Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Serpentine Draft (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128402)

nuggetsyl 31-03-2014 18:57

Serpentine Draft
 
So I am in a catch 22 I like and dislike the serpentine draft. This year IMO way to many teams have been killed by the serpentine draft. You just can't over come a broken robot.

I heard a suggestion (2590 drive coach) and I really liked it. It would add a new twist to alliance selections. Allow the 1 seed pick where they want to draft from. Then the 2 seed picks where they want to draft from and so on. It means seeding number 1 or 2 is not a as a severe penalty as it currently is allowing them to build an alliance of working robots.

Yipyapper 31-03-2014 19:07

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl (Post 1367461)
So I am in a catch 22 I like and dislike the serpentine draft. This year IMO way to many teams have been killed by the serpentine draft. You just can't over come a broken robot.

I heard a suggestion (2590 drive coach) and I really liked it. It would add a new twist to alliance selections. Allow the 1 seed pick where they want to draft from. Then the 2 seed picks where they want to draft from and so on. It means seeding number 1 or 2 is not a as a severe penalty as it currently is allowing them to build an alliance of working robots.

I was initially skeptical and thought this was a crazy idea.

After reading this a few times, I like it. It'd give the top seed a really interesting choice, although the only qualm that I can see with it is that it might complicate things a bit for the spectators. Not severely so, but it'd be there anyway.

Still, I do like this idea if it came to pass somehow.

Botwoon 31-03-2014 19:08

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Are you suggesting that both rounds of picking be consolidated into a single round? If so, I feel like that would lead to an overwhelming concentration of power in the top 1-3 alliances at most regionals.

Jacob Bendicksen 31-03-2014 19:09

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
To clarify, are you saying that because high-ranked alliances have to wait until the very end to choose a third robot, they end up losing because sometimes their pick isn't functional?

I agree that it can be difficult (if not impossible) to win this year with a broken alliance member. However, it's a very game-specific problem: while last year it certainly wasn't fun to have a broken 3rd robot, it wasn't necessarily something that could sink an alliance with two solid robots.

That being said, it's week 6. We only have one week of regionals left before higher-level competition (district and world championships), and at those levels functionality is more or less guaranteed for all robots there. While I'm not stupid enough to suggest that no robot ever breaks in St. Louis, there are enough teams there at a high enough level so that this just won't be a problem.

I hear what you're saying, but at this point in the season I don't think it's possible to make a real difference. It's an interesting concept, though.

nuggetsyl 31-03-2014 19:10

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Botwoon (Post 1367470)
Are you suggesting that both rounds of picking be consolidated into a single round? If so, I feel like that would lead to an overwhelming concentration of power in the top 1-3 alliances at most regionals.

No It means the 1 seed would get to to decide they want to be drafting from the 4th spot or 5th spot or 2nd.

c.shu 31-03-2014 19:11

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
I think they are saying let #1 choose when they pick. So they could choose to be the "5th" alliance captain per say.

nuggetsyl 31-03-2014 19:12

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by c.shu (Post 1367473)
I think they are saying let #1 choose when they pick. So they could choose to be the "5th" alliance captain per say.

Correct

Laaba 80 31-03-2014 19:20

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Wow. I really like this idea. While the top 8 are being called onto the field they could announce which position they would like to draft from. The only issue I see is what happens to the 9 seed if they move up to a picking position? Would everyone more up if 1 picks 2, or would the 9 seed jump into 2's spot?

I am pretty happy with the championship draft format: the serpentine draft with an extra round. I think it keeps the alliances competitive while still giving the top alliances an advantage. It may not be doable at the regional/district level though, choosing your draft position would.

SenorZ 31-03-2014 19:26

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Maybe I'm missing the point, but why would the #1 seed team want to allow three or four of the top seeded robots get swooped up before they get a pick?

Pro sports teams trade draft positions for players. And unless there are some sort of backroom deals going on I don't see why a top seed would want to chose from a smaller pool of alliance partners.

Siri 31-03-2014 19:29

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SenorZ (Post 1367483)
Maybe I'm missing the point, but why would the #1 seed team want to allow three or four of the top seeded robots get swooped up before they get a pick?

Pro sports teams trade draft positions for players. And unless there are some sort of backroom deals going on I don't see why a top seed would want to chose from a smaller pool of alliance partners.

You get your 3rd earlier. I'd be a fan of a pick-your-poison draft order.

connor.worley 31-03-2014 19:30

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SenorZ (Post 1367483)
Maybe I'm missing the point, but why would the #1 seed team want to allow three or four of the top seeded robots get swooped up before they get a pick?

Pro sports teams trade draft positions for players. And unless there are some sort of backroom deals going on I don't see why a top seed would want to chose from a smaller pool of alliance partners.

Maybe the 5th top seeded robot is just as good as the 1st, but the 20th is significantly better than the 24th.

Dan_Karol 31-03-2014 19:37

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
I independently had this thought as well. I think it would give #1 seeds a bit more of an option and incentive for ranking first. It would remove the dread that comes from jumping from 6th to 2nd due to assist points.

