Re: Alliance picking
 

Here is the discussion that happened when FIRST changed the rules so that the top 8 seeds could pick each other. Previously, the top 8 couldn't pick another team in the top 8, like TierraDelDiablo proposed for the second option.

Remember, these are people reacting to the change, I'm still trying to find a thread that talks about it past tense.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=10164

Re: Alliance picking
 

There was some interesting discussion on that thread, and a recurring theme was that the seeding at the end of the qualifying matches was close to a random number generator. From our perspective, it has not been that way this year. As top qualifier, we have picked the number 2 seed twice because our scouting and watching of matches indicated that we should. Of course, there may be those out there who think we were top qualifier as the result of random events.:)

Re: Alliance picking
 

One thing to consider that is different then the last couple of years is the way the 3 alliances are used. Since it's 3 alliance, 3 on 3 match everyone is out there in each match. Last year, you only had 2 and that meant that you had to have 1 different robot in the 2nd match of your set. To me that is a big difference and one where I've thought that maybe with 3 on 3 the top 8 should not be able to pick within themselves.

The reason that I say that is that the top 2 to 4 team are usually there because they are the top teams at the regional. They win because they help pull thier alliances through, they have good drives, they have good strategies, and they understand the game. It is rare that those teams are there by luck of the draw for the seeding matches (but yes it does happen). As such, those teams are generally also good at determining an opponents weakness and trying to exploit that. (That is not meant in a bad way, it's how games are played when it's winner take all). With all 3 alliance members on the field, there is little that the 2nd match of the elimination will have vastly different strategy because it's the same teams. Last years game made it a little harder for the leading team to determine full strategy until they knew who was going on the field and it gave the underdog a chance to try a different set of players and strategy. With the entire alliance out there, my experience has been that the leader finds the strategy and exploits it twice to the same result. To me it makes the game a little less exciting in the elimination matches because that potential unknown isn't there anymore. (Of course maybe the answer to this has nothing to do with the top 8)

Re: Alliance picking
 

From my team experiences, it makes a big difference to go for that #1 seed as it gives you control over your alliance. Anything less leaves you open for another team to ask you to be their alliance partner. The current format should force teams to all push for that higher seeding, and, therefore, make the qualification matches all as exciting as possible.

As to the #1 seed picking the #2 seed, I'll admit that it sometimes happens, but I know that it sometimes doesn't happen. The random alliances that exist during qualifications sometimes lead to a good machine not having a great record. Our team decided at the Southern California Regional to choose a team that wasn't anywhere near the top 8. Good scouts on a team make sure that the best machine is picked, not necessarily the next best record.

I would be open to the serpentine method as a way of bringing a little more balance to the situation, but I am also happy with the current method.

Re: Alliance picking
 

The "serpentine" picking system would be interesting, and very fair.

It was surely much better than the idea that Dave posed to me as we were on the sidelines at the Vegas regional. Dave comes over to me, with his evil grin:

Dave: "Andy... I want to know what you think about a new alliance picking idea I have"

Andy: "ut oh... OK, Dave, I am ready"

Dave: "What do you think of a system that allows the 8th seeded team to pick first, instead of the 1st seeded team"

Andy: (thinks... how do I tactfully put this) "Dave, that is ridiculously horrible. This is a competition, afterall, not a game of tiddly-winks."

Dave: "Good... that is exactly the reaction I was hoping for. I want to come up with a system that REALLY ticks you old veteran teams off!! mmmmuuaahahahahahhahahaha (jabba-the-hut laugh)"

Dave must have the ability to read minds. While I did not actually *say* that I wanted to get Midevil on him, the *thought* did pass through my simple brain.

Sigh... Let's hope for an underwater game in 2006.

Andy B.

ps... all this, and the sumo-wrestling Morrella comment was left untouched

Re: Alliance picking
 

I began to have an inferiority complex at the Toronto regional, as our rookie team finished well out of the top eight (16th seed I believe).

So, when the top 8 took the stage and began picking each other, the rest of the teams started to move up, but we were still at the back of the line.

Then, as the 2nd round of picks was being gobbled up, I began to say "Hey, we're pretty good too!".

Then, as the 3rd round picks started, we were picked by the #1 team. So, heck, I didn't care if we made it in the 2nd or 3rd round....and we got picked by the #1 team.

He....he..... and then we went on to win the whole enchilada with them!

So, yes, I think the current system works great. All throughout the qualifying matches, each team has the same clear mission to get as high up the ladder as they can.

Re: Alliance picking
 

Personally, I agree with the current system. It may have its drawbacks, but everything has drawbacks, you just have to live with them.
The question that I have is, why shouldn't number 1 be allowed to pick first? They have certainly earned the right to do so. This does not guarantee them certain victory. But still, not allowing them to pick first and to pick whoever they want is kind of like being the polesitter at a race, and then being told that you must start from the back for no apparent reason. If a team has worked their way to the top, let them be rewarded for it.

