being a three team game dynamic, you could easily compile a perfect record without doing that much on your own or end up with X wins and 1 loss. With the new system, you are rewarded even more for it by being a low picker because you have the opportunity to pick high in the second round; where is the motivation for being first seed?

that being said, if i find myself in a situation where I am in 7th or 8th place and I am not picked by any higher seeds, I will be glad that rule exists. Nevertheless, I think it takes away from the game.

Ashley Christine

08-01-2006, 21:30

Personally I like this new way of doing it.

Yes, it seems unfair to the 1st seeded team, and sure, it somewhat is. But that is where strategy comes in. In life you arent always going to be paired up with others who are the same level as you. So, its not as random as say qualification rounds, but it does add a little more strategy. Which I think is good.

Making things a little harder will make this game more about strategy because it isnt quite like games in the past. Last year there was the making an L or T stratefy [and others] this year, its different.

I think it will make things more exciting and give you more of a reason to push and try your hardest. Some of the lower of the alliances seem to give up sometimes. This will add a little more confidence, and I dont know how else to explain it, but I think it should make things more fun.

Plus, this year the regionals are growing, so you will have many different robots to choose from, maybe you are seeded 1st, but say the second seeded robot is exactly like yours, maybe its not the best way to play the game together.

Just my $.02

Kelvin Ng

09-01-2006, 01:09

I like this more because it gives the lower seeded leaders to choose a better equipped alliance. This certainly makes the elimination rounds more interesting to watch; from quarters to finals.

It will be sad this year we probably won't be able to look forward to the finals where the alliances complete with the regional's top teams fight for the championship. We can only dream of seeing our favourites that may have been eliminated earlier play with other awesome teams. Last year, I remember biting my nails off watching the videos of the championship finals.

Barry Bonzack

09-01-2006, 01:11

It occurred to me this changes the strategy not only of those picking alliance, but those that feel they have slim chance to be picked. Before, if your team is ranked below 20 or so, there is barely any reason to be talking to the number 1 or 2 ranks about having them pick you for an alliance. This is where you normally would hope that the 8th ranked alliance might pick you as their second choice. Now if you find yourself in this position you had might as well talk to everyone and letting them know that your team still shines with potential, and is worthy of helping the 1st ranked team win the show.

As for if I like the rule... I don't really care what the rules are as long as every team abides by them and has every advantage and disadvantage as I do.

Ryan Albright

09-01-2006, 01:16

I am not going to make a decision until i see how it works out this year. But my first thought is that it will hopefully level the playing field and give the eighth seed a better selection

xzvrw2

09-01-2006, 08:57

I think that this is the way it should be.
Number one seeds already get the best team available when they pick first.
They can pick number two or three.
What ever they want.
I like the new way they are doing it.
Thats the way that we run my family fantasy football draft.
I think that is the best way to do it and make it some what fair.
The reason why you are number one is because you are good.
If you choose number two then those are the two best robots at the regional or championship division.
The number eight seed is getting the worst end of it if you go back to the old way where they pick then have to wait another eight picks to pick.
I always see the first seed beat out the eighth seed.
every now and then they beat the "powerhouse" that is the first seed.
I think its only fair.

Stevie

Bharat Nain

09-01-2006, 10:32

Steve W

09-01-2006, 11:09

ewankoff

09-01-2006, 11:26

since we were never picked or picking i cannot offer an opinion but it sounds good to me

Rick TYler

09-01-2006, 11:29

The least interesting matches last year were the ones where one alliance was completely outmatched and the score was something like 62-4. Boring. Better balanced alliances will result in closer matches during the finals. Exciting!

Parity is good.

BillP

09-01-2006, 13:15

I must say that I totally approve of the new alliance picking method, for a number of reasons. As a spectator, I would want to see the most exciting matches possible, and having more equally talented alliances in the finals will provide this. As a competitor, sure winning is fun, but competing is the adrenaline rush! The tighter the competition, the better the rush.

Someone posted that the number 1 team is in first place for a reason (implication: they have the best robot/strategy). Not to belittle the teams that end up in first place at an event, but because of the alliance pairings in the qualifying matches, I have seen robots that perform very well not end up anywhere near the top because of their partners, and mediocre robots end up near the top, again because of their partners. You have to admit that there is a certain amount of luck when it comes to landing in first place.

