![]() |
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. |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
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. |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
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.
|
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
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. |
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. |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
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. |
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.
|
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. |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
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. |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
Thanks for catching that. :) |
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 Allowing the top alliances to select their opponent from those below them each round would help the stronger alliances to advance. |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
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? |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
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. |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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(?). |
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).
|
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
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? |
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.
|
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:
|
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) |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
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. |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
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. |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
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?) |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
-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 |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
- 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. |
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. |
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
Re: Serpentine Draft
Quote:
|
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. |
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