The issue I see with it is how to deal with top 8 compression.

In a hypothetical situation:

Team A - 6th seed - 1st picking
Team B - 7th seed - 2nd picking
Team C - 8th seed - 3rd picking
Team D - 3rd seed - 4th picking
Team E - 1st seed - 5th picking
Team F - 2nd seed - 6th picking
Team G - 5th seed - 7th picking
Team H - 4th seed - 8th picking
------------------------------------------
Team I - 9th seed
Team J - 10th seed
Team k - 11th seed


When the Team A picks Team B where does Team I go into the draft order?

Options that I have so far:
1) Team I is always inserted at the bottom
2) Team I is inserted so all higher ranking team's original wishes are satisfied. This method can hose high ranking seeds because the number of picks become unreliable.
3) After every pick the #1 seed is asked if they want to pick now, if they don't then the #2 seed is asked and so on. This is probably the best way to give the advantage to the #1 seed but will take the longest. This makes it so the #1 seed may still never be picked by another team.
4) Completely different Idea: If the #1 seed picks outside of the top 8 then they go to the top of the list for the 2nd round draft. They will be pushed down if the #2 seed does likewise.


None of these methods are great, just something to think about. Also, it would make describing the process a nightmare.

cmrnpizzo14 31-03-2014 19:40

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Has anyone actually done some sort of analysis this year on the number of regionals won by #1 seeds, #2 seeds, #3 seeds etc. and compared it to previous years? I am not sure that I buy that this year alone there are a standout number of upsets by low seeds.

OWilliamson 31-03-2014 19:49

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
I'm not really sure how I feel about this, but it is definitely an interesting idea.
One situation I was wondering though is what if the alliance that picks first ends up picking the number one seed? Now the number one seed lost all of their power in picking. I'm not sure that this is a risk that many teams would be willing to take.

Grim Tuesday 31-03-2014 19:58

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OWilliamson (Post 1367499)
I'm not really sure how I feel about this, but it is definitely an interesting idea.
One situation I was wondering though is what if the alliance that picks first ends up picking the number one seed? Now the number one seed lost all of their power in picking. I'm not sure that this is a risk that many teams would be willing to take.

Couldn't the number one seed just decline in this case?

Ian Curtis 31-03-2014 20:20

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl (Post 1367461)
So I am in a catch 22 I like and dislike the serpentine draft. This year IMO way to many teams have been killed by the serpentine draft. You just can't over come a broken robot.

I heard a suggestion (2590 drive coach) and I really liked it. It would add a new twist to alliance selections. Allow the 1 seed pick where they want to draft from. Then the 2 seed picks where they want to draft from and so on. It means seeding number 1 or 2 is not a as a severe penalty as it currently is allowing them to build an alliance of working robots.

Teams and the audience have a hard enough time deciphering the current drafting system. I don't think we should make it any more complex, or alliance selection along might run through the awards ceremony.

Harman341 31-03-2014 20:27

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Cool idea, but consider this situation

Team A 1st pick 8th seed
Team B 2nd pick 2nd seed
Team C 3rd pick 1st seed
Team D 4th pick 3rd seed
Team E 5th pick 6th seed
Team F 6th pick 4th seed
Team G 7th pick 5th seed
Team H 8th pick 7th seed

Team A can now pretty easily employ the scorched earth strategy by picking the first, second, and third seed. One of them would either have to join the alliance with the 8 seed or be left unable to pick one another. Cool idea, but I don't see why a team would allow for this possibility. Plus, this year at the 3 events I've been to, the #1 alliance made it to the finals all three times, and won twice.

OWilliamson 31-03-2014 21:35

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday (Post 1367503)
Couldn't the number one seed just decline in this case?

Yes, looks like I should think about my posts a little more before I reply. :rolleyes:

Thanks for catching that. :)

Duncan Macdonald 31-03-2014 22:01

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
This is a neat thought experiment. I expect most teams would still select the top spot available and there are often booing accusations following a decline.

Raising the minimum number of teams would also decrease the serpentine's bite but I suspect most venues are near capacity already.

# of teams | minimum elimination robot percentile
30 | 0.2
36 | 0.33
42 | 0.43
48 | 0.5

Allowing the top alliances to select their opponent from those below them each round would help the stronger alliances to advance.

MisterJ 31-03-2014 22:26

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cmrnpizzo14 (Post 1367495)
Has anyone actually done some sort of analysis this year on the number of regionals won by #1 seeds, #2 seeds, #3 seeds etc. and compared it to previous years? I am not sure that I buy that this year alone there are a standout number of upsets by low seeds.

I'd also be interested in seeing the winning percentage of each seed in each round this year. I bet this year's percentages are very much different from the past two, with lower seeds winning much more often.

Christopher149 31-03-2014 22:36

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterJ (Post 1367585)
I'd also be interested in seeing the winning percentage of each seed in each round this year. I bet this year's percentages are very much different from the past two, with lower seeds winning much more often.

My immediate, poorly-scientific, non-comprehensive view is it isn't that much different than the past.