Please do not interpret this to mean that I think that the robots that end up in first place do not belong there, or are only there because of luck. Robust and reliable bot's that play the game well driven by teams that understand and implement good strategy will always do well.

Anyway, the bottom line (at least for me) is that the new rule will make the finals more exciting ... and that's what it's all about.

generalbrando

09-01-2006, 13:20

I like it because the #1 seed can hide their last card. It makes it less likely that an alliance following them can choose a 'bot opposing their last choice (though that may prove less important this year anyway).

Petey

09-01-2006, 13:32

I definately think that this will change things around for the elimination matches...instead of the number 1 seed getting the 1st and 9th pick...which are the "best picks of the rounds" they get one best and one worst...it'll be fun

Hmm....

Well, as much as I like the fairness, I also don't like it because I think it could take away from the top seeded teams.

If you take your cues from sports--which I usually do--than this is strange, because you normally have, say, 1st seed playing 8th seed because it is recognized that, although there *needs* to be a playoff, you want to give the 1st seed the advantage because they deserve it--because they finished first during the "regular season."

However, FIRST is different because in the qualifying matches are always done with the aid of an alliance...

I suppose this will make the playoffs more competitive, which is never a bad thing. However, it will make it so that more undeserving teams get picked to go to finals, and more deserving teams get picked by an 8th seed that might well be eliminated.

I mean, put it this way: Team A is 1st seed, Team B is 8th seed. Team C is a non-seeded team with, say, an 8 out of 10 robot, Team D is a non-seeded team with a 5 out of 10 robot.

Normally, Team A would ally with Team C, and Team B would grab Team D. However, it will now be the other way around, and Team A--the first seed--will be paired up with the weakest robot picked during the second round of selection.

Team A will still have an advantage, because the first seed can still pick the second as an alliance partner. However, now that we play with three alliance partners, that third one is much more important than it used to be. It's almost going to be better to aim to finish around the 8th seed, because then you get a decent pick twice.

So I give the new rule a tentative thumbs down, and eagerly wait comp to see what kind of equalizing effect this has on seeding.

--Petey

Wayne Doenges

09-01-2006, 14:46

I agree with the change. As for the 1st and 2nd team earning their spots, I agree also. But they should be able to win with just about any other team. They got there with the help of at least 16 other teams (8 matches).

As for the top teams not wanting to pick the lower place teams, I say Bunk!. In our first year Team 111 picked us (place 42 out of 50) and we went all the way to 2nd place.

Now to stir up some controversy.
I think the 1st place (2nd, 3rd, etc) team should not be able to pick any of the other 7 top teams.

I think the 1st place alliance should play the 2nd place, 3rd play 4th etc

*throws $0.02 at kitty*

*Dons flame suit*

soap108

09-01-2006, 16:22

The reward of being #1 Seed is much less.
I'd vote to go back to old way.
KA-108

Lil' Lavery

10-01-2006, 23:32

I think this system would be fine in a draft of 3, 4, 5 or more rounds, but not just a 2 round draft. It's almost a penalty to be the #1 seed in the deepest of competitions like Championship, Midwest, Purdue, IRI, or Toronto (and a few others).

Shu Song

10-01-2006, 23:52

I totally approve of this new system. Looks like this forum does have some baring on what FIRST does (I should post suggestions here more often).

The spirit of FIRST is not to have a dominating alliance that just steam-rolls over all the other alliances. Plus that doesn't make for a very fun game to watch come finals.

I concede that in the real world, you should get rewarded for hard work. 1st place is earned, and I respect that. This is the basis of pure capitalism, where the hard working are heavily rewarded, and the government doesn't impede at all on the economy. But even our own economy is not purely capitalistic, we have welfare, social security, anti-trust laws and so on to even out the playing field so everyone has a chance. Let's face it, all the teams do not start out on a level playing field.

So this is FIRST's way of evening out the playing field and I see nothing wrong with that.

Wayne Doenges

11-01-2006, 01:30

So what I'm seeing is some people don't think a 1st seed team can win without a loaded team. Is this true.
Like I stated before, the 1st seed got there with the help of at least 16 other teams. So why couldn't they win with the 16th pick as they can with the 9th pick?

