View Full Version : Do you like the seeding system?
After hearing plenty of people bagging on the new seeding system, I wanted to know how much of the FIRST community is aginst it. Last year's double/triple score super cell rule took some heat but it was also supported by many people. This year, I have not heard a single person speak up in favor of this system. So, please vote in the poll, and help gauge how many of us support or oppose this system.
No! BTW there is no poll attached.
Ahhh now it's there. Still no!
Patience, patience. Even with copying and pasting I cannot add a poll instantaneously.
You should have put a no in gigantic letters.
I would have taken that one.
Chuck Glick
07-03-2010, 15:36
No. The ranking system allows teams who have never attended a match with a robot to be ranked in the top eight (Bayou Regional). It also rewards mediocre play and severely punishes the winning team if they have any penalties... since when did losing get you ranked higher than the winning team?
This completely counter intuitive ranking system is only going to hinder the growth of FIRST. No one wants to join a "competition" where you can do better losing then winning. It gives no insentive to go out and give it your all every match.
At least with the old system of Win-Loss-Tie, you deserved your rank. Now some teams would get lucky schedules and end up ranking higher but that is always going to happen so people need to quit whining.
Go back to the "old" Win-Loss-Tie system, its easier for spectators to understand and rewards those who came to play, not just sit motionless on the field.
I agree KoKo Ed. "NO"
I understand that FIRST is attempting to make it so everyone wins . . . but in reality not everyone can. You fight and win ranking. Not lose for it.
I agree KoKo Ed. "NO"
I understand that FIRST is attempting to make it so everyone wins . . . but in reality not everyone can. You fight and win ranking. Not lose for it.
So basically it's FIRST's version of No Child Left Behind. Because as my wife said if no one gets ahead no one gets left behind.
Jim Meyer
07-03-2010, 15:56
Where's the "It's too early to tell" button option? I don't think it's fair to judge it until after we see how it plays out in the 7 matches we usually get at nationals.
It DOES do its job by discouraging defense in Quals once alliance partners understand what SS/CP mean. It also does its job in greatly rewarding teams who persevere with a difficult schedule.
It severely falls short in the 'competition' part of coopertition. Why not just put everyone on the same alliance and make them cooperate towards the same goal? With it, there's no point in trying to get spectators to watch because it'll just become another convoluted ranking system just like college football.
It severely falls short during week 1 when only one alliance performs well and one of the robots on that alliance gets an inadvertent penalty*. The alliance where the robots didn't or barely moved comes out on top in the seeding scores, which are much longer term.
*let's face it -- penalties this year are practically unavoidable -- coming down off a bump onto a ball even though there was no way to know a ball was there still gets someone a penalty for 3" incursion??? This is really my only rant about this year's game.
Where's the "It's too early to tell" button option? I don't think it's fair to judge it until after we see how it plays out in the 7 matches we usually get at nationals.
The poll is set to close in 45 days, so you can vote even after Championships are over. You can vote anytime, so everyone can make up their own mind at their convenience.
I (for the most part) like the new seeding system, but teams aren't using it correctly. There are strategies not utilized aside from scoring for your opponents and I'm surprised not many teams have played with them and how many jump straight to the idea to score for opponents. It could be a great system if used correctly, but sadly it isn't.
dtengineering
07-03-2010, 16:09
I like the idea.
I like the idea that teams should focus on building robots that play the game well, rather than robots that prevent other teams from playing the game well. I like the idea that there is no honour in "blowing out" weak opponents. I like the idea that students have to work together to develop a strategy that is good for everyone. These are all good ideas.
But I don't think this scoring system is a good way to achieve them.
I'm sufficiently open-minded to give the system a try before reaching a final opinion on the system, but I think it has some serious weaknesses from a practical point of view. The goals of the qualifying rounds are now just too far removed from the goals of the elmination rounds.
Jason
Could you imagine if pitchers threw lobs to the opposing team, or if hockey teams played with an empty net? That what this ranking systems does it think.
-Keaton
I like the idea.
I like the idea that teams should focus on building robots that play the game well, rather than robots that prevent other teams from playing the game well. I like the idea that there is no honour in "blowing out" weak opponents. I like the idea that students have to work together to develop a strategy that is good for everyone. These are all good ideas.
But I don't think this scoring system is a good way to achieve them.
I'm sufficiently open-minded to give the system a try before reaching a final opinion on the system, but I think it has some serious weaknesses from a practical point of view. The goals of the qualifying rounds are now just too far removed from the goals of the elmination rounds.
Jason
They are the complete opposite of one another.
It's insane.
No, I don't like this years system. It seems to be rather confusing to me as far as picking out the attributes necessary to make up a winning alliance.
It works in theory in that it should put a spotlight on offensive oriented teams, or teams that are playing GP and 'how the game is supposed to be played'.
I know some people don't like defense because it hinders the abilities of other teams and doesn't let the robots shine. In the past few years FIRST has tried to find ways to kill off the 'defensive juggernaut' style of play through various means, but as the time comes around on Saturday afternoon and the top 8 are making their picks defense still comes into play as a picking factor and sometimes it is very beneficial to the alliance, defense wins championships (we won a regional this way). In this system however playing defense in qualifiers becomes a lose-lose situation. You may attempt to play defense in qualifiers but you hinder your chances of moving up to be picked on Saturday afternoon.
This system is a two headed beast. On one side you have the qualifiers where you need to excel almost completely on your individual strengths to prove to be worthy of being picked by upping your ranking points and then on the other you have the elimination rounds where it no longer matters what the score is as long as your alliance has a one point lead. This has been achieved for years by picking a well rounded alliance of teams that complement your skill set and complement the skills needed to 'play the game how the GDC meant it to be', this includes playing heavy defense.
After only watching one webcast I have made the observation that this system almost hides every other attribute besides how well you can shoot the ball. It is a really fuzzy system of determining the true power of one robot or another in more than just offense. From a spectators point of view from one weekend it was really hard to really pick a favorite or determine the slightest hint of dominance and who was going to be in the #1 seed. The only way to see these things is going to be heavy duty scouting and for a event that is looking to haul in more spectators then ever this is not a good thing.
-One more thing that I just realized this system veils compared to a W-L-T system. As you go out to the field for qualification you have a certain alliance strategy in mind, if you completely disregard your teammates you have a high chance of ending up with a big fat loss on your record indicating you may not be a very good cooperative alliance partner on Saturday afternoon. Being stubborn this year is hidden because of a lack of a definitive WLT record.
Jonathan Norris
07-03-2010, 16:17
No.
Not to put to fine a point on it but:
This system sucks more than our ball possession system.
No, the scoring system is completely upside-down. Basically if you loose you win (or tie, depending if the enemy alliance got any penalties), if you win, you loose. The system seems to be there so "everyone wins", but in reality not everyone wins.
I think Koko Ed put it well
So basically it's FIRST's version of No Child Left Behind. Because as my wife said if no one gets ahead no one gets left behind.
Also, wasn't the scoring system supposed to be easier to understand this year?
~David
Also, wasn't the scoring system supposed to be easier to understand this year?
The scoring was supposed to be, but they never said anything about the ranking system.
Seems like they switched the "complicated-ness" of the two, for some reason...
-Tanner
HashemReza
07-03-2010, 16:43
*sigh*
The system makes my job as a strategy guy very difficult, because as much as I want to tell my coach and drivers to score score score with the robot that we spent SO MUCH TIME trying to make into something which could SCORE A LOT (generally the point of a game), I cannot. I understood g-14 last year, to an extent. I think this system is this year's g-14, as it is counter-intuitive, but worse in the sense that it is also easily manipulated. I've seen teams with losing records in picking positions this year, is that alright? Is that acceptable? Should alliances be chosen by those whose robot is less effective? If you would like a perfect, specific example: team 1717 D'Penguineers have designed an amazing robot this year. It hangs quickly, effectively, and they can score a goal from any zone at a whim. They were 41st going into friday, and after 1 match, jumped to around 12th. Something about that doesn't seem right. They shouldn't have been that low, as they did amazing during the matches, but even so they were able to jump 29 places in one round...
Something seems off. I, personally, don't enjoy it. I like the idea of a ranking system as opposed to wins and losses, but it requires some major tweaking to meet it's original goals of rewarding tough competition.
Bruneau1727
07-03-2010, 16:43
At first I did not like the seeding system at all, but I am now coming around! The system rewards a high scoring robot. At DC there were 9 qualification matches and the for the most part the best scoring robots were seeded highly. Yes you can force the seeding higher through agreeing to score all the balls in one goal and all get the winnig alliance score but the best way to get a high seeding is to play the game. Scoring a lot and winning against a tough alliance will get you far more seeding points. And yes it does discourage defense during qualification rounds.
I am really curious about one thing though! Are there teams that start the build season with a wholly defensive strategy in mind?
Not to put to fine a point on it but:
This system sucks more than our ball possession system.
Brilliantly stated.
In addition, Michigan teams have their own state ranking to keep in mind where a win is two points and a tie is one. Then there are various points for being chosen for eliminations and awards. For the teams that didn't win an event or one of three awards, they need these points to qualify for the State Championship. IMO teams need high scoring, penalty-free matches that are only a point or two apart.* After watching Kettering, I didn't see too many of those. Hopefully we'll see more matches like this as competitions progress.
*I think this is where the coopertition comes in. If this were to happen, it should balance out the ranking system as well.
FiM update #3 (http://www.firstinmichigan.org/filemgmt_data/files/Rules_Supplement%202010%20-%20Update%203.pdf) Page 7 has the section on point values for Michigan ranking.
I like the general concept as it encourages close matches, but over all, I don't like the new system.
I am really curious about one thing though! Are there teams that start the build season with a wholly defensive strategy in mind?
Yes. One of the rookie teams we mentor this year did. They were formed right before kickoff, and were still recruiting students during the first week of build! They went to their first competition with two students, the only two they have. Due to lack of time and students, they build a purely defensive robot.
sparrowkc
07-03-2010, 17:20
See my signature.
UCGL_Guy
07-03-2010, 17:45
When first rolled out I thought this was the year that we would have a good game to play. Boy was I wrong. Again too many penalties to decide matches and a very convoluted ranking system. Sorry but many more years of these types of games and not sure I'll play
elemental
07-03-2010, 17:48
After coming back from Peachtree, I can say the system has a lot of bugs in it.
Reviewing scouting sheets that my team compiled, at least one robot in the top 10 was dead for more than half the rounds it entered. Although the finals turned out to be extremely well played and exciting, I was disappointed to see some of, in my opinion, the best teams in the regional ranked 25 and below. At one point, my team with at least 3 wins was ranked behind a team that had no wins.
Why would there be a system that punished teams who could play the game well and rewarded others that could not?
s_forbes
07-03-2010, 17:54
Yes. The more thought I put into it, the more I like it.
Rewarding incompetence! Just like the bank CEO's who got bonuses for not doing their job!:confused: :eek: :eek: :eek:
mariak37
07-03-2010, 18:06
It makes it easy to play the game backwards: park two robots in front of your own goals and have the last score points for the other team. Or else play 6 robots against zero (there's coopertition for you.)
After getting back from the Autodesk Oregon Regional I can say whole heartedly that this new system is a complete and utter failure. I can't tell you how many people I talked to that were in agreement that it makes no logical or practical sense what so ever. If FIRST hopes to increase Public viewership with the current system then they should hope that no one ask about how teams are seeded and keep them away from the ranking monitor. Most of the public who only visit the stands don't know what a team is ranked, only the results for each individual match.
For all you strategists: After having a conversation with a mentor from the #1 seed at Oregon I learned how to play the system.
If you are loosing, score on yourself.
If you are winning, score on yourself.
Only score on your opponent if you are unsure who is going to win.
No I do not. It is damaging to FIRST. You explain it to the public and they look at you like you are crazy.
FIRST wants to avoid the negative things that happen in sports. Everything in sports is not negative. We threw the "baby out with the bath water". The system is a little too PC.
It takes the 'C' out of FRC and makes it the FRPCC. Worse than restrictor plate racing in NASCAR.
We need to provide incentive for teams to help other teams get ready for the competition.
But when it is "time to compete" it is "time to compete"...... boogity boogity !
while I'm here:
it would have been nice to have a ball score = 3 points, a penalty = 1 point, and hanging around 6 points or autonomous score 6 points.