This year
#1 seed wins: Central Illinois, Palmetto, Alamo, Escanaba, Southfield, Granite State, Northern Lights, Arizona, Buckeye, Montreal, Greater DC, Hawaii
#2 seed wins: Lake Superior, Crossroads, 10k lakes
#3 seed wins: Traverse City, San Diego, Los Angeles, Livonia
#4 seed wins: Boilermaker
#5 seed wins: Greater Toronto East
#8 seed wins: Center Line
blue wins every elim series: Peachtree (this is so weird)

Devil's advocate: but isn't it a bit exciting to not always have #1 seed win?

dodar 31-03-2014 22:37

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher149 (Post 1367595)
My immediate, poorly-scientific, non-comprehensive view is it isn't that much different than the past.

This year
#1 seed wins: Central Illinois, Palmetto, Alamo, Escanaba, Southfield, Granite State, Northern Lights, Arizona, Buckeye, Montreal, Greater DC, Hawaii, FLR, North Bay
#2 seed wins: Lake Superior, Crossroads, 10k lakes, Orlando
#3 seed wins: Traverse City, San Diego, Los Angeles, Livonia
#4 seed wins: Boilermaker
#5 seed wins: Greater Toronto East
#8 seed wins: Center Line
blue wins every elim series: Peachtree (this is so weird)

Devil's advocate: but isn't it a bit exciting to not always have #1 seed win?

Added a few more.

cmrnpizzo14 31-03-2014 22:45

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Using the most advanced pen and post-it note technology I have lazily gathered some data from week 5 this year and last year. Usual data caveats apply that this is a small sample size and whatnot.

Out of the 20 week 5 events in 2014:

1st Seed - 8
2nd Seed - 3
3rd Seed - 4
4th Seed - 2
5th Seed - 1
6th Seed - 2

Out of the 14 week 5 events of 2013:

1st Seed - 8
2nd Seed - 3
3rd Seed - 1
4th Seed - 1
5th Seed - 1

Any alliance not mentioned did not earn a victory at a regional or district event. As far as "official" statistics go this data is probably considered useless but it is fun speculation and if anyone would like to add data from another week that would be appreciated.

Notably, being the #1 seed (and pick) seems to show a clear correlation to success. The 2nd seed doesn't do bad either but past that it seems pretty even. I would need more data to really do anything.

nuggetsyl 31-03-2014 22:45

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
1st seed Hatboro-Horsham,
2nd seed Clifton
3rd seed Mt. Olive, Bridgewater-Raritan
5th seed Springside Chestnut Hill
7th seed Lenape-Seneca

5th seed was in the finals 3 times won it once.

MisterJ 31-03-2014 22:53

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quick calculation for all 2014 events, weeks 1-3

1-seed: 23
2-seed: 10
3-seed: 3
4-seed: 1
5-seed: 2
6-seed: 1
7-seed: 1
8-seed: 1

Lil' Lavery 31-03-2014 23:11

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
There are too many issues with this system for it to be workable, and the actual changes would likely be relatively minor.

What happens when one captain accepts an invitation from another captain? Does the 9th seed automatically inherit the 8th draft position, as they do now? Wouldn't that defeat much of the purpose of changing positions? Do they inherit the vacated draft position, regardless of where they would want to select? Do all the remaining captains choose draft positions again?

More importantly, how is the bracket layout decided? Is the "#1 alliance" still the #1 seed even if the #1 seed picks in another location? What happens when the #6 captain picks the 4th ranked team, and they accept? Is it the #6 alliance or the #4 alliance? Or is the "#1 alliance" the team with the 1st selection, regardless of what rank they were? That would introduce a whole new mechanic of "gaming the system," where lower ranked captains could intentionally select draft positions to match up against other captains they feel they would fare well against. For instance, if I know the #3 captain is "weak" and they've selected to pick 5th, I'll select to pick 4th so I can play against them. This scenario would create a disadvantage for the 1st ranked team, as they would be able to chose who they're playing against.

How does this impact district ranking points for alliance selection and alliance captaincy? Does the #1 seed still receive the 16 points for being the #1 captain, or would they get the lesser points for being a lower captain? It would create further disincentive for, say, the #3 captain (14 points) to accept the, say, 5th invitation (12 points).

Few teams possess the scouting sophistication to fully take advantage of this system anyway. And given the very short time span between when rankings are finalized and alliance selection occurs, no team has enough time to truly interpret the data and alliance permutations to determine their ideal draft position.

Chief Hedgehog 31-03-2014 23:12

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Outcome of Minnesnowta Regionals

2014
#2 Alliance wins at 10,000 Lakes
#5 Alliance wins at North Star
#2 Alliance Wins at Lake Superior
#1 Alliance wins at Northern Lights

2013
#1 Alliance wins at 10,000 Lakes
#2 Alliance wins at North Star
#7 Alliance Wins at Lake Superior
#3 Alliance wins at Northern Lights

2012
#2 Alliance wins at 10,000 Lakes
#2 Alliance wins at North Star
#1 Alliance Wins at Lake Superior
#3 Alliance wins at Northern Lights

So a little bit of a mix up in Minnesnowta the last few years... However this may be to such a large influx of teams in the last 4-5 years in MN. Last count we are around 190(?).