Petey

11-01-2006, 03:15

Because no team gets to the first seed by luck or the associated machinations of 16 teams.

You've gotta be a darn good robot to take advantage of all the opportunities afforded to you by the help (or hurt) of 16 other alliance partners.

Besides, you forget that teams can pick from within the top 8. So you're grabbing a lot lower of a pick than you might otherwise imagine.

--Petey

Paul Copioli

11-01-2006, 08:49

I'll just come out and say it. It is a horrible change.
Serpentine selection (that is what this is, by the way) only works for drafts with many rounds (6 or more) and is used to balance RANDOM selection order.

The seeding rounds are not random. Although some luck is involved, the top few teams are there mainly because they deserve to be there. For small regionals, this is actually a huge disadvantage to the top seeds.

Do not be surprised at teams fighting to be number 7 or 8 at some events this year.

I think it should be the old way.

-Paul

P.S. - My disclaimer is that I have not read this rule and I am taking Lil' Lavery's word that it is indeed changed.

Mark Pettit

11-01-2006, 09:09

It has been my experience in MOST cases that it takes not only a great strategy and robot but also the luck of the draw (i.e. being alligned with decent team mates throughout the qaulifying rounds) to be ranked number one at the end. I've seen plenty an awesome team/robot qualify outside of the top 8 largely in part because they just didn't get the right alliances to make it work for them. Since there is even a hint of luck of the draw involved in qualifying, I think that this is a fantastic rule and I think that the elimination/finals rounds are going to be more exciting than ever because of it.
Way to go (again) FIRST.

65_Xero_Huskie

11-01-2006, 12:44

well...a "certain" engineer on our team calls it Communism, but it makes the number one seed less inviting to many people

GaryVoshol

11-01-2006, 12:51

Presume that the final ranking represents the actual abilities of the robots - which we know is not totally accurate. But just assume so. Logically then, the first place seed should choose seed #2. #3 moves up to second choice, chooses #4. ... #15 moves up into the 8th alliance, and chooses #16. Then third round, they choose #17. Seventh alliance chooses #18 ... First alliance now chooses #24. So the top alliance has seeds 1, 2 and 24; the 8th alliance has seeds 15, 16, and 17. On paper it still looks to me that the #1 alliance is stronger. Would it have been stronger yet as #1, 2 and 17? Sure - but not that much.

We all know alliance picking by strict ranking doesn't occur - you take into account your scouting. #1 may pick #2 because they are a good match of robots, or maybe just so they don't have to compete against them. Or they may have a good strategy against #2, and consequently pick #4 who has strengths that their alliance will need. Quite often teams that finished outside the top 24 are picked to be in an alliance - obviously someone recognized their worth despite their low ranking.

Jessica Boucher

11-01-2006, 13:20

#1 seed is great, but anywhere in the top 8 looks good to any team not in the top 8, because it gives them a reason to care about the finals. It is not yet a general assumption that teams care about the finals because of other teams' involvement. It is a growing trend, but it can not be generally accepted at this time.

Plus, previous years lead me to believe that match throwing will not be an issue. At the regional level in 2004...Joe Ross calculated that the most matches a team could lose on average and still make it into the top 8 is 2 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=241349&postcount=20) (I can't seem to find the 2005 thread for the life of me). Although this varies by regional in terms of number of matches allowed as well as the makeup of teams present, there is too much risk involved (and not enough time to calculate it certainly) for this to be a huge issue.

I encourage you to look at it from a spectator's perspective (which some of you have already), as opposed to a team perspective. FIRST thrives as an organization when the competition is exciting. Elimination matches are more exciting when there is a more equal matchup of teams.

I am excited to the actual affect that this rule will have, both at the regional level and the national level.

Lil' Lavery

11-01-2006, 15:56

Yes, luck is assossiated with who gets what seed, but by no measure is it a RANDOM selection. This year especially with the 3 vs 2 defensive scheme during the defense period, a single robot can and WILL have a MASSIVE effect on the outcome of the game. If, for example, no robot can shoot, the defense will just plug up the two corner goals, but if there is a bot that can shoot effectively, the defense would either have to leave a corner goal exposed, or let that bot shoot to its heart's desire.
The #1 team EARNED their spot, no question about it. Most regional competitions it will not have a huge effect on the game, but the regionals on either end of the spectrum it will. The deepest events the #7-8 seeded teams will have a chance at getting two "elite" robots to accompany them on the field, then the the upper half of alliance captains will most likely fall off to the "great/good" bots, but not "elite". (I think you can get my point).
Similarly, at the smallest regionals the "great/good" level of robots may run out after the 6,7,8 alliances get their 2nd pick.