LeelandS
07-03-2010, 18:30
I gotta say no, but I like the idea. I understand what FIRST is trying to do, to make it so that teams who want to be succesful have to work with their opposing alliances, but it kinda screws things up. Teams that go undefeated can end up being ranked lower than a team that lost half of their matches by getting their opponents scores. So, the concept is good, the implementation is bad. For now, I'd say the win-loss system is better.
Another problem with it is the fans in attendance. A parent may see their child's team to exceptionally well, but be ranked 20th or lower, and have no idea why. Only someone who has actually studied the seeding formula can really get it, and even then it's a little confusing.
So FIRST, you hit the ball, made it all the way to third, but got out before getting home.
artdutra04
07-03-2010, 18:39
At least we know exactly what every every off-season event will change.
No, we didn't like it. We were on the winning side in about half our matches and still ended up far down in the rankings.
If they don't want to award "blowouts" they could find a better way of doing it, I'm sure.
Still, we're not going away mad. FIRST is wonderful. We had a good time and learned a lot. We'll be back next year with enthusiasm.
jw
At least we know exactly what every every off-season event will change.
We hope.
I'm fearful that there may be some who are so fiercely loyal to the home office vision that they will sacrifice their competition to prove that they were right.
thefro526
07-03-2010, 19:46
As of right now I'm going to say no. I'll wait until after the Championship to vote for real though.
I don't like the seeding system because it's encouraging some teams to lose. When a team comes to me and asks wholeheartedly "Will you throw this match with us? We'll make out better in seeding points" I feel like something is wrong. While winning isn't the most important thing out there, Doing your best is. If a team can sandbag and be rewarded with a higher seed there's something wrong.
Personally, My Driveteam and I didn't concern ourselves with seeding points in NJ. We had no desire to seed, nor were will running well enough to attempt it.
I'm still looking forward to events further out though. Once teams are aware of how the system works and that both alliances should concern themselves with scoring and not playing defense in qualifications (I see this happening in week 4/5 Events and The Championship) the system may grow on me.
IMO, G14 (2009) is back, it's just transformed.
rwood359
07-03-2010, 19:52
Now imagine it carried over to the elimination round.
Finals on Einstein - a hard fought third game.
Blue scores 2
Red scores 0
Blue has 1 penalty.
IT'S A WIN FOR RED!!!!!
I like the system. I know it's "Really Really Bad" to cross post, but I long-windedly voiced my opinion in another thread.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=932770&postcount=45
I dislike that, unless everyone on my team becomes a strategy-shark, very frequently they have NO idea what their teammates on the field are doing.
It's disappointing to win a match, but walk away unhappy because the number of points scored was low enough to actually hurt your ranking.
A significant number of teams at the Oregon regional did not understand the system and played inappropriately as a result.
I am not a fan.
Talk about a 'race to the bottom' for FIRST.
Here at the Bayou Regional a team that never fielded a working robot was in the top 8. Of course being picked by them for elimination made for an automatic FAIL.
Frak Coopertition™. What does the C mean in FRC anyway?
It is really wierd for rookies. They are expecting a competition, plain and simple.
The help they get from everyone in the pits is great and appreciated. But they expect a competition. Getting less than that has the potential to be a little insulting to a persons fair sense of play.
I (and most of the rest of my team) forgot about this new system, and were playing like every other scoring system...
we blew out the first 4 matches on friday at GSR, like, completely ahnialated them (like 5-0), and then went to go look at the rankings... we were in 14th...
what a surprise that was :|
I see what they are trying to do with this system, but it is not being achieved in the right way...
Older movie called Wargames. Computer talking.
" Interesting game. Only logical move is not to play"
Something like that.
rick.oliver
07-03-2010, 20:46
Yes, I like the seeding system.
I appreciate that the seeding system encourages scoring in the qualification rounds. I understand that the seeding system discourages the use of defense throughout an entire qualification round; however, strategic defense could still be valuable in a close match. I also like that the strategy can be much different in the elimination rounds.
I remember a regional where a team that had not shown (except for their human player) for their first several matches was ranked higher than us. That was on the previous W-L-T system and when we were still going two on two. So the arguments about how this particular system distorts the rankings rings hollow to me.
I am concerned about the amount of penalties and the potential for incurring incursion penalties while crossing bumps; however, that is a separate issue from the seeding system.
Based upon what I'm reading here and in other threads, this year's version of heavy defense is to block your own goals, score for your opponents and hope that they incur penalties. At least there may be less damage to the robots during qualification rounds.
Net, I don't think that the problem is with the seeding system. It seems to me that if each alliance did their best to score as much as possible for themselves that the best teams would be rewarded and end up as the highest ranked. If an alliance wants to take the risk and score to increase their coopertition bonus, good for them.
Thomas_S
07-03-2010, 20:52
I hated this system. It seems like it is slighting good robots from being seeded where they actually deserve. Blowouts? Bring them on! If the other team didn't have the right strategy, or just had robots that didn't work well together, then if they get blown out, they should be seeded lower.
Martinez
07-03-2010, 20:54
No. If FIRST wanted a 6v0 game they should have invented a 6v0 game. There are serious reasons why the 2001, 2002, and 2003 seeding systems are no longer being used.
Martinez
07-03-2010, 20:56
Older movie called Wargames. Computer talking.
" Interesting game. Only logical move is not to play"
Something like that.
1511 did this in their final qualifiaction match against 217 by walking away from their controllers and I highly commend them for it. Kodos for the Graciousness and the Professionalism to form a Union by means of a silent protest.
Mike Martus
07-03-2010, 21:02
My answer is NO!
It messes with my mind...
We win 3 matches in a row we drop 15 spots....... we lose 1 match and we jump up..... hmmmmm it is better to lose then to win in many cases.
Something is just not right here..... Cooperatition leads to a boring set of qualifying matches....... some teams are starting to see.... if you are loosing the match then score for the winner you are points ahead for your team overall.
MadeAtMidnight
07-03-2010, 21:03
I think as the season goes on, it will become all 6-team alliances. The only thing to discuss will be which side is going to "win" that time. I find it frustrating.
Scene set-dark alley-atlanta- friday
" You help us win and maybe we put you on pick list."
rwood359
07-03-2010, 21:18
Scene set-dark alley-atlanta- friday
" You help us win and maybe we put you on pick list."
"Win" would have worked under the old system - strategic losses are now more important.
Mrs.Drake343
07-03-2010, 21:20
So Mr. Drake and I have been fussing about this for a little while now. Let's look at this scoring system from a real life situation: We are at war and we are killing lots of their people...OH Wait!! We need to make this a "close game", so we kill some of our people. :rolleyes:
ideasrule
07-03-2010, 21:57
Older movie called Wargames. Computer talking.
" Interesting game. Only logical move is not to play"
Something like that.
I know what you mean, but it's not like that. If two very powerful alliances go full-out on each other, they don't get annihilated; they both get a lot of seeding points.
Herodotus
07-03-2010, 23:19
I think the system works almost perfectly if everyone just plays their hardest. It can severely fall apart if people exploit it for seeding points, however.
Regardless of whether you like it or hate it, or whether it was planned or unintended consequences, the mere fact that we are having this discussion and that there is so much turmoil within FRC is evidence enough that it was a bad idea. Having games or rules that many do not like is one thing, but when a new system causes teams to give up on playing the game, and a large contingent of the FRC community feels the "C" is gone form FRC, then we have a serious problem, and damage is being done to FRC.
lightsandmusik
08-03-2010, 00:07
I think that in a different game this seeding system would work. But in breakaway, with penalties playing a large part in the scoring, messes things up.
sparrowkc
08-03-2010, 00:10
If FIRST wanted a 6v0 game they should have invented a 6v0 game.
My thoughts exactly. I'm forced to think that they did not at all intend for the game to be played that way. I also find it impossible that we could go from Lunacy (a game in which points were scored on and against our opponents) to a game where we are supposed to score for and with them. I assume that the GDC's intentions remain basically the same from year to year, and those two games just don't reconcile.
Also I have invented a new word: Collusitition.
Rick TYler
08-03-2010, 00:20
I think the system works almost perfectly if everyone just plays their hardest. It can severely fall apart if people exploit it for seeding points, however.
David, a lot of people have made comments similar to yours. The rules of a game are, in my opinion, a perfect representation of the goals of the game designers. Teams are HUGELY rewarded for being seeded highly -- why would you expect them to ignore seeding-improvement strategies? There is a classic management essay entitled "On the Folly of Rewarding A While Hoping for B." That's what the FRC GDC is doing here -- hoping for a good, tough competition while rewarding bizarre behavior that makes no sense to the audience. I feel sorry for the FRC students that have to explain this to "civilians" in the stands. Makes you yearn for 2006 when the game was simple to understand (robot basketball) and the winners were the ones who won the most matches.
Herodotus
08-03-2010, 00:24
Which is why I selected mixed feelings. The rules should be designed more appropriately, but it also reveals a nasty tendency that many people have to try to exploit any system they are in for their own good. That's not always a problem, but it certainly can be.
I know as a former driver that if my coach had ever asked me to throw a match for qualifying points, he would have been looking for a new driver and I would have been done with FIRST.
Andrew Schreiber
08-03-2010, 00:42
My answer is NO!
It messes with my mind...
We win 3 matches in a row we drop 15 spots....... we lose 1 match and we jump up..... hmmmmm it is better to lose then to win in many cases.
Something is just not right here..... Cooperatition leads to a boring set of qualifying matches....... some teams are starting to see.... if you are loosing the match then score for the winner you are points ahead for your team overall.
I second this.
[Michigan Specific Rant]
Compounding this if you win and go down you decrease your chance of picking (which is worth X points for qualifying for MSC) but increase your overall points by some amount smaller than X, Y. If you lose you raise your ranking increasing your chances of picking (X) but sacrificing the chance to gain Y for sure. Since when did a robotics competition come with opportunity cost?
[/Rant]
Coupling this with the massive amount of penalties being racked up just by playing the game and FIRST may as well have renamed the Qualification Matches "Demonstration Matches" and then picked 8 random Alliance Captains.*
I've read the rule book, I competed with 2 teams at a competition, and I STILL have barely a clue how this thing works. What chance does a random spectator have? This game could have been awesome but the sheer number of penalties and a wonky ranking algorithm is making it so that spectators have no idea what is going on.
*To anyone who was an Alliance Captain last weekend, you guys played the game as written and came out on top. Good job, you earned it. I am disagreeing with the rules of the game not your ability or skill.
Lil' Lavery
08-03-2010, 00:54
I find it appropriate that most of the people agreeing with this system have yet to play in it.
Has anyone here factored in the Coopertition Bonus, or that other matches in between yours may have also affected your position?
In a game that is 5-2 with one penalty on the left, the left gets 8 and the right gets 5 seeding points.
The only trouble is with "blowout" matches.
HashemReza
08-03-2010, 01:14
I find it appropriate that most of the people agreeing with this system have yet to play in it.
I lol'd.
It's true, once you play with it, it sucks. This is coming from someone who benefited from the system, with my team seeding 6 at San Diego this weekend. That, in case you were wondering, was our highest seed at competition. Ever.
That doesn't change the fact that the seeding system sucks, rewarding the wrong things currently.
Which is why I selected mixed feelings. The rules should be designed more appropriately, but it also reveals a nasty tendency that many people have to try to exploit any system they are in for their own good. That's not always a problem, but it certainly can be.
I know as a former driver that if my coach had ever asked me to throw a match for qualifying points, he would have been looking for a new driver and I would have been done with FIRST.
I commend you for that. I would have done the same. I decided against doing that not because it is un-GP but it is poor sportsmanship. As coach of the team, let it be known that Team 2834 the Bionic Barons will never agree to cooperate with other teams to throw a match. Please do not even ask. If our opposing alliance try to throw a match, we will score one point, get all the balls to our near zone and I will tell my driver to guard the balls so they can not score for us.
I put up a "simulation" of the seeding system for a 57 team 8 game match.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83903&page=5
I spent most of the morning Saturday behind the desk in Pit Admin at KC trying to explain the rankings to people. This was not an easy task. Doing the same job with the system used my first four years in FIRST was fairly easy. The 2*Wins+1*Ties+0*Losses system for qualifying points was straightforward, and the fact that ranking score was a tiebreaker based on the loser's score led into the "encouraging close, high-scoring matches" explanation. Both were fairly easy to determine from raw match score information. Under the current system, it's hard to even determine whether the numbers are correct or updated, since penalty information isn't visible on the match results list, and there have been a lot of penalties and a lot of 0-0 ties that resulted in non-zero seeding and coopetition points.