Chris Hibner 31-03-2014 23:17

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Something similar was brought up last year: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...2&postcount=29, but in real-time (i.e., you don't have to declare up-front, but you can decide when you want to pick as you go depending on what the next in line decides to pick).

Peter Matteson 01-04-2014 07:58

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterJ (Post 1367619)
Quick calculation for all 2014 events, weeks 1-3

1-seed: 23
2-seed: 10
3-seed: 3
4-seed: 1
5-seed: 2
6-seed: 1
7-seed: 1
8-seed: 1

1st seed wins - 54.7%
1st & 2nd seeds win - 78.6%
1st, 2nd, 3rd seed win - 85.7%

Seems about right to me.
The advantage for seeding top 3 is there as they still win a disproportionate amount.

FWIW at Hartford District there was only one upset and it was 3 over 2 in the semi which was close battle.

Have there been any "chalk bracket", aka "All Red", regionals/districts this year?

Damiaen_Florian 01-04-2014 08:25

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
I think that as the fields of play get deeper, meaning more high level teams, the 1st seed will be much more likely to win, simply because the 3rd robot picked by the 1st seed will be closer to the skill level of the 3rd robot picked by the 8th seed. Wait until district championships and world championships and I think you'll again see the higher seeds winning as often as they normally do.

scottandme 01-04-2014 08:32

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?

c.shu 01-04-2014 09:24

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher149 (Post 1367595)
but isn't it a bit exciting to not always have #1 seed win?

Not if you are the #1 seed. :(

MisterJ 01-04-2014 09:30

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%)

JosephC 01-04-2014 09:51

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Damiaen_Florian (Post 1367744)
Wait until district championships and world championships and I think you'll again see the higher seeds winning as often as they normally do.

I predict it to be the exact opposite at MSC this year. There's really no amazingly outstanding robot this year, or two, or three. There's around 20, just take a look at Waterford from this past weekend for a look. The blue alliance captains are going to be able to select an entire alliance of robots that are just as good as the 1st-4th seed robots, while your #1 and #2 seeds are going to get shafted come round the 3rd pick.

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.

rlowe61 01-04-2014 11:33

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.

PVCpirate 01-04-2014 18:04

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Damiaen_Florian (Post 1367744)
I think that as the fields of play get deeper, meaning more high level teams, the 1st seed will be much more likely to win, simply because the 3rd robot picked by the 1st seed will be closer to the skill level of the 3rd robot picked by the 8th seed. Wait until district championships and world championships and I think you'll again see the higher seeds winning as often as they normally do.

I've always seen it the opposite way. At a district or regional, the top tier of robots is usually about 2-4 robots, which usually end up on the top 1-3 alliances. In a championship division, that top tier is something like 20 teams or so. As a result, the pool of teams to pick from is much deeper, and the difference between the alliances is much smaller. So a 5 seed making Einstein(1241, 610, 1477 in 2013), is not very surprising.

dag0620 01-04-2014 18:19

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis (Post 1367513)
Teams and the audience have a hard enough time deciphering the current drafting system. I don't think we should make it any more complex, or alliance selection along might run through the awards ceremony.

To add, in the district model how would teams be assigned picking points in a consistent and fair way, without making it over complicated?

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.

Citrus Dad 01-04-2014 18:30

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCascadeKid (Post 1367471)
To clarify, are you saying that because high-ranked alliances have to wait until the very end to choose a third robot, they end up losing because sometimes their pick isn't functional?

I agree that it can be difficult (if not impossible) to win this year with a broken alliance member. However, it's a very game-specific problem: while last year it certainly wasn't fun to have a broken 3rd robot, it wasn't necessarily something that could sink an alliance with two solid robots.

That being said, it's week 6. We only have one week of regionals left before higher-level competition (district and world championships), and at those levels functionality is more or less guaranteed for all robots there. While I'm not stupid enough to suggest that no robot ever breaks in St. Louis, there are enough teams there at a high enough level so that this just won't be a problem.

I hear what you're saying, but at this point in the season I don't think it's possible to make a real difference. It's an interesting concept, though.

Note also that the alliances will have 4 robots in St. Louis. I haven't looked at the draft order, but I assume it snakes back so the 1st alliance gets two straight picks.

AdamHeard 01-04-2014 18:37

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad (Post 1368093)
Note also that the alliances will have 4 robots in St. Louis. I haven't looked at the draft order, but I assume it snakes back so the 1st alliance gets two straight picks.

This is correct. 1-8, 8-1, 1-8.

Paul Copioli 01-04-2014 20:55

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterJ (Post 1367585)
I'd also be interested in seeing the winning percentage of each seed in each round this year. I bet this year's percentages are very much different from the past two, with lower seeds winning much more often.

Here is the problem with that statistic and the way the ranking is done: a top 3 team at a regional or division may be sitting at 7 or 8. I argue in deep fields like championship divisions you may be better served, if you are a top 3 robot in your division, to pick from 7 or 8. In many cases, you may be considered the favorite even though you are at 7.

waialua359 01-04-2014 22:04

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.

