![]() |
Re: Serpentine Draft
As the person who said this to the OP, might as well add a few thoughts.
Firstly, the idea was more or less a joke - it's pretty obviously an untenable solution without making large and odd changes to the alliance selection process. The thought was just borne out of the problem that this game dynamic highly disincentivizes picking from the #1 seed, at least at smaller district events. Obviously the game dynamic has been picked apart in many threads already, so no need to rehash it heavily. But having a relatively "flat" field of teams, where the scoring tasks are relatively simple - you're better off with 2 "average" teammates to make a run in elims. We seeded 1st at both events we attended, and that was the last place I wanted to pick from (ignoring the district points, etc). The penalty of seeding high obviously varies based on the size and depth of the field, it was just especially pronounced this year - where many of the "scoring" robots are evenly matched, and there's a larger gap between the #16 and #9 picks than the #8 and #1 picks. Unless you're at an event with a small number of clear-cut powerhouses, or a really deep field of teams, it's a struggle. So the thought was - if seeding #1 is a disadvantage, how could it be made back into an advantage? Short of going to the IRI style non-serpentine, that idea was about all I could come up with. I think we'll see the same dynamic at MARCMP, the #2 and #3 seeds didn't advance out of the quarterfinals in 2012 or 2013, what chance do they have this year? |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
Re: Serpentine Draft
Winning percentages for each seed are below. The number outside the percentages is how often the given seed wins in that round (overall). The number inside the parentheses is how often the given seed wins in that round out of how many times they advance to that round (essentially winning percentage in that round).
Accurate for 2014 weeks 1-5. Quarterfinal Winners 1-seed 91% 2-seed 79% 3-seed 71% 4-seed 45% 5-seed 55% 6-seed 29% 7-seed 21% 8-seed 9% Semifinal Winners 1-seed 65% (72%) 2-seed 50% (63%) 3-seed 27% (38%) 4-seed 13% (29%) 5-seed 19% (35%) 6-seed 14% (48%) 7-seed 9% (44%) 8-seed 3% (29%) Winners 1-seed 49% (75%) 2-seed 21% (41%) 3-seed 12% (43%) 4-seed 5% (40%) 5-seed 5% (27%) 6-seed 4% (27%) 7-seed 4% (43%) 8-seed 1% (50%) |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
Disclaimer: There's more then 20 good teams in Michigan, there just happens to be around 20 teams this year that could all be #1 seed solely based off their robot performance. |
Re: Serpentine Draft
If you want to through a wrench in the serpentine system, here's one someone could try in an off season event.
Let the current system of first round selections happen, 1 to 8, all the moving up, etc that currently happens. Once all 8 alliances have 2 teams Pause. Alliance captains now draw numbers out of a hat (1-8 or 8-1 or a big bowl and everyone at one time(make it interesting put numbers 1-16 in there, you still go sequentially, but may skip the unselected numbers), these numbers now dictate the order of selection of the alliances' last member. This would totally randomize how the alliance second selection is made. Want to make it more interesting, as the teams draw their number, keep it secret until their turn to select. Emcee ask who has "1", no answer "2" and so on. This way it is totally a suprise to everyone, (if you use 16 numbers, number "7" may be the lowest number on the floor "SUPRISE"). As a good stratigist can predict what a team may need and look ahead, the suprise order can throw the prediction off by not knowing who's selecting next. Just a thought. These thoughts are mine, and do not reflect on any team or other individuals. |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
I understand the issues with the serpentine draft, but beyond switching to 1-8 1-8, I don't think there's much that can be done. Overall the serpentine draft keeps things as fair as we can get them. It's not perfect, but as of right now it seems to be the best solution. |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
Re: Serpentine Draft
The #1 seed in Dallas won this year. I didnt see it on the list. :)
Also, no offense to any of the teams we played, but IMO, I found the #8 alliance much tougher to play against in all 3 regionals we played then the semifinals matchup. We were #1 seed 3 times last year and #1 seed 2 times the year before that. The 1 vs 8 matchups the previous 2 years were not as difficult vs. the next round. What would be interesting to see instead of who just won an event, is to see the record of each of the seeds in eliminations. I'd bet a lot of the lower seeds have won more matches vs. the previous 2 years, based on the nature of the game. |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
But, even given that... NO robot this year will be able to seed #1 SOLEY based on their robot performance. Any team that seeds #1 needs to have some scheduling luck (there own or others) on their side. Serpentine or not... I'll take the #1 seed, with an opportunity to select the next best machine available any time! The top 2 machines at a competition and some good strategy should atleast make it to the finals of 95% of competitions. |
Re: Serpentine Draft
How have teams been killed by the Serpentine draft? How is 1st pick a severe penalty?
If you are referring to the 1st seed teams that end up with a dead 2nd pick, that is what happens when either the regional is very small or the due diligence of scouting wasn't done. From my experience, allowing the pick order to be determined by the 1st seed makes no sense at all. First of all, there are a lot of teams that are already overwhelmed by the selection process. It's a continual agony for spectators to keep up with what is going on, let alone for the students on the field under pressure. Also, why would the 1st seed ever not want to go first? They give away the main advantage of being 1st seed: 1st shot at the best robots. All it does is give the new 1st pick a chance to block any robot that the 1st seed wants. |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
However, I think this part of the post is particularly interesting. For years, the idea of the "Super Alliance" in the first seed has been pretty well set - most of the time, you expect the #1 seed to win, and often they do. This year, that doesn't seem to be the case. At least at the events here in Minnesota, the elims have really been anyone's game, and anyone could come out on top, the alliances were that evenly matched. Part of that might have something to do with the alliance selection order as this thread is indicating, and part of it probably has to do with seeding - a lot of the top scoring robots at an event are not seeding in the top 8 due to the cooperative nature of the game and the random alliances in quals. IMO, this is a good thing. I like seeing elims that are evenly matched. I like seeing close matches where the outcome doesn't feel predetermined. I think it adds energy to the event and makes it more exciting for everyone present (including those teams not playing). I don't joke when I say the Lake Superior elims were the most exciting elims I've ever witnessed, and that includes the two competitions my team has won and the elims I've seen at Champs. |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:23. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi