Re: Rule 8.4.1
 

I think that this is the way it should be.
Number one seeds already get the best team available when they pick first.
They can pick number two or three.
What ever they want.
I like the new way they are doing it.
Thats the way that we run my family fantasy football draft.
I think that is the best way to do it and make it some what fair.
The reason why you are number one is because you are good.
If you choose number two then those are the two best robots at the regional or championship division.
The number eight seed is getting the worst end of it if you go back to the old way where they pick then have to wait another eight picks to pick.
I always see the first seed beat out the eighth seed.
every now and then they beat the "powerhouse" that is the first seed.
I think its only fair.

Stevie

Re: Rule 8.4.1
 

Barry, you hit the nail right on the head. It might be better to have 2 decent teams as opposed to one really good team and one really bad. I personally don't like this style of alliance selection but it makes my head hurt. I guess that's the point.

Re: Rule 8.4.1
 

If you are in a small regional then the impact will be greater than in a large regional. There is a potential of a #1 alliance picking a non moving robot in a small regional. In the larger ones I don't believe that the impact will be as great as there will be more "average" teams.

Re: Rule 8.4.1
 

since we were never picked or picking i cannot offer an opinion but it sounds good to me

Re: Rule 8.4.1
 

The least interesting matches last year were the ones where one alliance was completely outmatched and the score was something like 62-4. Boring. Better balanced alliances will result in closer matches during the finals. Exciting!

Parity is good.

Re: Rule 8.4.1
 

I must say that I totally approve of the new alliance picking method, for a number of reasons. As a spectator, I would want to see the most exciting matches possible, and having more equally talented alliances in the finals will provide this. As a competitor, sure winning is fun, but competing is the adrenaline rush! The tighter the competition, the better the rush.

Someone posted that the number 1 team is in first place for a reason (implication: they have the best robot/strategy). Not to belittle the teams that end up in first place at an event, but because of the alliance pairings in the qualifying matches, I have seen robots that perform very well not end up anywhere near the top because of their partners, and mediocre robots end up near the top, again because of their partners. You have to admit that there is a certain amount of luck when it comes to landing in first place.

Please do not interpret this to mean that I think that the robots that end up in first place do not belong there, or are only there because of luck. Robust and reliable bot's that play the game well driven by teams that understand and implement good strategy will always do well.

Anyway, the bottom line (at least for me) is that the new rule will make the finals more exciting ... and that's what it's all about.

Re: Rule 8.4.1
 

I like it because the #1 seed can hide their last card. It makes it less likely that an alliance following them can choose a 'bot opposing their last choice (though that may prove less important this year anyway).

Re: Rule 8.4.1
 

Hmm....

Well, as much as I like the fairness, I also don't like it because I think it could take away from the top seeded teams.

If you take your cues from sports--which I usually do--than this is strange, because you normally have, say, 1st seed playing 8th seed because it is recognized that, although there *needs* to be a playoff, you want to give the 1st seed the advantage because they deserve it--because they finished first during the "regular season."

However, FIRST is different because in the qualifying matches are always done with the aid of an alliance...

I suppose this will make the playoffs more competitive, which is never a bad thing. However, it will make it so that more undeserving teams get picked to go to finals, and more deserving teams get picked by an 8th seed that might well be eliminated.

I mean, put it this way: Team A is 1st seed, Team B is 8th seed. Team C is a non-seeded team with, say, an 8 out of 10 robot, Team D is a non-seeded team with a 5 out of 10 robot.

Normally, Team A would ally with Team C, and Team B would grab Team D. However, it will now be the other way around, and Team A--the first seed--will be paired up with the weakest robot picked during the second round of selection.

Team A will still have an advantage, because the first seed can still pick the second as an alliance partner. However, now that we play with three alliance partners, that third one is much more important than it used to be. It's almost going to be better to aim to finish around the 8th seed, because then you get a decent pick twice.

So I give the new rule a tentative thumbs down, and eagerly wait comp to see what kind of equalizing effect this has on seeding.

--Petey

Re: Rule 8.4.1
 

I agree with the change. As for the 1st and 2nd team earning their spots, I agree also. But they should be able to win with just about any other team. They got there with the help of at least 16 other teams (8 matches).

As for the top teams not wanting to pick the lower place teams, I say Bunk!. In our first year Team 111 picked us (place 42 out of 50) and we went all the way to 2nd place.

Now to stir up some controversy.
I think the 1st place (2nd, 3rd, etc) team should not be able to pick any of the other 7 top teams.

I think the 1st place alliance should play the 2nd place, 3rd play 4th etc

*throws $0.02 at kitty*

*Dons flame suit*

Re: Rule 8.4.1
 

The reward of being #1 Seed is much less.
I'd vote to go back to old way.
KA-108

Re: Rule 8.4.1
 

I think this system would be fine in a draft of 3, 4, 5 or more rounds, but not just a 2 round draft. It's almost a penalty to be the #1 seed in the deepest of competitions like Championship, Midwest, Purdue, IRI, or Toronto (and a few others).

Re: Rule 8.4.1
 

I totally approve of this new system. Looks like this forum does have some baring on what FIRST does (I should post suggestions here more often).

The spirit of FIRST is not to have a dominating alliance that just steam-rolls over all the other alliances. Plus that doesn't make for a very fun game to watch come finals.

I concede that in the real world, you should get rewarded for hard work. 1st place is earned, and I respect that. This is the basis of pure capitalism, where the hard working are heavily rewarded, and the government doesn't impede at all on the economy. But even our own economy is not purely capitalistic, we have welfare, social security, anti-trust laws and so on to even out the playing field so everyone has a chance. Let's face it, all the teams do not start out on a level playing field.

So this is FIRST's way of evening out the playing field and I see nothing wrong with that.

Re: Rule 8.4.1
 

So what I'm seeing is some people don't think a 1st seed team can win without a loaded team. Is this true.
Like I stated before, the 1st seed got there with the help of at least 16 other teams. So why couldn't they win with the 16th pick as they can with the 9th pick?

Re: Rule 8.4.1
 

Because no team gets to the first seed by luck or the associated machinations of 16 teams.

You've gotta be a darn good robot to take advantage of all the opportunities afforded to you by the help (or hurt) of 16 other alliance partners.

Besides, you forget that teams can pick from within the top 8. So you're grabbing a lot lower of a pick than you might otherwise imagine.

--Petey

Re: Rule 8.4.1
 

I'll just come out and say it. It is a horrible change.
Serpentine selection (that is what this is, by the way) only works for drafts with many rounds (6 or more) and is used to balance RANDOM selection order.

The seeding rounds are not random. Although some luck is involved, the top few teams are there mainly because they deserve to be there. For small regionals, this is actually a huge disadvantage to the top seeds.

Do not be surprised at teams fighting to be number 7 or 8 at some events this year.

I think it should be the old way.

-Paul

P.S. - My disclaimer is that I have not read this rule and I am taking Lil' Lavery's word that it is indeed changed.