Adam Freeman 01-04-2014 22:11

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JosephC (Post 1367774)
There's really no amazingly outstanding robot this year, or two, or three....

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.

I disagree with both of these statements. There are definately certain robots that standout above the rest. The top 20 in the World might be close...maybe. I would guess more like the top 5-10. The top 20 in MI are not all equal.

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.

IbleedPink233 02-04-2014 09:41

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.

Jon Stratis 02-04-2014 09:56

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by scottandme (Post 1367745)
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).

I can certainly see the situation where someone wouldn't want to be picking first, and this is an intriguing idea.

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.

cstelter 02-04-2014 10:20

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Hedgehog (Post 1367643)
Outcome of Minnesnowta Regionals

2012
#2 Alliance wins at 10,000 Lakes
#2 Alliance wins at North Star
#1 Alliance Wins at Lake Superior
#3 Alliance wins at Northern Lights

?? I thought 2013 was the first year for Northern Lights.

nickpaterni 03-04-2014 08:22

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
I've not seen any threads on this topic before, and I'm sure it has been discussed ad infinium, but I always thought that a simple change would make elimination alliance selection better from an excitement / game standpoint: The top 8 are not allowed to pick from anyone in the top 8.
This year, we've seen top alliances picking from deeper in the filed than in previous years, and I think doing that has really lent excitement to eliminations. For me, it is really exciting to see alliances with one powerhouse team face off against a similar alliance with one powerhouse team. This furthermore makes it so the 1 or 2 seed is "going" to win which is just not very exciting (unless you are in the 1 or 2 seed alliance).
Of course, there could be abuses of this system - intentionally losing qual matches to keep yourself out of the top 8, but I think a combination of GP and perhaps a tweaking of the points earned for match wins vs. draft selection points could render that problem almost null.
In the end, I think everyone can agree having an exciting elims is preferable to watching one super alliance stomping everyone else into the ground, and I think not mixing the top 8 is the way to do it.
(OK, now tell me why my idea is flawed :P)

Peter Matteson 03-04-2014 08:33

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nickpaterni (Post 1368751)
I've not seen any threads on this topic before, and I'm sure it has been discussed ad infinium, but I always thought that a simple change would make elimination alliance selection better from an excitement / game standpoint: The top 8 are not allowed to pick from anyone in the top 8.
Of course, there could be abuses of this system - intentionally losing qual matches to keep yourself out of the top 8, but I think a combination of GP and perhaps a tweaking of the points earned for match wins vs. draft selection points could render that problem almost null.
In the end, I think everyone can agree having an exciting elims is preferable to watching one super alliance stomping everyone else into the ground, and I think not mixing the top 8 is the way to do it.
(OK, now tell me why my idea is flawed :P)

This was the one of the systems used for alliance selection in the past (2002-2003 IIRC).
It worked horribly for the reason that you mention. There was a ton of collusion because no one wanted to be stuck unable to ally with the top teams.

Even worse than this was the Auto pairing where 1/5, 2/6, 3/7 and 4/8 (2001)were automtically paired together.

nickpaterni 03-04-2014 08:53

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Matteson (Post 1368753)
This was the one of the systems used for alliance selection in the past (2002-2003 IIRC).
It worked horribly for the reason that you mention. There was a ton of collusion because no one wanted to be stuck unable to ally with the top teams.

Even worse than this was the Auto pairing where 1/5, 2/6, 3/7 and 4/8 (2001)were automtically paired together.

So do you not think that peer GP pressure would work to alleviate this problem? You would think it would be plainly obvious if collusion was happening - oh, we went 5-7-0 but then all of a sudden start scoring huge in elims - it could even be reviewed and issued a DQ / Red Card if deemed collusion

Or, what if the point values for qual matches were increased so that losing qual matches was something that in the long run needed to be avoided at all costs for you to progress past the district event?

I wasnt around in the early 2000s so I didn't know it used to be that way, very interesting.

Jon Stratis 03-04-2014 09:31

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nickpaterni (Post 1368756)
So do you not think that peer GP pressure would work to alleviate this problem? You would think it would be plainly obvious if collusion was happening - oh, we went 5-7-0 but then all of a sudden start scoring huge in elims - it could even be reviewed and issued a DQ / Red Card if deemed collusion

Or, what if the point values for qual matches were increased so that losing qual matches was something that in the long run needed to be avoided at all costs for you to progress past the district event?

I wasnt around in the early 2000s so I didn't know it used to be that way, very interesting.

You'd be surprised at the number of teams that do better in elims than they do in quals. For example, in Logomotion my team never deployed a minibot until elims at our second regional... and that minibot made all the difference in winning the competition that year. It wasn't due to any sort of plan, just an inability to get all of the pieces working together correctly until then.

nickpaterni 03-04-2014 09:46

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1368767)
You'd be surprised at the number of teams that do better in elims than they do in quals. For example, in Logomotion my team never deployed a minibot until elims at our second regional... and that minibot made all the difference in winning the competition that year. It wasn't due to any sort of plan, just an inability to get all of the pieces working together correctly until then.