I'm not going to judge any team negatively for their legal strategic decisions under this system as long as they are honest about them, put a robot on the field that is as good as they can manage, and don't play "single out team X and try to make them go down by any means so I can go up". Everyone would like to be in the position to choose alliance partners on Saturday, and it's possible it's going to take some weird roads to get there. It's also possible that all the exotic strategies will be found to be a bad idea in most practical situations and will fade away as the season progresses.
I trust everyone's scouts to find a way to see quality and ability. Good robots will still be what wins championships.
If things continue under this system, the audience is going to be confused during quals, and we should try to help them as much as we can. It is my intention to make sure that all of our people in the stands at our next event are prepared to explain to other people's confused grandparents, bus drivers, and random spectators why someone thought it was sensible to start scoring own-goals mid-match, or why all six teams are scoring in one direction, preferably in as neutral a way as possible, even if we decide it isn't a strategy we are willing to participate in. The most graciously professional thing I can think of to do is assume positive intent any time I can and play the best game we can with the cards we were dealt.
Given the strategic implications and the level of confusion and distress it invokes in both informed and uninformed observers, this is not the ranking system I would have chosen, and I would prefer not to use it again. On the other hand, I am not privy to the design constraints the GDC members were using when they selected it, and I respect them enough to play it out and not make final judgments after one week. On the third hand, if they decide this isn't what they wanted and make a change, I will not complain.
I find it appropriate that most of the people agreeing with this system have yet to play in it.
I concur, heh. Combined with the inevitability of penalties, this new system hurts a lot more than people would believe, especially in the early weeks when the rules are still subject to interpretation by the referees. (Did anyone else notice the refs in DC calling G41 too much even though the parts were from malfunctioning subsystems and it obviously was not intentional?)
Week 1 quals, penalties were the deciding factor in matches. Period.
Unfortunately, many teams simply did not understand the ranking system until it was too late.
One problem the current system has is the following: that fancy TBA image in our signatures lists W-L-T statistics. When we go back to our schools, our faculty/staff/students ask how we did. I'm struggling to explain the concept of, "well, we lost more than we won, but our seeding scores were great!" (which they weren't but you see my point).
Jury is still out in my mind, we'll see in later weeks how things flush out. In my eyes, the #1 and 2 seeds at DC (1727 and 3123) were certainly deserving, irrespective of how they were awarded.
Isaac501
08-03-2010, 09:23
This is probably the worst seeding system I have ever seen. When you have the ability to have a match where everyone (and not by collusion across the field) can play a 6v0 game, there is something HORRIBLY BROKEN about it. I am pretty unimpressed with the GDC this year. Between the ridiculous penalties and the utterly broken seeding system, I'd say this was the worst set of rules I've seen in my 7 years doing FIRST. The game would be AWESOME if these rules didn't suck the bloody life out of the game.
After losing 3, tying 1, winning 3, and our bot scoring 2 whole points the entire day, we were seeded 19th at the end of Friday. We could drive. Our kicker didn't work. Our hanger didn't work. We got like 15 penalties.
After we fixed most of the problems, we won two more, lost one more and then seeded 30th overall.
Win, and you are penalized. Do NOTHING and you are rewarded handsomely.
Explain to me, please, someone, how the hell this is possible.
Martinez
08-03-2010, 09:31
I find it Ironic that FIRST selected a game to be as inviting to the public as possible (Soccer just prior to the World Cup), and yet the results have been more frustrating or counterproductive then ever before...
People talk about Gracious Professionalism, and I know we all have different meanings for it, but I am seriously glad that my Dad was not there on Sat to see any 6v0 matches. He's been a fan of FIRST ever since I started and is an even greater fan of Soccer. I invited him to come out this weekend. He couldn't but did make the effort for Friday, driving three hours from Rome NY where to date my former High School still doesn't have a team.
If these facts doesn't seriously say there is something wrong about this game, then nothing does.
I think before we jump all over the GDC we should consider that it may have come from higher up. Patent = Coopertition
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7507169.html
http://osdir.com/patents/Games/Method-creating-coopertition-07507169.html
These rules are offensive to a persons intrinsic sense of fair play.
We should help each other get to competition, through inspection, and get through the whole year.
But once the robots are on the field of play it should be a 'gladiatorial spectacle' !
Well, people patent germs and viruses that can kill the entire planet. Doesn't mean they have to use it.
I think before we jump all over the GDC we should consider that it may have come from higher up. Patent = Coopertition
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7507169.html
http://osdir.com/patents/Games/Method-creating-coopertition-07507169.html
I tried to keep an open mind through our first regional, however playing through it has convinced me that it is a bad idea. In fact, quite often in led to our alliances not cooperating, and changed gameplay for the worse.
When a game is designed so that if you know you are going to lose, your best strategy is 'take a dive' or worse, score for your opponent, IMHO that has destroyed the game and competition.
I hope "FIRST" does not continue with this system in the future.
I tried to keep an open mind through our first regional, however playing through it has convinced me that it is a bad idea. In fact, quite often in led to our alliances not cooperating, and changed gameplay for the worse.
When a game is designed so that if you know you are going to lose, your best strategy is 'take a dive' or worse, score for your opponent, IMHO that has destroyed the game and competition.
I hope "FIRST" does not continue with this system in the future.
Please note that I do not like the system either. I am just bringing the point up that it may not have been the GDC that made the final call.
Chris is me
08-03-2010, 09:59
We hope.
I'm fearful that there may be some who are so fiercely loyal to the home office vision that they will sacrifice their competition to prove that they were right.
Did any offseason not change G14? A much less disliked rule than this one...
You know, I have to say I bet 2001 would have been much, much better than this year. I mean, at least then you didn't play two different games with the same robot. If I had to do it over again I'd build a dual configuration robot.
Daniel_LaFleur
08-03-2010, 10:04
I find it appropriate that most of the people agreeing with this system have yet to play in it.
... and I find it amusing that those who couldn't figure out how to use the system in their strategy then bash on it.
[*start rant]
It was amazing how many teams I needed to talk to to teach the seeding system. Many had no clue how it worked and did not even read those sections ... and many were veteran teams.
Strategy involves how to advance your team within the rules. So if you don't understand the rules, then shame on you. Quit bashing on it and start using it as it was designed to be used.
... and before people start stating "Un-GP", understand that the rules are written in a specific way for a specific reason. Just because it doesn't fit your idea of what it should be doesn't make it "un-GP".
If you cannot figure out a way to adapt your strategy to use the seeding system as designed, then cry me a river, it's not the seeding systems fault. It's your own inability to adapt.
And this comes from a team that plays solid defense
[*end rant]
The above, as usual, is JM(NS)HO.
Having played in a week 1 regional, I know we ended up explaining the ranking system to a number of our alliance partners on Thursday and Friday.
We ended up getting crushed (7-0 after penalties) in one qualification match and it helped our ranking at that time, a lot. Seems to me that if you are winning you want to win the close game but if you are losing you hope for a blowout.
There were also ball incursion penalties all over the place as well at DC which greatly influenced scores.
Coach Tom
08-03-2010, 10:21
I believe most people are evaluating the seeding process through a paradigm that there should be a winner and loser for every match. You are missing the brilliance of the GDC. The Qualification matches represent a time for all teams to play against the "Game", not each other. I'm not an economist, but Woodie Flowers and the GDC are smart enough to know that real life situations are actually quite complicated. In business, cooperation can lead to a win-win situation. Breakaway Seeding matches should be evaluated in terms of “Game Theory”. Remember the movie “A Beautiful Mind” about the Economist John Nash. Economic theory is every bit a science as chemistry or physics. Be willing to challenge you own bias and paradigms (mostly influenced by culture and sports).
Although scoring against our selves goes against our culture and ingrained sense of fairness, we must consider the “Game”. We are competing against the rules of the “Game”. Not each other.
For this reason, Team Overdrive 2753 is open to the prospect of scoring against ourselves -- since the “Game” is our opponent. In essence, win /losses in qualifications, means nothing. And that is OK. Once the elimination matches start; however, we will always play to win.
Wayne TenBrink
08-03-2010, 10:47
I preferred the previous seeding system. We will work with the current system. Neither system is perfectly efficient at ranking all the teams. Both allow a few teams to be "carried" into alliance captain slots. Beyond that though, that's what scouting is for. We are inclined to just play our best and not try to game the system. I would encourage others to do the same. If everybody did that, it would be a better reflection of the relative performance of the teams.
Perhaps the system will be tweaked for next year. Who knows. I don't expect any changes for the remainder of the 2010 season.
(PS: I am out of the country on business and couldn't take my computer. Thank God for computers in the hotel lobby!)
For some reason I want to say "Fungibility of Game Rules" rules !
Of course we are playing against (or with) the game rules. But to what end ?
It seems that teams are going to adapt their behavior to give them the best competitive advantage, they are going to game the game rules.
Game theoretic becomes fungible.
We still have a team on team competition. We just can't explain it to the general public. And then we wonder why we get funny looks !
IMHO, I think the coopertition should be up to the starting bell and the match play a traditional competition.
That is a super easy story to sell to the public. GP, good sportsmanship, all the rest. Anything else is just too difficult.
And I'm perfectly happy helping teams beat us up on the field in the simplified model of GP and coopertition.
I believe most people are evaluating the seeding process through a paradigm that there should be a winner and loser for every match. You are missing the brilliance of the GDC. The Qualification matches represent a time for all teams to play against the "Game", not each other. I'm not an economist, but Woodie Flowers and the GDC are smart enough to know that real life situations are actually quite complicated. In business, cooperation can lead to a win-win situation. Breakaway Seeding matches should be evaluated in terms of “Game Theory”. Remember the movie “A Beautiful Mind” about the Economist John Nash. Economic theory is every bit a science as chemistry or physics. Be willing to challenge you own bias and paradigms (mostly influenced by culture and sports).
Although scoring against our selves goes against our culture and ingrained sense of fairness, we must consider the “Game”. We are competing against the rules of the “Game”. Not each other.
For this reason, Team Overdrive 2753 is open to the prospect of scoring against ourselves -- since the “Game” is our opponent. In essence, win /losses in qualifications, means nothing. And that is OK. Once the elimination matches start; however, we will always play to win.
I see where you are coming from. One of the problems that I have is that Chapter 7 of the manual clearly states:
Two ALLIANCES, one red and one blue, composed of three FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC) teams each, compete in each MATCH. The object of the game is to attain a higher score than your opponent by shooting BALLS into a GOAL, climbing on the ALLIANCE TOWER or PLATFORM, or by lifting an ALLIANCE ROBOT off the PLAYING SURFACE.
I then tried to find a direct statement in Chapter 9 that says the objective in qualifications matches is to maximize the alliance's seeding points. I couldn't find one (maybe someone else can?). I think we all infer that the goal of qualification matches is to maximize our seeding points but that leads us to strategies that directly oppose the main objective of the game which is clearly spelled out in the manual.
As an aside I found that the dictionary definition of "qualification" (at least the one that I used) stated that qualification does not necessarily imply competence. I evidently had lost that caveat somewhere along the way.
Please note that I do not like the system either. I am just bringing the point up that it may not have been the GDC that made the final call.
I understand. I quoted you to include the links. Since it is patented, I unfortunately expect this to continue.
rwood359
08-03-2010, 13:46
I believe most people are evaluating the seeding process through a paradigm that there should be a winner and loser for every match.
If the point of the game is not to win, then the GDC should have changed the scoring during the match to show the respective seed scores that the alliances would receive. Announcing a wins and loses in front of the curtain and seed scores behind the curtain doesn't make sense.
Lil' Lavery
08-03-2010, 13:56
... and I find it amusing that those who couldn't figure out how to use the system in their strategy then bash on it.
[*start rant]
It was amazing how many teams I needed to talk to to teach the seeding system. Many had no clue how it worked and did not even read those sections ... and many were veteran teams.
Strategy involves how to advance your team within the rules. So if you don't understand the rules, then shame on you. Quit bashing on it and start using it as it was designed to be used.
... and before people start stating "Un-GP", understand that the rules are written in a specific way for a specific reason. Just because it doesn't fit your idea of what it should be doesn't make it "un-GP".
If you cannot figure out a way to adapt your strategy to use the seeding system as designed, then cry me a river, it's not the seeding systems fault. It's your own inability to adapt.
And this comes from a team that plays solid defense
[*end rant]
The above, as usual, is JM(NS)HO.
There are plenty of us who understand these rules perfectly well. We get what needs to be done to succeed in this system. But we refuse to sacrifice the reason we started competiting in FIRST to begin with simply to rank higher, and we're angry that we're being asked to.