And finally, there was NO NEED for this change to occur. The #1 alliances DID NOT steamroll everyone. There have been plenty of occurances where the 7th and 8th seeded alliances have beaten their opponents in the quarterfinals, and even more where the #1/2 seeds have lost in the semis or finals. As the #7 alliance @ VCU in 2004, we beat the #2 alliance (which had an eventual world champion Team 435 in it). And if it weren't for two unforunate tippings (including our first of the season, in which our wheely bar broke, and one that incapacitated an alliance partner) we may well have also beaten the #3 alliance, and eventual regional champions captained by Team 33. In 2005, the #8 alliance in Richmond reached the finals (and 447 would again go on to, as the #8 alliance, reach the finals in their other two competitions that year, including championship). Thats two straight years in the same regional that a "bottom 2" alliance has won in the quarterfinals.

dlavery

11-01-2006, 17:27

The #1 alliances DID NOT steamroll everyone.Uhmm. Yeah, they did. Everyone remembers the neat anecdote about the last seeded team that miraculously gets picked as a partner for the finals, and then goes all the way to win the tournament. But the reality is that we remember these instances because they are exceptions, and not the norm.

We went back and took an objective look at the records for the last several years. The simple reality is that the #1- and #2-seed alliances stomp the other alliances on a regular basis - on the order of 80% of the time.* If Las Vegas were running a sports book on FIRST regional competitions, we could all become very, very wealthy by just betting on the #1- or #2-seed alliances to win an event, without knowing anything else about them.

That does not make for an exciting game to watch, and it does not make for an exciting tournament in which to play. If you actually knew (and now you do) that as the #8 seed alliance in the finals you could be virtually certain that 4 times out of 5 you would be knocked out by the semi-finals, would you be quite as excited about the elimination competition? And if you knew that as the #8 seed alliance your probability of winning the tournament was not a realistic 1-in-8, but was actually 1-in-30, would it be nearly as much fun to play?

-dave

* just for the sake of completeness, it is interesting to note that the person who ran the numbers did it specifically to prove that the high-seed alliances did NOT consistently win. But when the analysis was complete, his only comment was "my own numbers argue against me."

Andy Grady

11-01-2006, 19:20

Flat out...I love it.

Here is why...

The number one seed still gains a major advantage by having the ability to pick whoever they want from underneath. So I do not agree with the idea that it taints the number 1 seed status. What this does do is forces teams to go further in depth with strategy and scouting. A good number 1 seed and their most definately awesome partner should be able to sift through what is leftover and pull together a team that they can work with. So many years gems go untouched in drafting because teams do not do their scouting. Now that you have to pay a little more attention to who is out there...maybe..just maybe some of these gems will actually get selected....because now the 8th spot has a legitimate shot of doing some damage.

Even with the back to back picks, I wouldn't want the 8th spot...though at least now I wouldn't feel like my competition is over before it starts if I end up there. The number one seed still has the major advantage...but where do I want to be? I'll take number 4...right in the middle. There is usually a solid robot sitting at number 4...and im sure there will be a pretty nasty hidden gem on the way back.

In closing...now no matter where you are located in the drafting order...you better do your scouting. Scouting wins championships folks...not draft orders.

jgannon

11-01-2006, 20:46

If you are in a small regional then the impact will be greater than in a large regional. There is a potential of a #1 alliance picking a non moving robot in a small regional. In the larger ones I don't believe that the impact will be as great as there will be more "average" teams.
That is my concern with the rule at this point. Here at Pittsburgh, we're going to be lucky to have 24 teams. At other regionals, having to choose a low seed team is not so bad, as you point out, and has the effect of increasing the importance of scouting. Here, the #1 seed will have a very limited selection, and could enter the tournament essentially short-handed if there are no functioning robots left. That doesn't sound like much of a reward for the #1 seed.