How many times during quals did you try and fail to deploy the minibot? Did you have any partial successes? My team typically also improves significantly during quals and into elims, but anyone watching can easily see that the improvement is gradual - we get a subsystem half working during a match, and in the next match it is working better than the next match it is working really well. Very different from all of a sudden being fantastic after fail fail fail.
For a team to intentionally sandbag like that would have to involve the mentors, drive team and pit crew and you would hope at least one of them would be unwilling to participate in cheating like that.

Maybe I'm being optimistic about others ability to abide by a rule that is hard to enforce and gives a potential huge advantage (bag & tag anyone?)

Alan Anderson 03-04-2014 10:27

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nickpaterni (Post 1368774)
For a team to intentionally sandbag like that would have to involve the mentors, drive team and pit crew and you would hope at least one of them would be unwilling to participate in cheating like that.

All it takes is one or two people on the drive team to decide to play badly. A single programmer can have a very large effect on the robot's performance without anyone else's involvement. A team-wide conspiracy is not required.

nickpaterni 03-04-2014 10:37

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson (Post 1368790)
All it takes is one or two people on the drive team to decide to play badly. A single programmer can have a very large effect on the robot's performance without anyone else's involvement. A team-wide conspiracy is not required.

Excellent point. Sad point, but true nonetheless. I guess we will have to rely upon GDC to create games that break that paradigm like they did this year - having a balanced alliance > 2 best scorers + box on wheels

BBray_T1296 03-04-2014 10:47

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by waialua359 (Post 1368174)
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.

Yay! I'm a statistic! :P

But seriously, The #1v#8 matches have been the most intense I have seen on most webcasts, and have been the most exciting (determined by audience decibel level) of both regionals we were in the #8 alliance for. Lots of teams root for the underdog and they are not being disappointed. Even though most often the #1 seed wins, it is always a win by just a last second truss toss or the like.

Anupam Goli 03-04-2014 11:07

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Death by Serpentine doesn't just occur in small events. In some of the weakest events, death by serpentine is a common occurrence. In each of the last three peachtree regionals, the #1 seed has lost in quarters or semis, and twice now the #6 seeded alliance has won the finals.

Finding an inbounder at our regional this year was like trying to mine for gold. It's so hard to find someone who can hold onto the ball, release it, and play good defense. There were teams that were great at possessing the ball, but were way too top heavy and could fall over on their own. having these teams play defense would've spelled disaster. There were teams that could play defense very effectively, but couldn't manipulate the ball. Those that could do both seemed to be in the very small minority. In fact, if I erased all of the teams that could truss and were on our first pick list as well, I had a grand total of 4 teams that I would like as our 2nd pick. i had to pull some of those non-ideal partners onto our list because the depth of the event was not good at all, despite 64 teams being in attendance.

This was likely one of the reasons why some of the #1-#4 alliances lost in quarters at peachtree. (Other reasons include ref's discretion, which has been beaten to the ground already, and mechanical problems popping up). Even with a mediocre trusser and shot, if that third robot can inbound and play defense more effectively than the other alliance can, cycle times are shortened and the other alliance has to face heavier defense.

nickpaterni 03-04-2014 11:20

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BBray_T1296 (Post 1368804)
Yay! I'm a statistic! :P

But seriously, The #1v#8 matches have been the most intense I have seen on most webcasts, and have been the most exciting (determined by audience decibel level) of both regionals we were in the #8 alliance for. Lots of teams root for the underdog and they are not being disappointed. Even though most often the #1 seed wins, it is always a win by just a last second truss toss or the like.

Us too - we were an 8th seed alliance that did beat the 1st seed (MI-Centerline) and went on to win the event. After our first match, we had other teams coming up to us to cheer us on and our alliance's outlook was that win or lose, we felt so good about having won even one match vs 1st seed and having so many other teams rooting for the underdog. That's why balanced alliances are so good for FIRST - when everyone feels like they have a chance and the matches are close, elims are epic. Nobody really talks about the elims where #1 stomps everyone because they had the best robots and nobody else stood a chance.

nickpaterni 03-04-2014 11:26

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli (Post 1368813)
Death by Serpentine doesn't just occur in small events. In some of the weakest events, death by serpentine is a common occurrence. In each of the last three peachtree regionals, the #1 seed has lost in quarters or semis, and twice now the #6 seeded alliance has won the finals.

Finding an inbounder at our regional this year was like trying to mine for gold. It's so hard to find someone who can hold onto the ball, release it, and play good defense. There were teams that were great at possessing the ball, but were way too top heavy and could fall over on their own. having these teams play defense would've spelled disaster. There were teams that could play defense very effectively, but couldn't manipulate the ball. Those that could do both seemed to be in the very small minority. In fact, if I erased all of the teams that could truss and were on our first pick list as well, I had a grand total of 4 teams that I would like as our 2nd pick. i had to pull some of those non-ideal partners onto our list because the depth of the event was not good at all, despite 64 teams being in attendance.