There are plenty of engineering competitions where you don't compete head-to-head against other competitors. You simply try and obtain the highest score, fastest time, or lightest weight contraption. FRC has been different because it adapted the sports model, direct, head-to-head competition. It took a model that's engaging and fun to watch and adapted it.
There are many of us who aren't willing to give that up. We're not going to sacrifice the reasons we picked FIRST over other competitions to begin with, or to reduce the quality of the product delivered to the crowd. We're not going to throw matches to seed higher, and we're pissed that the new ranking system is asking us to do so.
Don Wright
08-03-2010, 13:59
On a side note, I find it very amusing that in a time where there always seems to be threads throughout CD about how "it's not about the robots" and "winning or losing" by a LOT of people, yet the seeding system now which doesn't have winners/losers is getting sooo much heat...
On a side note, I find it very amusing that in a time where there always seems to be threads throughout CD about how "it's not about the robots" and "winning or losing" by a LOT of people, yet the seeding system now which doesn't have winners/losers is getting sooo much heat...
I plead guilty to what you are talking about. Here is my perspective.
We spend 362 days a year promoting FIRST and STEM education. And 90% of our time at a competition trying to support and help people out.
It would be really nice to allow the kids that 10% of the time on those 3 days at an an event (I didn't say competition) to let it rip.
It isn't an 'A' OR 'B' decision. It is a 'A' AND 'B' decision that incorporates and exceeds anything that happens in sports.
If the point of the game is not to win, then the GDC should have changed the scoring during the match to show the respective seed scores that the alliances would receive. Announcing a wins and loses in front of the curtain and seed scores behind the curtain doesn't make sense.
This is an excellent point. Showing a "final score" on the scoreboard and announcing a "winner" for the crowd, but having the real score and the real winner be something else on the other side of the curtain is at best confusing and at worst disingenuous. Can you imagine watching a sporting event where the score on the scoreboard is not really the actual score, which is something calculated behind the scenes but never shown? The goal this year was for the game to be enjoyable and easy to understand for spectators. If FIRST really believes in the cooperition seeding score system, then let that be the score that is shown on the field and not hidden behind the scenes. Let the crowd see for themselves that the winning team lost and the losing team won.
I find it interesting so many teams are saying that the only way to prosper from this system is to let others score or to score on yourself. Use some of that innovation you all had throughout the year and try to come up with a strategy that works within the limits while not giving away all defense, offense, or a complete match. Sure it will still be different from eliminations, but there are ways to play a real, competitive match while still maximizing your seeding points. Also, I'd say wait a week or two, see how other regionals deal with the issue, and continue the discussion from there. Many things may change about strategy by then which doesn't involve throwing a match.
Also, as far as using this system but changing it for next year -- what do you think the effects would have been if the losing alliance gets 1/2 the winning alliance seeding score? Still uses coopertition I suppose, but seems more geared towards winning each match.
Martinez
08-03-2010, 14:45
There are plenty of us who understand these rules perfectly well. We get what needs to be done to succeed in this system. But we refuse to sacrifice the reason we started competiting in FIRST to begin with simply to rank higher, and we're angry that we're being asked to.
There are plenty of engineering competitions where you don't compete head-to-head against other competitors. You simply try and obtain the highest score, fastest time, or lightest weight contraption. FRC has been different because it adapted the sports model, direct, head-to-head competition. It took a model that's engaging and fun to watch and adapted it.
There are many of us who aren't willing to give that up. We're not going to sacrifice the reasons we picked FIRST over other competitions to begin with, or to reduce the quality of the product delivered to the crowd. We're not going to throw matches to seed higher, and we're pissed that the new ranking system is asking us to do so.
QFT
To quote one of our mentors: "Any game that asks you to score against yourself in order to get ahead in life is dumb."
Martinez
08-03-2010, 14:47
This is an excellent point. Showing a "final score" on the scoreboard and announcing a "winner" for the crowd, but having the real score and the real winner be something else on the other side of the curtain is at best confusing and at worst disingenuous. Can you imagine watching a sporting event where the score on the scoreboard is not really the actual score, which is something calculated behind the scenes but never shown? The goal this year was for the game to be enjoyable and easy to understand for spectators. If FIRST really believes in the cooperition seeding score system, then let that be the score that is shown on the field, and let the crowd see for themselves that the winning team lost and the losing team won.
Paul of 217 started doing this at FLR in order to explain to the crowd what the ___ was going on. He did a great job MCing by the way and hope gets the chance over at Michigan!
gbbayless
08-03-2010, 14:55
System is terrible. At the end of Friday's competition there were 3 teams that has a win loss record of 5-1. One of the teams was in 10th place, one was in
30th place and one was in 38th place. Our team ended with a 7-2 record on the win loss and we ended up in 36th position for the ranking. Did not get selected for the finals.
keericks
08-03-2010, 15:10
Sorry for the double post here, but this thread seemed like a good place to share as well.
<soapbox>
As I reflect on the numerous threads & posts flooding CD on this topic, I find myself wanting to comment on the greater objective/direction that this year's "seeding system" is promoting. Aside from the strategies, rules, approaches, legal vs. ethical, and all the other ideas that have been discussed here, I would like draw the attention to what I feel is an alarmingly slippery slope FIRST seems to be approaching by engraining the "coopertition" concept into "competition" rules. A little background may help explain my position:
1. I've coached my 11th grade son's FLL/FRC teams since he was in the 4th grade. As a FIRST Operational Partner I've run one of the country's largest FLL State Championship tournaments for the past four years, that attract 750+ students and 85+ FLL teams to the California's Central Valley each year. I'm a huge fan and ambassador of FIRST and its impact on the youth in our communities.
2. At the 2006 World Festival, my FLL team won 1st place in the first ever FLL Alliance Challenge with the Ocean Odyssey missions, where we worked with 3 other teams from the U.S and Denmark - our first feel for true FIRST coopertition - (the Denmark team didn't even speak english) IT WAS AWESOME!
3. I've also coached every sport my 3 kids have been involved in from baseball, football, hockey, soccer, etc. - and have always appreciated the distinct differences a program like FLL/FRC brings to kids who gravitate away from traditional sporting programs - and the opportunities they find here.
So with all that said, I can tell you from my experiences that a large part of the attaction of FIRST is the packaging of learning (math/science/tech) WITH the excitment of COMPETITION that speaks to our innate competitive spirit that I believe drives the human race towards accomplishment, improvement, and connecting with others. And while I'm not wanting get all philosophical here, I can't help but feel this year's game philosophy is squelching this spirit AND forcefully directing our brightest minds into a "thinkset" that I feel is ultimately weakening us as a society/community.
It's been mentioned in other threads/posts how there are plenty of opportunties for coopertition off the competition field - and I agree 100%. I'm proud of how well this program promotes and practices it (this web site is a classic example) - our team would be lost without it! Even as we get onto the competition field - the alliance format allows for tons of cooperation! But let's cooperate to triumph over the opposition! What's wrong with that? Opposition is a force in life that we must all learn to deal with - and I've always felt that FIRST's approach of competing & dealing with opposition by THINKING & USING YOUR MIND was the perfect answer ... Not by removing the opposition and morphing it into cooperation. Opposition doesn't always WANT to cooperate, yes?
But I do fear FIRST is trying to change the face of competition ... as strong competition seems to be viewed more and more as a bad thing, so bad that we have to start changing the rules/game to MAKE SURE that we cooperate. I know I'm not alone in my thinking as I've seen others lightly comment on this elsewhere, but I want to put my stake in the ground and call a spade a spade. Let's not water-down honest competition that boasts "the thrill of victory, and the agony of defeat" - it is afterall what makes this program tick - and if you don't belive me, look at all the posts of how teams are trying to use the coopertition rules to - do what? WIN!!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a proponent of win at all costs, and/or winning is the only important thing. However, "striving to win" in a gracious and professional manner brings with it amazing results ... many more than "striving to cooperate" will ever see. I'm sorry, but that's just weak.
I understand the lofty touchy-feely goal of everyone's a winner, but we don't live in a world where everyone's a winner, nor should we want to, IMO. In Pixar's movie, The Incredible's, the villian Syndrome wants to sell his super inventions to everyone in the world, giving everybody superpowers - "Because when everyone is super ... (evil laugh) no one will be!" Kind of corny, I know, but it speaks volumes.
However, not being a winner, doesn't mean you're a loser either. The FRC program and its outcomes are dealing with different degrees of success, yes? But it's the COMPETITION that creates the scale on which we measure those degrees. It's the COMPETITION that makes us want to move up those scales each and every time we COMPETE. It's the COMPETITION that makes us and everyone around us, better. You can't call something a competition, and then strip out all the elements that engage our competitive spirits. It's crushing, depressing, and outright frustrating.
So as I step off my soapbox, I just wanted to share my thoughts around the subject and hope they serve as a warning to FIRST and to join in solidarity with others that have spoken out against this new system and its inherent problems. My concerns may go deeper, because I'm so passionate about what this program has always been about, and I'm concerned about its future. But I suppose I could have justed posted the following:
Minimize Competitive Components = Minimize Growth & Attraction & Spirit
Force "coopertition" through rules/regulation = choke the competitive spirit that's made this program what it is
</soapbox>
Here are my thoughts.
First, anyone who agrees with these rules should read "Atlas Shrugged".
Second, I know that my team will have a serious conversation about implementing this strategy.
Third, the scoring system is basically socialism.
Any time a governing body rewards someone who doesn't produce very much the same amount as someone who does, it is considered socialism. While socialism, and the GDC, may have had good intentions...both only encourage cheating and mediocracy. If teams decide to go with this strategy, spectators will be confused, members will be frustrated, and the sport will lose it's credibility.
I believe that even if a team is in last place the FIRST community does a great job of making them feel like winners, and anyways we all know that it's not about winning. Hopefully, in the future, the GDC will have more faith in the teams to uphold the values of FIRST rather than trying to enforce them.
keericks
08-03-2010, 16:23
Third, the scoring system is basically socialism.
Amen brother! My previous rant didn't quite get to that point - but I'm glad you had the courage to point it out. AGREED!
Jeff Waegelin
08-03-2010, 16:26
I can't help but think this system could easily be fixed with one tweak:
Give the losing alliance their own score when determining seeding points.
You do this, it removes the case where the losing alliance gets more seeding points than the winning alliance, and it removes much of the incentive to go for the "6v0" strategy. It worked reasonably well for qualifying in 2003 and before (though I still prefer W-L-T scoring) and would take care of most of the biggest complaints.
All this being said, I think the system worked reasonably well in Manchester. I'm sure I'm about to be flamed by some team that lost one or two matches and seeded in the 20's, but most of the teams that seeded high at BAE were also the teams that I scouted and had performed well in their matches. There were, as always, exceptions, but that happens with ANY ranking system - we've all seen the teams that get declined multiple times because they squeaked into the top 8 on a fluke, before. By and large, though, I think things sorted themselves out well at one regional, at least. I'd be interested to know why things turned out so poorly at other events. Any thoughts on why?
O.K. Some of you are saying we should quit bashing the new seeding system and just work within it to the benefit of our team so try out this scenario. Let's say my team is on the red alliance and we get together with the members of the blue alliance and get them to agree to score all points for the red alliance so we both get a high number of seeding points. Cool. So our alliance gets ready to play but we discuss the finale period amongst ourselves and hatch a plan to get even more points just for ourselves. We decide that we are going to score as many points as possible for the blue alliance during the finale period without giving them enough to win. That way both alliances get a high number of seeding points but the red alliance also gets a bunch of coopertition bonus points. We win the match and win the higher number of seeding points. Is this what Dean wants? No. Is it fostering GP? No. Is it understanding the new rules and using them to our advantage? Heck yes. So, for those of you that say we should just learn how to use the new system and quit bashing it, be careful what you wish for.
For me, I think Dean has outthought himself and did not for see these types of consequences. I hope I don't see this type of thing happening. It is not what FIRST is about but the new rules are fostering this type of activity. I hope they learn by next year that if they want teams to help each other then the game had better be designed to foster that type of activity rather than some ridiculous seeding point scheme that the audience we are supposed to be gathering cannot possibly understand.
XaulZan11
08-03-2010, 16:29
Third, the scoring system is basically socialism.
Any time a governing body rewards someone who doesn't produce very much the same amount as someone who does, it is considered socialism.