Re: Alliance picking
 

Sure high seeds typically win, but not always. The #8 seed in VCU got all the way to the finals this year (which means they obv beat the #1 seed in the QF) , before loosing the #3 seed. Last year in VCU the #7 seeded alliance (yay for us!) upset the #2 seed. The #3 would eventually win VCU last year as well. I have seen several #2 and #3 seeded alliances win competitions, almost as much as the #1 seeds. In Purdue this year, the only "favorite" not to get upset during the QF was the #1 seed, proving lower seeds do stand a chance. Even though the #1 would eventually win Purdue, it took them 4 final matches (yes, there was a tie).
Yes, there are several dominant #1 seeded alliances, such as in Colorado and Annapolis this year, but the #1 seed doesnt always get what they want. I have seen a number of teams decline picks and start their own #2, #3, or #4 seeded alliance as Alliance Captain. Last year in VCU, team 33 did just that and went on to win VCU.
The competitions which tend to have dominant alliances are usually (but not always) the smaller and/or "weaker" ones that have very few really good teams. When 2 of these teams band together, there is usually only one, or perhaps no other alliance, that can stand a chance. But at the larger and more competitive regionals, or championship, this is not the case. There are enough good robots to be able to upset a #1 seed. Look at UTC for example. the #1 lost there, and it was comprised of what many consider 2 of the best teams around.

Re: Alliance picking
 

The debate here seems to boil down to one question.

The number one seed has definitely earned an advantage. But how much of an advantage is too much?

Considering that I've seen eight seeds beat one seeds multiple times at regionals, it hasn't proven to be too much of a problem so far. It's a bit different at smaller regionals, though. At Detroit, there were 33 teams competiting. Because of the small pool of teams, the number one alliance looks absolutely intimidating whereas the eighth alliance is...well, not nearly as much of a threat.

I almost do think that a serpentine system would be fairer. It's much kinder to the eighth seed, to be sure, and when you've got the first and second ranked robots paired together already, how much more of an advantage do they need?

There's even a possibility that FIRST could just use systems like that at regionals below a certain size. The eighth alliance at, say, Great Lakes has many, MANY more choices for their final team than they would at Detroit. That added freedom of choice could make all the difference, especially if it comes down to finding a robot that complements your alliance perfectly or just choosing the best of the nine robots left, with two or three of those not working correctly.

I don't think we'll be seeing a change like this anytime soon, but who knows?

Re: Alliance picking
 

We have been top seed at three regionals since I have been with Team 233 and have won all three times. There is always luck involved, both in being top seed and in winning a competition, but being top seed gives you a huge advantage over every other team in that you are able to pick one of your partners from the entire field. Occasionally they may decline, but not often.

Re: Alliance picking
 

Rick TYler has a good point even though his system is rather complicated...

One of the reasons the alliance picking is an issue, I personally think, is because the seeding is a matter more often than not of luck. It is true that luck favors the good robots many times in the seeding matches, :rolleyes: But it is also true that the number one seed has quite a fair bit of luck with alliance partners and such. This year alliance partners are especially crucial because playing with two dead robots, even if you are the ultimate superrobt, you almost never win.

The eliminatation rounds currently try to compensate for this by making the alliances win 2 matches, instead of sudden death or whatever. But, I think the point some people are trying to make, which I agree with, is that, even before the draft even begins, this should be balanced a little by taking the first pick of the second round away from the top alliance. This means that the number one alliance needs to be able to hold its own and absolutely cannot be the weak robot in its alliance, otherwise it will be topped by the #8 alliance.

Very interesting discussion all... hopefully this will be taken into consideration by the people down at FIRST for next years game!

Re: Alliance picking
 

I have been pondering this question ever since i began reffing. It seems all to common to see the #1 seed pick #2 and go on to dominate the compeition. At RiverRage Ed Forcier asked me if we should try the #2 option in the poll. It was great, eliminated landslides and made for an extremely even matchup through the finals. The football analogy is a great example...why should the best team get the best partners? If a team is so "good" they shouldnt need the number 2 seed to prove themselves. Hence why I voted that we should pick out of the top 8.

also on another note...i've noticed most people who support the current setup are people who have benefieted from it. I myself am a product of getting screwed by being stuck against the best alliance.

just my $.02 and observations

Re: Alliance picking
 

i say leave it as it is, there does need to be an advantage of being the number 1 seed, and this shows it, if anything was to change, i would propose that 1st seed picks then 2nd, 3rd and so on and they can choose anyone. but then the 8th seeded alliance get the last pick in the first round of choosing and then right away pick their next partner and then 7th chooses and so on back to the 1st alliance. this still gives the advantage to higher seeded teams since they choose their partners first ad would still be able to choose amongst themselves. but this does give the lower seeded teams a better chance

Re: Alliance picking
 

I believe that's call serpentine draft and is readily discussed here.

I totally forgot to put that in the poll. I will admit now that the backwards draft is bad idea. I tend to agree with Greg Perkins that a lot of the people who voted to keep the current system have benefitted from it.

Re: Alliance picking
 

Although the current draft did well for us in toronto, as Doug mentioned above, I would tend to lean towards a serpentine type draft.

Does anyone have any actual stats on how often the #1 seed alliance ends up playing the #2 seed alliance in the finals? I think I would have to see actual numbers and stats to see how "fair" it was. I know in the regionals I went to this year, #8 seed always got crushed in the first match... and that is the reason I would favor serpentine.

It gets really hard when you are a selecting alliance in 6, 7, or 8 seed, and you have a reduced number of teams to pick from, and often they are not as good as the robots above (not to say there arent outliers that get overlooked, but in general). I think with the "luck" that is involved in so many of the qualifications matches (its terrible when you are the only robot of 3 on the field, or moving, and it wasnt your choice!). I think something should be attempted to even out this luck. But all this said, I dont mind the system the way it is. 99% of the time, the #1 team has very rightfully earned that spot, with little luck needed... so let them reap their rewards :)