This was likely one of the reasons why some of the #1-#4 alliances lost in quarters at peachtree. (Other reasons include ref's discretion, which has been beaten to the ground already, and mechanical problems popping up). Even with a mediocre trusser and shot, if that third robot can inbound and play defense more effectively than the other alliance can, cycle times are shortened and the other alliance has to face heavier defense.

I would argue that a winning strategy this year is for a good shooting / scoring robot in 1-2 seed place picking the BEST inbound/truss/defense bot available, NOT the second best shooter / scorer first.

Anupam Goli 03-04-2014 11:38

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nickpaterni (Post 1368817)
I would argue that a winning strategy this year is for a good shooting / scoring robot in 1-2 seed place picking the BEST inbound/truss/defense bot available, NOT the second best shooter / scorer first.

I didn't exactly say that these teams chose the second best shooter/scorer first. Most of the alliance captains picked partners that could play a role complementary to their own, that wasn't the issue. The issue i was trying to highlight was the lack of depth, making finding that third robot (for most alliances this was an inbounder or a robot that could hold onto the ball just for assist points who could play defense.)

nickpaterni 03-04-2014 11:44

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli (Post 1368820)
I didn't exactly say that these teams chose the second best shooter/scorer first. Most of the alliance captains picked partners that could play a role complementary to their own, that wasn't the issue. The issue i was trying to highlight was the lack of depth, making finding that third robot (for most alliances this was an inbounder or a robot that could hold onto the ball just for assist points who could play defense.)

Ah, ok. Third robot still can make or break the alliance this year especially with penalties for sure.

BBray_T1296 03-04-2014 11:55

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli (Post 1368813)
Death by Serpentine doesn't just occur in small events. In some of the weakest events, death by serpentine is a common occurrence. In each of the last three peachtree regionals, the #1 seed has lost in quarters or semis, and twice now the #6 seeded alliance has won the finals.

-Just because you are seeded #1 (or in the top 10) does not mean you deserve to be there. We play too few matches to get a perfectly fair schedule. Some people will get to the top (and randomly, yes, consistently) because they get good schedules. On the reverse, some good teams get bad schedules and seed poorly for no other reason. Powerhouse teams are ones who win regardless of the luck of the draw.

-Just because you are seeded #1, does not mean you have scouting worth a grain of sand. If the #6 seed knows a thing or two about each robot, then of course they are going to select more suitable partners for their alliance, serpentine or not.

-Are upsets really a bad thing? You make it sound like: "If the #1 seed is not winning, the system is broken." Would not the best solution be then to just remove the eliminations altogether? Just seed #1,2 and 3 and here's your banner? I think anyone will admit this is too far, but where is the line? The system is the way it is, it is, in actual fact, not hard to comprehend in the slightest, (My 70-something grandmother and her sister came to a regional and understood the draft immediately).

-Not one single post in this thread has actually suggested an alternative system that is
a) as "difficult" or easier to explain
b) not so one sided as to defeat the purpose of eliminations altogether
c) half as good as serpentine

Anupam Goli 03-04-2014 13:17

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BBray_T1296 (Post 1368829)
-Just because you are seeded #1 (or in the top 10) does not mean you deserve to be there. We play too few matches to get a perfectly fair schedule. Some people will get to the top (and randomly, yes, consistently) because they get good schedules. On the reverse, some good teams get bad schedules and seed poorly for no other reason. Powerhouse teams are ones who win regardless of the luck of the draw.

-Just because you are seeded #1, does not mean you have scouting worth a grain of sand. If the #6 seed knows a thing or two about each robot, then of course they are going to select more suitable partners for their alliance, serpentine or not.

-Are upsets really a bad thing? You make it sound like: "If the #1 seed is not winning, the system is broken." Would not the best solution be then to just remove the eliminations altogether? Just seed #1,2 and 3 and here's your banner? I think anyone will admit this is too far, but where is the line? The system is the way it is, it is, in actual fact, not hard to comprehend in the slightest, (My 70-something grandmother and her sister came to a regional and understood the draft immediately).

-Not one single post in this thread has actually suggested an alternative system that is
a) as "difficult" or easier to explain
b) not so one sided as to defeat the purpose of eliminations altogether
c) half as good as serpentine



- I've gone to the peachtree regional every year for the last 6 years. In the years I was referring to, the #1 seed definitely had the most dominant robot at the event. I will say this year's #6 seed at Peachtree definitely had the strongest alliance at the event, but nobody was expecting the #1 and #2 seeded alliances to lose in quarters.

-Each of these teams had great scouting. Even if they didn't, do you think that none 8 teams that were on the #1-#4 alliances this year didn't have the scouting to make a good 2nd pick? I know that great scouting is essential, because scouting cost us 2 regionals last year. Trust me, each of the teams tried to find the best partner, but after 1683 and 832 were gone, the list of good 3rd robots was very small.

-Upsets aren't a bad thing, the teams that build the greatest alliances SHOULD be rewarded. The problem is, like I said, at weaker regionals, building the best alliance is often only possible in the lower seeds. This encourages sandbagging a match to get a lower seed, especially in a game like aerial assist, where like others have said, the top 2 scoring robots aren't exactly the best alliance.