I would check your definition of socialism. Under your definition the old system was also socialist! (oh no!...not socialism!..what could be worse!??!?!). If I'm with 111 and they scored 25 moonrocks while I sat in the corner and did nothing, we both got 2 ranking points, even though we did not 'produce' the same amount.
Not trying to start a debate, just pointing something out...
thefro526
08-03-2010, 16:32
I can't help but think this system could easily be fixed with one tweak:
Give the losing alliance their own score when determining seeding points.
I think you're onto something here.
It rewards teams who score well whether they win or not. I like it, because it emphasizes doing your best and playing your heart out which is what I firmly believe this is what it's all about. If FIRST wants to de-emphasize winning, but still keep matches exciting and make sure teams are doing their best then maybe they should look into this.
Any time a governing body rewards someone who doesn't produce very much the same amount as someone who does, it is considered socialism. While socialism, and the GDC, may have had good intentions...both only encourage cheating and mediocracy.
I personally don't think the idea was to reward someone who doesn't produce very much, but instead rank teams in a way which takes into account how difficult their opponents are, which the previous ranking system didn't do.
Is this the right way to do that? Probably not, but I think that's what GDC's (or whoever made the final seeding decision's) goal was.
artdutra04
08-03-2010, 16:42
Third, the scoring system is basically socialism.So the scoring system is a nationalized institution owned by the government paid for by taxes on all citizens for the general public good (not unlike the police, firefighters, public libraries, public education, mass transit, Interstate highways and the military)? :confused:
I don't like the new scoring system, but socialism it is not.
Okie Dokie,
Lets try to stick to the merits of the debate and focus on the issues.
Perjorative labels isn't going to get us anywhere.
With all due respect !
Daniel_LaFleur
08-03-2010, 16:53
O.K. Some of you are saying we should quit bashing the new seeding system and just work within it to the benefit of our team so try out this scenario. Let's say my team is on the red alliance and we get together with the members of the blue alliance and get them to agree to score all points for the red alliance so we both get a high number of seeding points. Cool. So our alliance gets ready to play but we discuss the finale period amongst ourselves and hatch a plan to get even more points just for ourselves. We decide that we are going to score as many points as possible for the blue alliance during the finale period without giving them enough to win. That way both alliances get a high number of seeding points but the red alliance also gets a bunch of coopertition bonus points. We win the match and win the higher number of seeding points. Is this what Dean wants? No. Is it fostering GP? No. Is it understanding the new rules and using them to our advantage? Heck yes. So, for those of you that say we should just learn how to use the new system and quit bashing it, be careful what you wish for.
For me, I think Dean has outthought himself and did not for see these types of consequences. I hope I don't see this type of thing happening. It is not what FIRST is about but the new rules are fostering this type of activity. I hope they learn by next year that if they want teams to help each other then the game had better be designed to foster that type of activity rather than some ridiculous seeding point scheme that the audience we are supposed to be gathering cannot possibly understand.
If you do this, do you believe that any alliance would believe you from that time forward?
I know that my scouting has a column for trust. Basically we ask a few questions that we already know the answer to, but to which many would not want to announce to a scout team. We also watch the matches for 'cooperation' and 'quick strat changes'.
I know that if we saw that happen, we'd not pick you. I could even see teams that decline your invite to an alliance because they don't trust you.
I'm one that says learn the system and use it, yet I would not use your 'tactic'. There are far better ways of using the system as it's designed. If this is the only strategy you can see within the rulesset, then (I believe) you have missed the point of how the seeding system was designed.
You will ultimately be known for what you do, not what you say. Consider this when you make these decisions.
rick.oliver
08-03-2010, 16:56
I personally don't think the idea was to reward someone who doesn't produce very much, but instead rank teams in a way which takes into account how difficult their opponents are, which the previous ranking system didn't do.
Is this the right way to do that? Probably not, but I think that's what GDC's (or whoever made the final seeding decision's) goal was.
I agree with your perspective on the probable intent of the seeding system.
If everybody played the game to maximize their own score, then this seeding system would meet that intent very well, I think.
The issue is not the seeding system. If F.I.R.S.T. needs to take any feeback from this it is that the change should have been highlighted at Kickoff and discussed. It is a big change and you know, most engineers don't appreciate being surprized by a big change.:ahh:
Amen brother! My previous rant didn't quite get to that point - but I'm glad you had the courage to point it out. AGREED!
Thanks, last time I pointed this out (in 2009) my inbox was full of hate mail within a few days!
So to address some of my criticism on this forum, yes, I did think that last year's game also had elements of socialism in it.
To address other comments:
Rizner - I personally don't think the idea was to reward someone who doesn't produce very much, but instead rank teams in a way which takes into account how difficult their opponents are, which the previous ranking system didn't do.
Is this the right way to do that? Probably not, but I think that's what GDC's (or whoever made the final seeding decision's) goal was.
@Rizner - Once again, great intentions, but terrible implementation.
artdutra04 - So the scoring system is a nationalized institution owned by the government paid for by taxes on all citizens for the general public good (not unlike the police, firefighters, public libraries, public education, mass transit, Interstate highways and the military)?
I don't like the new scoring system, but socialism it is not.
@artdutra04 - I understand that this doesn't look exactly like socialism, but the philosophy/reason behind the rules has its roots in socialism.
My suggestion is that FRC teams should draft an open letter to FIRST outlining our concerns.
Is there a link to a site that explains the ranking system? If so, I'd very much like to know how it works so I may form an opinion.
My suggestion is that FRC teams should draft an open letter to FIRST outlining our concerns.
I think if you do this, you will want to include a solution. One that does in fact take into account the difficulty of opponents because I believe that is an important thing FIRST is trying to do.
My suggestion would be to have winning alliances seeding score be what they scored + what their opponents scored, while the losing alliances seeding score be what they scored + what their opponents scored / 2.
delsaner
08-03-2010, 17:26
I am not a fan of the new seeding system. I somewhat understand the fact that FIRST is trying to incorporate coopertition into the field, and I respect that they are trying, but I feel that helping out teams in the pits in order to produce a fair game on the field was perfectly fine. I do not see this seeding system lasting very long within the future years of FIRST.
Alan Anderson
08-03-2010, 17:32
Is there a link to a site that explains the ranking system? If so, I'd very much like to know how it works so I may form an opinion.
Try the game manual. Section 9.
Lil' Lavery
08-03-2010, 17:34
@artdutra04 - I understand that this doesn't look exactly like socialism, but the philosophy/reason behind the rules has its roots in socialism.
You still have it backwards. Both socialism and this ranking system (allegedly, I may add) have some fundamental philosophies that may have similar origins. The philosophies that govern this system did not originate with socialism, nor did any of the philosophies of socialism itself. The concepts behind it predate the system of government. Please stop trying to tack on terms that already get applied far too incorrectly as it is in order to bolster you point via shock value.
Kims Robot
08-03-2010, 18:27
So I gave myself some time to sit on this before even opening Chief Delphi...
We knew the seeding system well coming into competition. Im not certain all of our kids were convinced of it, but I ran all the numbers early in the season (like many teams did) and caught the whole "it doesnt pay to play defense" thing. I also noted how the bizzare 6vs0 could play out.
That said, I will admit we started the day with a less than optimal robot, but wanted to win...
First Match: Played to win, but it was the second match of the day, results 2:1, ehh...
Second Match: Played to win, but got completely annihilated, 9:0 after penalties!! This match vaulted us into somewhere around third place!! Half the team was dumbfounded, how could we lose, but go up in ranks!! They finally caught on...
Next two matches, played to win, won one, lost one... ugh heavy defense!
We looked at our next match and by all of our scouting data, there was no way for us to win. So we decided to give the "help your opponent" strategy a try. We intended to block our goals with 2 robots, and use our middle bot to feed the opponents. Unfortunately, they didnt catch on fast enough, and played enough defense to knock over one of the robots that was trying to feed balls to the middle, and the middle robot couldnt help get many balls over, but interestingly enough, it still sort of worked! Final score was 5:0, winners got 2 penalties, so we LOST and got 5 rank points, the other alliance WON and got 3 rank points... we vaulted back up in the rankings... Needless to say everyone watching was confused, they thought we were "stuck in the goal".
Next match, we played to win, opposing alliance had a lot of issues, and we won 9:0, would rather they have scored, but it was still good for our rank points (better than any of the 2:2 matches).
We looked at our second to last match and said, well we are the much stronger scoring alliance by A LOT, and the other team had two bots that were playing Defense nearly all qualifiers. We got together with 229 and convinced all the teams to implement the 6v0 concept, with us feeding the opposing alliance. At the start of the match, our robot scored 3 balls for them... our parents and spectators were dumbfounded. They thought our drivers were confused. We then scooted to the middle and proceeded to feed them balls the whole time. Result was 11v0, a reasonably successful 6v0 score, and a much higher score than if we had let them play defense on us.
Our last match (despite what Jeff said), we actually intended to win. We had a strategy that we thought could beat the 217/1551/3044 alliance... but then our two partners died right at the start of the match (control issues - one accidentally hit the power on the classmate ugh). Our drivers quickly realized this and scooted themselves into our goal and just sat there, not intentionally playing 6v0, but realizing that we were up against a really tough alliance and there was no point in just boosting their rankings. They didnt walk away from the controls in protest, there was just nothing else they could do. And I will tell you it made for an even more dull match with 3 robots just sitting there. We made it to 3rd seed following that. It does seem very weird that a team that "gave up" because two alliance partners were dead gets rewarded for basically just not hindering our opponents.
We finished in 5th seed, not bad for a 5-5-0 record. I will be honest, it felt really weird, but we were playing to the rules.
Honestly, if all of the teams took on the same attitude and played to how FIRST was hoping this played out (which I think the intent was just to eliminate defense), then we would have much more epic offensive battles on the field. But with the near/mid/far zone starts, I think so many teams see the "far zone" as their defensive soccer player, there to mess up the other teams from scoring. While true in eliminations, it just hurts the entire field for qualifiers. I think if FIRST just made some "no defensive contact" rule it would have had a much better effect. Instead you end up with strategies where sometimes its better to "throw the match" if you think you are going to be defended.
However, I think if you look at FLR, the good teams that played to win the matches ended up at the top for the most part. 1551 definitely played every single match to win, and I think 217 and 145 did as well. It really just mattered if their opponents decided to play defense or not. I will be honest, we played to seed high, and I think there will be a lot more of that coming up. But if teams start to recognize how all of this works and stop playing defense (maybe until the last 30 seconds), we will see a lot more high scoring matches and a lot more high rank scores & coopertition points. But until teams lay off the defense, 6v0 and the "sit in your own goal" strategy are going to be played by teams aiming to select their own alliances. Its confusing as all heck for spectators, and its really hard to switch gears to strategize for finals, but its the rules we have. You figure it out.
I think that this system does, in fact, add to the strategy in this game.While this does( in a few cases) encourage a 6v0 match, for the alliance that has been predetermined to 'win' the match, It makes more sense for them to break the agreement, and start scoring for the opposing alliance. While this (will) confuse the audiance, it helps boost the winner's seeding score. I see this system in a similar light to the WLT system, in that in both systems, you're trying to maximize your ranking/seeding score. The difference is in how you do that. With the WLT system, you maximize your seeding score by beating the opposing alliance. In the current system: you do it through co-operating between alliances and breaking those agreements. It's similar to a Oliopoly/Cartel in economics. It pays to collude, but once you're in the collusion agreement, it pays to break the agreement. It is harder to win in this system, because if the opposing alliance is good, then they can cause the breaking of the collusion agreement to backfire, and benefit themselves even more. The plus side to this, is that you are rewarded more heavily for taking the risk. On top of that, there is the strategy of just wanting to win all of your matches. In that strategy, it pays to play defense, but you aren't rewarded as well. It makes this game even more about strategy, rather than having a good robot.
My 2 Cents...
Creator Mat
08-03-2010, 19:26
maybe this is a new coke vs. classic coke situation. the GDC implemented this system so people would hate it so much they would beg to go back to the old system. Then once the old system is reimplemented people would stop complaining about it and all in the world would be good. Food for thought
Andrew Schreiber
08-03-2010, 19:42
maybe this is a new coke vs. classic coke situation. the GDC implemented this system so people would hate it so much they would beg to go back to the old system. Then once the old system is reimplemented people would stop complaining about it and all in the world would be good. Food for thought
Nope, I liked the old system, it wasn't perfect but it was intuitive and didn't require me to do what-if analysis to figure out if I want to try to win a match!
texarkana
08-03-2010, 20:02
This is doing real damage to FRC. I feel my respect for FIRST and enthusiasm for the activity diminished, and I sense the same in others. I have always strived to have my students embrace every lesson that FIRST teaches, but not this lesson. That winners are really losers, that it is just as good to be lucky or sneaky as it is to be excellent, that the system will hand you reward even if you don't earn it. Trying to force more equal outcome for everyone does not work in FRC any more than it does in real life, and it discourages excellence just like it does in real life. I cannot explain to my students why their ingenious robot is very good at winning the game, but not at winning the tournament, because I do not understand it myself. Whatever abstract goals were envisioned with this system, they are lost in the real application of it. If implementing the ideas in the "coopertition" patent was needed just to legitimatize the patent, then I wish it could have been experimented with somewhere else. FRC was thriving and was not broken, but was "fixed" anyway.
PAR_WIG1350
08-03-2010, 23:16
I understand GP and all of that , but This has turned FIRST into one of those fake soccer little leagues (the ones where they don't try to win) or little league tee ball It makes me question why I didn't sleep for six weeks.
PS- this comment only applies to a small number of soccer organizations, I didn't mean to offend anyone who has played,or is involved in, little league soccer.
metaltech
09-03-2010, 00:03
Color me an idiot. I read the rules, viewed our regional this past weekend, and still am not confident that I understand the seeding concept.
Our first year, we finished next to last in the standings. Last year, we were even worse.:eek: I would have been happy this year with being a third of the field from the bottom, and thinking we made good progress. We built a much better bot that never had a failure. At one point, we were 29th of 60, downright outstanding! In the end, we were 3W-5L-2T. I figured, yup, we could make 40th or so and feel good. Nope, ended up 53rd. It is so counter-intuitive to win a match and lose rank. And, what's with being penalized for playing defense? The game is patterned after soccer, where the most valuable player might just be an outstanding goalkeeper. I have a hard time encouraging our students to do their best, while wondering if they will go backward if they do so. Frankly, with the cost and the huge investment of time to build the 'bot, I'm starting to wonder if it's worth it for 20 minutes of playing time. Sorry to sound so down, but my expectations of reaching mediocrity this year were blown way out of the water.
Matt Howard
09-03-2010, 02:18
I've been involved with FIRST for 6 years now, and in those 6 seasons I've seen a lot of changes. I remember the pre-bumper days, plastic tetras, the IFI feud, and the static blasted CRIO's of last season.
However, I've never seen something comparable to what I have seen this season.
I've never seen a season where teams have actively considered going onto the field and doing their worst, because scoring 0 wouldn't allow the other alliance to travel as far in the rankings.
I've never seen a season where a legitimate strategy for gaining position in the rankings, was to score for the other team.
I've never seen a season where nearly every match was decided by how many penalties were accumulated by the competing alliances. (although 2008 was arguably this way as well)
I've never seen a season where nearly every team brought to the event, a functionally identical machine.
Call me old fashioned, crude, or whatever you like. I am not a fan of this game, these rules, the ranking system, and the overall direction FIRST seems to be heading.
Just my .2
I've been involved with FIRST for 6 years now, and in those 6 seasons I've seen a lot of changes. I remember the pre-bumper days, plastic tetras, the IFI feud, and the static blasted CRIO's of last season.
However, I've never seen something comparable to what I have seen this season.
I've never seen a season where teams have actively considered going onto the field and doing their worst, because scoring 0 wouldn't allow the other alliance to travel as far in the rankings.
I've never seen a season where a legitimate strategy for gaining position in the rankings, was to score for the other team.
I've never seen a season where nearly every match was decided by how many penalties were accumulated by the competing alliances. (although 2008 was arguably this way as well)
I've never seen a season where nearly every team brought to the event, a functionally identical machine.
Call me old fashioned, crude, or whatever you like. I am not a fan of this game, these rules, the ranking system, and the overall direction FIRST seems to be heading.
Just my .2
I remember those days...but unfortunetely things change and we just gotta change with them. There's always going to be things we like/dislike about each years game, but we just have to play the game and adjust. It's still very fun though :)
Has anyone analyzed the rankings and seen where teams would place if it were run on a W-L-T/Ranking Point system like last year?
(sorry if it's been done earlier in the thread, it's late)
Kims Robot
09-03-2010, 09:06
I've never seen a season where teams have actively considered going onto the field and doing their worst, because scoring 0 wouldn't allow the other alliance to travel as far in the rankings.
This is what I don't think teams are seeing... if you score in a situation where you can't win, not only are you "helping your opponent in the rankings" but you are also potentially starving them of balls that they could be using the boost YOUR rank score. In the matches where we played 3v0 or 6v0 it wasnt to HURT the other alliance, it was to HELP ours. We let them have all 12 balls so that they could maximize the field score, rather than playing defense or fighting over balls.
I really don't like this system and things i am reading. Rookie teams pay attention-If some team asks you to just sit there and block the goal,don't. They may tell you that you will be helping yourself gain points but all you are doing is helping them. That team already thinks that you are not good enough to win and will never be on their pick list. You busted your butt for six weeks,now go kick that ball in the $@#$@#$@#$@# goal.
Andrew Y.
09-03-2010, 09:11
NO. I agree with matt. In the 7 years iv participated as both student and mentor, i do not like the current direction of FIRST.
in 2006 i really thought the games were going in the right direction. 2008 had me SHOCKED and this year has me down right concerned. I think how FIRST handles next years game is going to be pivotal.
Im all down for GP and coopatition, but if FIRST keeps pulling the competitive side out, we might as well show up, get our awards and leave. I believe GP shown in a non competitive environment is called being a good person. We should teach how to show GP in a HIGHLY COMPETITIVE environment. Now thats something to be proud of...
My thoughts after week 1.
- robots all look the same...
- I think the bumper color change idea is horrible...
- scoring system is confusing and crazy...
- The laptop things? i wanna kick it...:mad: :p
- These penalties and rules are silly too
rant done :D
Sure wish the GDC and Dean would read this and comment.
Mageofdancingdr
09-03-2010, 09:42
I'm gonna take a shot at this and propose what I think may be a better system. Borrowed nearly directly from the swiss rounds of a Magic: the Gathering tournament:
Rank is based on match points. you get 3 points for winning, 1 point for tying, and 0 points for losing.
The first tiebreaker is your opponent's match points. this summed amongst all opponents in alliances against you (counting teams once for each time they faced against you).
The second tiebreaker is your allies' match points (low being better than high. once again, counting teams once for each time you allied with them).
Third tiebreakers would be whatever endgame score is appropriate for the game, and fourth is random.
By tie-breaking off of record instead of points teams no longer have any reason to score for others, but still rewards teams for fighting against harder opponents.
I believe the scoring system is not the place to discourage defense, however I would consider a tiebreaker based on a highest average points scored, but throwing out the top and bottom scores as outliers.
Andrew Schreiber
09-03-2010, 10:27
I remember those days...but unfortunetely things change and we just gotta change with them. There's always going to be things we like/dislike about each years game, but we just have to play the game and adjust. It's still very fun though :)
[rant]
So, maybe in 1776 the colonists should have just adjusted? It was so very fun being a colonist.
Yes a bit extreme but honestly if we ever get complacent and stop caring about the things we feel are wrong I would hope FIRST would just close its doors and shut down. If you feel passionate about something you should ALWAYS try to improve everything you touch.
[\rant]
I really don't like this system and things i am reading. Rookie teams pay attention-If some team asks you to just sit there and block the goal,don't. They may tell you that you will be helping yourself gain points but all you are doing is helping them. That team already thinks that you are not good enough to win and will never be on their pick list. You busted your butt for six weeks,now go kick that ball in the $@#$@#$@#$@# goal.
On one hand I agree with you, before seeing our ranking drop when we won I was of the persuasion to go out there and score balls until my robot can move no more. Now I am questioning that. I am not a competitive person normally but I do take extreme pride in my work. When I have a robot that, by going out there and doing its best is essentially penalized for it I begin to think that doing my best isn't what FIRST wants from me. In short, I am hurt and appalled at what FIRST is seemingly forcing me to do. In 7 years I have gone out to WIN every match. I have lost matches 128-0 I have won matches by the same margin. I have been on teams who can barely field a drive team and teams that can't find enough for students to do. I've seen a ton, but NEVER have I seen something as utterly disrespectful as a team not playing their best against another team.
Do you hear me FIRST? You are encouraging me to disrespect my peers, my friends! Nay, you are essentially FORCING me to. I should never have to choose between doing my best and ranking high, the second should follow the first.
Yes, I will be writing a quick program to help me figure out what the best way to play a match will be. I will never ask a team to not do their best, even if the program tells me that would be the best option. I will ONLY suggest it as an option if it benefits EVERY single team on the field.
I apologize to the teams I offend by not playing my best against you. I will play FIRST's game this year because I owe it to my students to make sure they go as far as the robot they built can take them. I will not like it and I will be hoping that they change back to a system that rewards respecting your opponent in the future.
I've been involved with FIRST for 6 years now, and in those 6 seasons I've seen a lot of changes. I remember the pre-bumper days, plastic tetras, the IFI feud, and the static blasted CRIO's of last season.
However, I've never seen something comparable to what I have seen this season.
I've never seen a season where teams have actively considered going onto the field and doing their worst, because scoring 0 wouldn't allow the other alliance to travel as far in the rankings.
I've never seen a season where a legitimate strategy for gaining position in the rankings, was to score for the other team.
I've never seen a season where nearly every match was decided by how many penalties were accumulated by the competing alliances. (although 2008 was arguably this way as well)
I've never seen a season where nearly every team brought to the event, a functionally identical machine.
Call me old fashioned, crude, or whatever you like. I am not a fan of this game, these rules, the ranking system, and the overall direction FIRST seems to be heading.
Just my .2
I invite you to check out 2003 when team openly brokered deals so thier stacks would survivie the whole match (they took a long time to create and were easily knocked down in seconds) so both teams could seed better. The for it/against it is very similair to this year and the debate was very passionate. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19272&highlight=collusion)
I invite you to check out 2003 when team openly brokered deals so thier stacks would survivie the whole match (they took a long time to create and were easily knocked down in seconds) so both teams could seed better. The for it/against it is very similair to this year and the debate was very passionate. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19272&highlight=collusion)
Oh, and if you guys want to see more on the subject back then just type in a search on the term collusion to see the fireworks.
Noting the pattern of changes the GDC has made midseason in previous years, the only suggestion I've heard anywhere that has a remote chance of making it into this year's rulebook is the one about the losing alliance using their own score rather than the winner's score. I think the only substantiable fact that remains regarding the system is that it will not otherwise change this season.
Thus, once we've said our piece on here the only thing left to do is to simply get over it.
Enigma's puzzle
09-03-2010, 11:48
Has anyone considered that FIRST is trying to put a real life lesson into this years game? Maybe the prisoner's dilemma that they created is there to simulate the real world, where everything is not only not fair, but possibly counterintuitive?
Example: A promotion in the workplace is often not decided by who works the hardest, who does the best work, who is the best leader, or who has the best ideas, but instead SENIORITY often trumps all these qualities which would make more sense as to why they should be leading. Lets say you figured out that your Firm does promotions based on seniority, so do you not work as hard? Or do you continue to do your best work?
So knowing this did anyone not work as hard to build the best robot they were capable of? So a few robots got a free pass into the ELIMS.
But in case you haven't figured out, the FIRST system is biased towards offensive robots, as is this new ranking system. (Although this new system is even more biased.) The top tier offensive robots are going to end up selecting on Saturday (or at least until they get picked). So in order to keep you options open you have to build a scoring robot, that will have the option of declining to select your own alliance. FIRST is rewarding scoring, because scoring is harder than defending, so thus FIRST is rewarding the people that have built the more capable robots (Theoretically)? (Tell me if the logic is wrong). Sure a few slip through the cracks, but I personally believe that FIRST is trying to reward the teams that complete the most difficult tasks well.
So lets pretend you could't/weren't able to/don't have the resources to build one of the most capable robots. So how would you go about making sure you got selected in the eliminations? By showcasing your robot. By showing your tremendous defensive abilities. By showing how easily you can hang at any opportunity you can. The way that this post is sounding, is that everyone believes that the GDC put a random ranking variable into the equation or that only teams that cheat, lie, and swindle ranking points can get the chance to select there alliance. And if so, isn't the Qualifications essentially like a tryout to see who can impress the randomly selected teams enough to get selected? Kind of like a tryout for a sports team you may not have to have your best day but if you can do something to make you memorable you have that much better of a chance to get selected.