I personally don't think changing the way alliance selection happens can help mitigate this issue, I just wanted to bring up that Death By Serpentine isn't limited to small events, and in fact exists at larger events. The end solution would be to bring up the level of competition, but that's another discussion.

themccannman 03-04-2014 14:04

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
The current draft method is tried and true. There's a reason why we still use it. The #1 pick in elims matters so much I can't imagine any scenario where a team would opt for a lower choosing spot. Strictly going from value added to an alliance by a robot, 1st picks are orders of magnitude more valuable than what's available for 2nd picks.

If you don't take the number one choosing spot then what's to keep the new #1 from picking you, you decline, then they pick your first pick (it's usually pretty obvious who the top 2-3 teams are at an event), they decline, then they pick your second pick, they decline, then you start getting into robots that you don't even want for a first pick. Now You've completely broken up every good alliance and no one gets any good picks since none of the top 4 can pick each other. Was that really worth getting a slightly better second pick? No it probably wasn't.

I'm not sure why you would want a lower choosing spot to get a working robot since every event I've seen as more than 24 working robots, all of which were more than adequate second picks. If your event has fewer than 24 robots that can drive across the field then I think the number one seed would have a pretty easy time winning with one good pick anyways. Robot performance tends to follow a bell curve, it doesn't just suddenly drop off after the 16th best robot. The 17th pick should be just as good as the 16th pick and often the 24th pick is still a good robot.

It seems to me that the only reason someone would pick a lower choosing spot is if they don't make very good second picks. I've been very satisfied with the pool of second picks we get to draft from every time we're first seed. The 24th pick is often a robot that's at the top of my second pick list. I've never ever had to work on a draft list where our second pick list didn't consist of robots that would love to have on our alliance. The situation may be different at districts, but in my experience we've always had a great array of robots available for second picks, and we often get our top picks because other teams over look them. Also the prevalence of teams making very poor second picks seems to support my theory that it's not the robots that are available for second pick that are the issue, it sounds like it's the pickers problem.

tl;dr - make better picks instead of complaining about the robots.

Citrus Dad 03-04-2014 14:39

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by themccannman (Post 1368869)
I've been very satisfied with the pool of second picks we get to draft from every time we're first seed. The 24th pick is often a robot that's at the top of my second pick list. I've never ever had to work on a draft list where our second pick list didn't consist of robots that would love to have on our alliance. The situation may be different at districts, but in my experience we've always had a great array of robots available for second picks, and we often get our top picks because other teams over look them.

I'd like to second this point - we were extremely happy to have 4161 available at IER, and 766 at Sacramento, and of course they were each the 24th pick. They fit perfectly into our alliance strategy. And we would have been almost as happy with the next available pick on our draft list at both events. There's another thread from a rookie team wondering why they didn't get picked at an event, and they looked like a perfectly good choice. I don't think the 24th pick is a curse if a top team is well prepared, even this year.

scottandme 03-04-2014 14:56

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by themccannman (Post 1368869)
Strictly going from value added to an alliance by a robot, 1st picks are orders of magnitude more valuable than what's available for 2nd picks.

That's the crux of the argument that you missed - at small/shallow/district events this year, the gap between the #1 pick and the #8 pick is smaller than the gap between the #9 pick and the #16 pick. Pick another robot with a 2 ball autonomous? No purpose, since you can only start with 3 balls. Pick another high goal scorer? No purpose, only 1 robot is going to be the finisher. But the dropoff between the #8 pick (16th overall) and the #16 pick (24th overall) can be the difference between a solid inbounder that can play shutdown defense, and one that can't. That level of dropoff didn't matter the last two years - it does this year. That's where the origin of the thread came from - at small/shallow/district events, the "dropoff" is real, and promotes the possibility of throwing matches to not fall victim to it.

MisterJ 15-04-2014 12:18

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli (Post 1368153)
Here is the problem with that statistic and the way the ranking is done: a top 3 team at a regional or division may be sitting at 7 or 8. I argue in deep fields like championship divisions you may be better served, if you are a top 3 robot in your division, to pick from 7 or 8. In many cases, you may be considered the favorite even though you are at 7.

#7 was definitely the favorite (end eventual winner) at MAR Champs.

Lij2015 15-04-2014 13:03

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
At Both competitions we went to this year the number one seed won it, and it can only be because of the lack of scouting, because at both of these events the pick list we had created was correct in the teams that got picked but the order was way wrong leaving some robots that should have gone way earlier to the later picks.
However, I am a HUGE fan of the pick where you want to be thing posted above because it is quite scary when formulating a pick list and you only have 18 or 19 teams on there.

BethMo 16-04-2014 05:31

Re: Serpentine Draft
 
Pacific Northwest switched to the District model this year, and it seems to me that alliances for the eliminations are the single biggest problem. One of our district events only had 28 teams! In that situation, by the time you get down to the last pick you're lucky if you even get a partner who can drive across the white line for 5 points in autonomous.


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