And i personally believe if any team is confident enough in themselves that they will score for the opponent to boost their score (In a match in which they hold the win already), kudos 217 and others, this system is designed to make sure you guys, the offensive juggernauts will be deciding alliances.
My personal view is that when it comes to scoring collusion that all going for one goal is less effective because of the number of robots crawling in one zone just inhibits itself, whereas there is just so much more you could gain by playing minimal defense and concentrating on maximizing your scoring.
Has anyone analyzed the rankings and seen where teams would place if it were run on a W-L-T/Ranking Point system like last year?
(sorry if it's been done earlier in the thread, it's late)
I did for Kettering, however it is only based on points from a win or a tie (because I don't remember how they differentiated after that). Any time a score was the same, teams were ranking in order they were on the spread sheet, unless a team had more wins. The first column on the left is the current ranking and raw data. The column on the left has teams ranked in order based W-L-T points.
It's pretty interesting.
8861
engunneer
09-03-2010, 12:04
I think you're onto something here.
It rewards teams who score well whether they win or not. I like it, because it emphasizes doing your best and playing your heart out which is what I firmly believe this is what it's all about. If FIRST wants to de-emphasize winning, but still keep matches exciting and make sure teams are doing their best then maybe they should look into this.
I would even suggest the following seeding scoring algorithm
The winner of the match gets the winner's penalized score, and the losers unpenalized score times 2 (same as today)
The loser gets the loser's penalized score, plus half the winner's unpenalized score.
Ties are handled as today.
The reason I am still involving the winner's score in the loser's seeding points is to equalize biased schedules. 1318 2009 on Galileo had an extremely favorable schedule. We managed to eke out being undefeated, but had a much lower OPR than 111 (undefeated) or 67 (undefeated until the very end). I feel this proposed system would have ranked us lower, but would have reflected OPR/DPR more closely as a measure of robot performance.
This system still rewards the winner for winning by the smallest margin possible, and the incentive of seeding points will get both teams to be scoring, and usually for different sides. If they are scoring on the same side, it won't be for long.
No changes are made for the penalties, since teams should strive not to have them (I know they happen anyway, but First people are smart and can learn to avoid them.)
Let's look at a hypothetical match where the current score is R8-B6. If the game ended now, R would earn 20, and B would earn 10. If the match hasn't ended yet, what does each alliance want to do? Blue earns 1 seeding point for every 'normal' goal, but only 1/2 a point for an opposing goal. Therefore, Blue scores 'normally'. Red has the incentive to score an opposing goal, since it is worth 2 points, but the game is close, so it may not be worth the risk. That is up to the leading alliance to decide, and would make for some quick changes to match strategy. On the defensive side, the trailing alliance wants to defend against the leading alliances goals, to improve their chances of catching up, and the leading alliance again gets to decide if it is worth the risk to leaving the opponents goal undefended, and risk an upset at the end.
Another case discussed here often is the tie case. Let's say 5-5 (10 seeding points if it ended right now). For both alliances, a 'normal' goal would count as 6 seeding points (6-5 gives 16 and 8 seeding points), while an opposing goal would LOSE 2 points. So in this tie situation, both teams want to score, and also defend the opposing goal 'properly'.
The last case often discussed is the x-0 score. Let's say R0-B5. Again, Blue want's seeding points, so scores for Red. Red also wants seeding points, and scores for Red. The match score quickly becomes the first situation above, and we have an exciting competition.
How about the FIRST Robotics Cognitive Dissonance Competition - FRCDC ?
rick.oliver
09-03-2010, 13:01
Let me see if I've got this.
Loosing a close high-scoring match is rewarded more than winning a close low-scoring match.
Loosing a lopsided match is rewarded close to the same as winning a lopsided match.
The loser of a low scoring match that was made close by the winner committing many penalties is rewarded more than the winner.
The winner of a close, penalty-free match is rewarded almost three times as much as the loser.
I like this system; makes me want to play my best with the best to score as much as possible while going for the win.
Bjenks548
09-03-2010, 13:02
After reading a lot of this thread, one word keeps coming up, “collusion” could someone either post a definition or a link to where I could find what this means?
Daniel_LaFleur
09-03-2010, 13:05
After reading a lot of this thread, one word keeps coming up, “collusion” could someone either post a definition or a link to where I could find what this means?
col·lu·sion /kəˈluʒən/ [kuh-loo-zhuhn]
–noun
1.a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.
2.Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.
Here you go.
Lil' Lavery
09-03-2010, 13:26
- I think the bumper color change idea is horrible...
Not to side track the thread, but why?
I think this change was absolutely brilliant, from both a spectators and coaches point of view. It beats the hell out of every other method FIRST has used (flags, LEDs, trailers, and even the awesome rotating lights). It has never been more quick or intuitive to see what robots are on what alliance and what their team numbers are. Kudos to FIRST for the bumper color rules.
Not to side track the thread, but why?
I think this change was absolutely brilliant, from both a spectators and coaches point of view. It beats the hell out of every other method FIRST has used (flags, LEDs, trailers, and even the awesome rotating lights). It has never been more quick or intuitive to see what robots are on what alliance and what their team numbers are. Kudos to FIRST for the bumper color rules.
I do agree that it is very efficient at determining alliance colors, but with certain teams color schemes it causes an eyesore effect when your blue or red bumpers are a little skewed on the color wheel in contrast with the team graphics on the robot's guarding.
Back to the main topic. One thing I have noticed about the people who don't have a problem with this system keep coming up with different ways to say 'get over it and play the game'. My main problem with this idea is that you may learn to play the game in qualifications by manipulation of the scoring rules to your ranking advantage, but this system still hides the beneficial attributes necessary to play in the new scoring system that comes with the elimination rounds.
There has to be a better way of weighting your wins to make a more accurate seeding list. What if you take the same system as before, where you get two points for a win, one for a tie and zero for a loss and multiply this number by your strength of schedule. Just like the NFL your strength of schedule will be determined by your opponents W-L record, averaged out of course over each three team alliance you face in each match.
Not to side track the thread, but why?
I think this change was absolutely brilliant, from both a spectators and coaches point of view. It beats the hell out of every other method FIRST has used (flags, LEDs, trailers, and even the awesome rotating lights). It has never been more quick or intuitive to see what robots are on what alliance
The average spectator doesn't care about the "blue alliance" or the "red alliance" rather they care about individual robots such as the one their son/daughter built (from the perspective of a parent) or perhaps the robot they built themselves (from the perspective of a student). Already design constraints of this year's game resulted in most robots looking very similar (short boxes). With homogeneous bumpers, it makes it even harder to tell the robots apart. Just having a different number marked on the bumper is not a good way to distinguish your robot. For one, they are unreadable on web casts. Also, from back in the stands, I bet many people may have trouble reading them.
This year, you can't just look for tiedye bumpers and say, hey, that's Wildstang.
Here's a seed point calculator for anyone interested:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=934119
enjoy.
~
Herodotus
09-03-2010, 14:06
Back to the main topic. One thing I have noticed about the people who don't have a problem with this system keep coming up with different ways to say 'get over it and play the game'. My main problem with this idea is that you may learn to play the game in qualifications by manipulation of the scoring rules to your ranking advantage, but this system still hides the beneficial attributes necessary to play in the new scoring system that comes with the elimination rounds.I guess I don't have a problem with the system because I felt like it worked at Kettering. No one made it into the top that made me think "Wow, how did they get there?" and I don't think I ever saw a 6v0 match(I might be wrong, which someone can correct me if I am). Everyone just played to win, and it worked out well.
The problem with it is primarily that it can be exploited to make for some weird situations, and every once in awhile a normally played match also ends up weird. It's not the best way to do seeding, not by a long shot, but I don't think it is a terrible system. On the plus side, it takes into account the power of your opponents, on the negative side in certain extreme situations it falls apart.
There has to be a better way of weighting your wins to make a more accurate seeding list. What if you take the same system as before, where you get two points for a win, one for a tie and zero for a loss and multiply this number by your strength of schedule. Just like the NFL your strength of schedule will be determined by your opponents W-L record, averaged out of course over each three team alliance you face in each match.
Something like that would work better. Another idea I've had and have seen others suggest was the winner receiving the total score for the game and the loser receiving their own score plus .25x the winner's score, or something to that effect.
Chris is me
09-03-2010, 14:15
I guess I don't have a problem with the system because I felt like it worked at Kettering. No one made it into the top that made me think "Wow, how did they get there?" and I don't think I ever saw a 6v0 match(I might be wrong, which someone can correct me if I am). Everyone just played to win, and it worked out well.
All of Michigan has incentive to win matches with the MI State Ranking system, so that largely "fixes" the system over there.
Bharat Nain
09-03-2010, 14:30
I think more people may have liked the seeding system if most of the penalties were eliminated. It hurts to win matches by a large margin, when your opponents score is 0 and you have penalties.
Most teams don't follow threads like this on CD. After this past weekends regional, many teams don't even read all the rules (even the coaches). This past Saturday (yes, Day 2), I found myself explaining to a 10 year veteran team how the ranking system works this year. ARRGGHHH!!
So while all of you will know how to adapt to this year's ranking system, most teams won't - which really hurts all of us.
When we started our 6th match in DC, the other alliance wanted us to do a 6v0 match, which we considered and then they said something to make us change our mind. While I knew the concept of collusion would happen during season, I honestly didn't think it be on the first day of Week 1. Sad.
GDC: The public won't understand the scoring system let alone this game, if teams are scoring on themselves or simply not playing. It's just ridiculus. Plain and simple. I spent a good portion of the day last Friday explaining the ranking and penalties to spectators, parents, and other teams. Why do you do this to us? If you want more folks to participate in FRC, YOU MUST KEEP IT SIMPLE and straightforward. I hate to use this as an example, but BattleBots was entertaining and popular because it's so simple.. go destroy the other robot! (Disclaimer: I'm not a fan of Battlebots) Keep the game and scoring system simple next year!! Let the robots be complex, unique, and well engineered!! I think this system may have worked out better if it didn't have the bumps, or get rid of the 3" incursion penalty, something to increase the odds of scoring and/or decrease the penalties.
Martinez
09-03-2010, 14:50
Sure wish the GDC and Dean would read this and comment.
QFT. The President of FIRST was at FLR and I'm still waiting for an official comment. Sadly, I don't think we will be getting one.
:(
goldenglove002
09-03-2010, 14:58
No, I do not like the seeding system. Nor do I think the public does. When I asked what he thought of FIRST, one of the kids on our guest program told me that he liked the idea but the competition was no fun (he specifically referenced the seeding system). Same thing from my parents who were at the event and saw the rankings.
FIRST is a competition, and we can't leave that out when we talk about all of FIRST's many elements. Of course we have gracious proffesionalism and coopertition that seperate from many competitive events. But you can keep all that and still make it competitive out on the field, which this seeding system doesn't.
QFT. The President of FIRST was at FLR and I'm still waiting for an official comment. Sadly, I don't think we will be getting one.
:(
I wouldn't expect much of a comment or change at this point, but perhaps at least an acknowledgement in Atlanta. I imagine many teams will work the new system to our advantage for the rest of this season. I know our team is already making a "Top Ten" list for teams that haven't competed yet when we go to our next competition. Here's a start...
1. Don't play defense in qualification matches.
2. Don't let a ball get under your robot.
3. Don't mess around the bump if there is a ball there.
4. In qualification matches, moving two robots into your offensive zone is a good thing.
5-10. ???
Lil' Lavery
09-03-2010, 15:27
The average spectator doesn't care about the "blue alliance" or the "red alliance" rather they care about individual robots such as the one their son/daughter built (from the perspective of a parent) or perhaps the robot they built themselves (from the perspective of a student). Already design constraints of this year's game resulted in most robots looking very similar (short boxes). With homogeneous bumpers, it makes it even harder to tell the robots apart. Just having a different number marked on the bumper is not a good way to distinguish your robot. For one, they are unreadable on web casts. Also, from back in the stands, I bet many people may have trouble reading them.
This year, you can't just look for tiedye bumpers and say, hey, that's Wildstang.
I still think it's rather easy, even from the stands (though I haven't watched a webcast) to identify which robot is which. And I've never met a spectator who didn't understand the concept of the 3v3 match, and why they should cheer for their robots' partners as well. Especially for those not concerned with an individual team (such as VIPs, visiting area school field trips, and event sponsors), it makes it even better.
I remember plenty of years when I'd be trying to explain what is happening to people in the stands (or scouting a match) and even having myself getting confused as to who is on which alliance.
SteveGPage
09-03-2010, 15:29
1. Don't play defense in qualification matches.
2. Don't let a ball get under your robot.
3. Don't mess around the bump if there is a ball there.
4. In qualification matches, moving two robots into your offensive zone is a good thing.
5. HP must remain focused on returning balls - Don't watch the game!
6. During the Finale, stay away from the opposing alliance's tower and hanging bots
7. If you are going to hang, only extend during the finale (too tricky for many to stay in contact with tower prior to finale - although some can)
8. Don't play defense
9. Don't play defense
10. Don't play defense :)
Chris is me
09-03-2010, 15:32
I still think it's rather easy, even from the stands (though I haven't watched a webcast) to identify which robot is which. And I've never met a spectator who didn't understand the concept of the 3v3 match, and why they should cheer for their robots' partners as well. Especially for those not concerned with an individual team (such as VIPs, visiting area school field trips, and event sponsors), it makes it even better.
I remember plenty of years when I'd be trying to explain what is happening to people in the stands (or scouting a match) and even having myself getting confused as to who is on which alliance.
I'm going to agree with Sean here. I'll show someone a 2008 video, they'll be completely confused who's on what team. 2009 was a step in the right direction, but the whole game confused them. 2010, my friend walks in during a webcast, "wow red team's kicking butt!"
Maybe 50% of the bumpers should be red / blue and the other half should have nothing close enough to those colors to confuse anyone. Or maybe some variant should be allowed (red camo v blue camo, red tye dye versus blue tye dye, etc). But as it stands now, we have a bulletproof identification system.
rick.oliver
09-03-2010, 15:42
I think that you can credit (or blame) Travis Hoffman of Delphi Elite, Team 48 for the rule about red and blue bumpers. As I recall, he is the one who suggested the idea to F.I.R.S.T. on this forum the first year that bumpers where required.
Let me see if I've got this.
Loosing a close high-scoring match is rewarded more than winning a close low-scoring match.
Loosing a lopsided match is rewarded close to the same as winning a lopsided match.
The loser of a low scoring match that was made close by the winner committing many penalties is rewarded more than the winner.
The winner of a close, penalty-free match is rewarded almost three times as much as the loser.
I like this system; makes me want to play my best with the best to score as much as possible while going for the win.
This might have been what the GDC was originally thinking, but the reality that there are so many loopholes and cracks in this system that it ends up doing more harm than ever intended.
Maybe teams won't take advantage of the system, and I know that in Michigan our district/championship structure fixes the problems with this for us. However, I still noticed that at TC there were many teams who hadn't won many matches doing very well in the rankings.
Since we already know how to take advantage of this system, I think the real question should be "what is the spirit of this rule?"
I think that you can credit (or blame) Travis Hoffman of Delphi Elite, Team 48 for the rule about red and blue bumpers. As I recall, he is the one who suggested the idea to F.I.R.S.T. on this forum the first year that bumpers where required.
Actually you can thank (or curse) team 1038 who hadtwo sets of bumpers color for whatever alliance they were with in a given match.
Rangel(kf7fdb)
09-03-2010, 16:13
I am a little confused on how the scoring system works. In the rules it says that when there is a tie, you get your score with penalties added. However, everyone is saying that a tie is like how you win. For example, if it was 10-10 with no penalties, then everyone gets 10. But what other people are saying is that if its 10-10 with no penalties, then you get 30. Which rule is correct?
Bjenks548
09-03-2010, 16:20
if it was 10-10 all 6 teams get 30 seeding points, assuming there were no penalties. Because, ties act as a win, so your points (10) plus 2 times ur opponents score (20).
GaryVoshol
09-03-2010, 16:21
I am a little confused on how the scoring system works. In the rules it says that when there is a tie, you get your score with penalties added. However, everyone is saying that a tie is like how you win. For example, if it was 10-10 with no penalties, then everyone gets 10. But what other people are saying is that if its 10-10 with no penalties, then you get 30. Which rule is correct?
9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to the penalized score (the score with any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE.
All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE.
In the case of a tie, all participating teams will receive a number of seeding points equal to their ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties).
9.3.5 Coopertition™ Bonus
All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a coopertition bonus: a number of seeding points equal to twice the un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE.
In the case of a tie, all participating teams will receive a coopertition bonus of a number of seeding points equal to twice their ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties).
First bold, 1X of your score.
Second bold, 2X of your score
Total, 1X + 2X = 3X
I am a little confused on how the scoring system works. In the rules it says that when there is a tie, you get your score with penalties added. However, everyone is saying that a tie is like how you win. For example, if it was 10-10 with no penalties, then everyone gets 10. But what other people are saying is that if its 10-10 with no penalties, then you get 30. Which rule is correct?
Here is a link to a seed-point calculator:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=934119
~
Apparently FIRST heard/saw our concerns! Team update #16! (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=84091)
Martinez
09-03-2010, 18:03
Actually, I like the colored bumpers. Heck of alot clearer and easier to see then the Flags and not as clumsy as the rotating lights. I think part of the issue of identifying individual teams is more due to low robots in order to go through the tunnel then anything else...
seed point calculator has been updated:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=934119 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=934119&postcount=1)
~
Moderators, is there a way to close the poll? When people who voted before the team update are voting against those who placed their vote after team update #16, it's no longer reflective of the views of the community.
Is FIRST kidding? They changed it between regionals... they already messed up the first run of regionals, why fix the others? :confused:
Oh well. :rolleyes:
Moderators, is there a way to close the poll? When people who voted before the team update are voting against those who placed their vote after team update #16, it's no longer reflective of the views of the community.
Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, we cannot close the poll without also closing the thread.
Chris is me
10-03-2010, 18:47
Is FIRST kidding? They changed it between regionals... they already messed up the first run of regionals, why fix the others? :confused:
Make 4/5ths of FIRST unhappy just so the 1/5th already unhappy can have company?
Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, we cannot close the poll without also closing the thread.
Well if a programmer was running the show she would create a new thread on the same topic.
Post a final thread on the current topic with a link pointing to the new thread.
And then close the current thread.
Kinda like a jump or a goto or even like an 'exec' system call in linux.
We would then have 2 threads on the same topic. One pre 'now' and one post 'now'.
Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, we cannot close the poll without also closing the thread.
Fine by me. This thread has served its purpose and its useful life is over.
metaltech
11-03-2010, 00:50
Hmmmmmm. A rules change in the middle of the stream. Well, that will be good for all teams except those who could only afford to attend a Week 1 regional. Makes me wonder how much better we would have done under the updated rules. :mad: Sorry, I'm not feeling a lot of GP at the moment...
Daniel_LaFleur
11-03-2010, 08:08
Make 4/5ths of FIRST unhappy just so the 1/5th already unhappy can have company?
One of the things that made me truely love FIRST is that it is (was) completely fair in the fact that everyone had to play under the same rules and specifications, regardless of whether people liked the system or not.
... Thats not true anymore.
No, I don't like this years system. It seems to be rather confusing to me as far as picking out the attributes necessary to make up a winning alliance.
It works in theory in that it should put a spotlight on offensive oriented teams, or teams that are playing GP and 'how the game is supposed to be played'.
I know some people don't like defense because it hinders the abilities of other teams and doesn't let the robots shine. In the past few years FIRST has tried to find ways to kill off the 'defensive juggernaut' style of play through various means, but as the time comes around on Saturday afternoon and the top 8 are making their picks defense still comes into play as a picking factor and sometimes it is very beneficial to the alliance, defense wins championships (we won a regional this way). In this system however playing defense in qualifiers becomes a lose-lose situation. You may attempt to play defense in qualifiers but you hinder your chances of moving up to be picked on Saturday afternoon.
This system is a two headed beast. On one side you have the qualifiers where you need to excel almost completely on your individual strengths to prove to be worthy of being picked by upping your ranking points and then on the other you have the elimination rounds where it no longer matters what the score is as long as your alliance has a one point lead. This has been achieved for years by picking a well rounded alliance of teams that complement your skill set and complement the skills needed to 'play the game how the GDC meant it to be', this includes playing heavy defense.
After only watching one webcast I have made the observation that this system almost hides every other attribute besides how well you can shoot the ball. It is a really fuzzy system of determining the true power of one robot or another in more than just offense. From a spectators point of view from one weekend it was really hard to really pick a favorite or determine the slightest hint of dominance and who was going to be in the #1 seed. The only way to see these things is going to be heavy duty scouting and for a event that is looking to haul in more spectators then ever this is not a good thing.
-One more thing that I just realized this system veils compared to a W-L-T system. As you go out to the field for qualification you have a certain alliance strategy in mind, if you completely disregard your teammates you have a high chance of ending up with a big fat loss on your record indicating you may not be a very good cooperative alliance partner on Saturday afternoon. Being stubborn this year is hidden because of a lack of a definitive WLT record.
Well.....as a rookie team coach, reading these negatories makes me a little nervous in the service. :eek: Our team worked on playing aggressively, keeping the opposition out the tunnels and from hanging, moving under the tunnels and more or less being a "sweeper", mostly defence with the ability to get "garbage goals" when available. Sounds like our thinking is sadly wrong if the system is that convoluted. Guess we'll find out next week. arrgh...thought we were though flying by the seat of our pants!:(
Rick Wagner
11-03-2010, 16:13
Hmmmmmm. A rules change in the middle of the stream. Well, that will be good for all teams except those who could only afford to attend a Week 1 regional. Makes me wonder how much better we would have done under the updated rules. :mad: Sorry, I'm not feeling a lot of GP at the moment...
If you have a good robot and drive team, you don't need to be seeded to win. You just need to have smart scouts on the seeded teams.
krudeboy51
11-03-2010, 16:14
any one knows how to post a new post on chiefdelphi??
Daniel_LaFleur
11-03-2010, 16:36
any one knows how to post a new post on chiefdelphi??
A new post ... you already did ;)
A new thread (which is what I assume you mean) ... click on the portal link on the orange navigation bar, then click on forums on the navagation bar (on the portal), then click on the forum you wish to add the new thread to, then click on the blue 'new thread' button at the top of that forum.
metaltech
11-03-2010, 21:22
If you have a good robot and drive team, you don't need to be seeded to win. You just need to have smart scouts on the seeded teams.
Quite true. But, I wouldn't hang my hopes of making finals on assuming a top-8 seed would do their homework well enough to be aware of ALL the other teams. IOW, if you finish quals in the top 24 seeds, I think you have a WAY bigger chance of being on one of the 8 final alliances, than if you were 37th out of 60, for example. I don't think there is enough time to be intimately familiar with the entire field, so the top 8 seeds are likely to first look at the other top 15-20 to form their alliance, and perhaps wouldn't even consider a team in the bottom half of the standings, even if they do have a god bot and driver.
(I'm coming from a point of view that surely won't apply to all teams. We have only 10 students, so we just don't have many bodies to scout very well. It's challenge enough to check the machine after each match, work on improvements or repairs, revise software, etc. to be ready for the next match.)
Well.....as a rookie team coach, reading these negatories makes me a little nervous in the service. :eek: Our team worked on playing aggressively, keeping the opposition out the tunnels and from hanging, moving under the tunnels and more or less being a "sweeper", mostly defence with the ability to get "garbage goals" when available. Sounds like our thinking is sadly wrong if the system is that convoluted. Guess we'll find out next week. arrgh...thought we were though flying by the seat of our pants!:(
Here's a link to a seed-point calculator, so you can play "what if" to find out what the seeding points would be. May give some useful insight:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=934119&postcount=1
~
hektormagee
17-03-2010, 20:26
My gripe with the scoring system is how a team could score on themselves, score none for themselves, and with a score of 12-0 get just as many qualification points as the team that got the 12. I am happy about, however, that the winning team gets an immediate 5 points added to their score.
Tom Line
17-03-2010, 22:47
I have a gripe about the system too.
In one case, we watched a robot on an alliance "turn" on their alliance partners. They intentionally started feeding balls to the other team. They did this because they were very close to moving up in the standings and one good seedings score would get it for them.
Through the whole thing, I watched the two somewhat functional bots do the best the could for their team, while the one really good bot proceeded to literally hand the game to other guys, just to up their ranking.
It made me very upset and pretty much highlighted what is wrong with this whole system. There should never, EVER be a reason that you're helping the OTHER team win. Period. I don't care if you call it strategy, or smart play. It destroys the spirit of the game.
(Not to mention hurting the two semi-functional bots hopes to make it to the State Championship, which is based on win/loss).
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.