Re: New Aliance Selection?
 

I personally like this year's change in picking order. Scouting becomes much more important to the number one seed. I'd know; our second round pick at Chesapeake, 1184, was seeded 39th (I think); as coach, I had never seen them play, but our scouts (as well as Buzz's once they spoke to our alliance captain) swore they were a good robot who had some bad luck. They were right. We (the number one seed) picked the 3rd seed, who declined, and then the 4th seed (Buzz), but then picked a lower seeded team. It worked out very well for us.

Re: New Aliance Selection?
 

Buckeye Regional:
#1 seeded 963 picks #2 seeded 123 and loses in the semi-finals.

Re: New Aliance Selection?
 

Just as a clarification, the standings on FIRST's website for the Great Lakes regional are incorrect. Jack Jones has listed the correct (to the best of my knowledge) standings here: http://www.grovesrobotics.org/GLR/
(We were the second seed)

On topic, I prefer the previous system used before this year. To me, I feel that if a team has worked their butts off to be the highest seed in the regional, they deserve their picks of alliance partners. This year's, while it does make the playing field more level in the eliminations, does handicap the higher seeds in a way, especially at the smaller regionals. Don't get me wrong, our third seeds were great defensive robots at both GLR and DET, but at Atlanta, I wouldn't be surprised if the lower seeded teams had three shooters whereas the higher seeds might not be able to get a third.

Re: New Aliance Selection?
 

During the Peachtree regional, our decision to pick #2 was not solely that they were #2. The offered a complete complement to our strengths. We were good shooter with good movement. Team 1414 was a lower goal bot with great autonomous capability. Their size and power helped out quite a bit too. Our third pick (1057) was another shooter with strong power and great defense. All around, the complement was good. The one thing that I see was lacking was a robot that could shoot with a vision turret.

Re: New Aliance Selection?
 

I don't know if they'd want a third. I've noticed a lot of the best alliances had 2 shooters and 1 low goal/defensive robot. It keeps things from getting too crowded by the center goal, and also makes them much harder to defend against.

Re: New Aliance Selection?
 

I think having three scoring robots is the way to go (although I agree with you that it is better if at least one of them can do it without being in front of the center goal). I also think all eight alliances have a chance.

Some bots that were unlucky in qualifications can shoot, score in the lower goal and play some decent defense (ours for example :) ). The 3 on 3 qualification rounds have really randomized the top seeding, we reportedly had the 4th highest scoring average at the NE Regional, but were only 22 seed.

We were picked by the 8 seed (177) after they had moved up three spots to 5th alliance. Then 177 picked 1124 the 34th seed (out of 40), based on scouting reports. All three robots could score. Maybe none of us could score as well as 20 or 126, but three robots are a lot harder to defend than 2. We defeated the #1 alliance that included 1 and 3 seeds 126 and 20 and #15 seed 571, and then went on to win the regional.

Scouting is very important in this format. In Atlanta, with over 80 teams in each division, I see some good but less capable robots getting high seeds because of the luck of the draw, while some good robots will not be highly ranked. Combine this with the reverse picking for the third robot and any alliance that is in the divisional quarter finals could make a run at the championship.

Re: New Aliance Selection?
 

Let me see if I can help explain where Mallot was coming from as I don't think the intention of this thread was to make teams feel cheated or punished, but rather to open discussion on the idea of making for more balanced elims, more challenge to good teams, the excitement of a more balanced chance at winning, and possibly increased opportunity for more teams who might not otherwise have a chance to experience success on the field. I have a feeling that Mallot was making a very hasty post from school ( :ahh: ) and didn't have a chance to accurately make his point in a limited amount of time and as a result did not start the discussion off in a focused manner. Since it got lost, I'll see if I can help bring it back inline.

This past weekend at the Midwest Regional there were clear lines between the teams performance levels- like most regionals. However, the regional was relatively small, and there were a lot of rookie teams. (Yes, a rookie won the event, yes WE were also an exceptional rookie team who also won an event and swept the rookie awards in 2004, but doing this is more the exception than the rule.) You should have seen the excitement and enthusiasm present among the 3rd round alliance selections because they made it to elims, because the teams were fairly balanced and they thought there was a chance they could help win!

The locking the top 8 idea is more about spreading the wealth of experience and extending it to others in a more even way. We all know winning isn't everything, but simply having a shot to win, or being picked by a team like Beatty and playing in the finals can make a huge difference in what a younger inexperienced or resource-challenged team thinks and feels about FIRST. If winning really isn't everything then getting to play with the "better" teams doesn't always have to be, nor should it be reserved just for the top teams who have "earned it" on the field. Someone once said, it's not just a robot competition, yet a high percentage of us strive for and celebrate that part of it, and in the most outward ways. Does anyone really go to any competition in the hopes of losing gloriously? Further making the competition point, even though Chairman's Award is tops, we don't see debates or presentations on the Chairman's award that we can all stand and cheer or vote for, just a long speech and a presentation for a couple minutes at the end of the event. Sorry, I digress...

After seeing the diverse alliances compete and while working with and watching lower ranked teams get the chance to put their best foot forward and at least experience the thrill of participating in the elims. (which were VERY exciting) the thought occurred that if the top 8 had to pick from the remaining field of 9-(nn) teams then it would be a true test of the top ranked teams ability to build and lead an alliance against comparably ranked teams while also leveling the playing field a bit more and providing more opportunity for other teams to have greater odds of being a part of a winning alliance.

Underdogs will always arise with any system, but I think we've all been to enough events to know that if teams like HOT, T3, Beatty, Wildstang, Martian's, Killer Bee's, Las Guerilla's etc. ( they are all great teams- we respect these guys and really enjoy playing with, or against them - sorry for not mentioning other teams in the country, we're just a Midwest team) but if they are there at an event, they will probably be in the elims. If two of them manage to align with each other, they will most likely make semi's or win because you know they will perform well. We know first-hand this is not always true, we led a #3 alliance that won against HOT and the Martian's with an alliance of team #141 and team #1024 (who was ranked 24th) at WMR in 2004. The point is that generally speaking you'd feel safer betting money on a dual alliance of any well-known top performing team over the lesser known smaller teams, if for nothing else because of their reputations. However, when these top performing teams are mixed-up and opposing one another things are not so certain and the elements of chance, excitement and challenge greatly increase, where do you place your bet now? Not so easy to choose anymore is it?

The idea of locking the top 8 sounded like an easy way of adding more of a challenge to the top performing teams (who btw seem to be the loudest ones asking FIRST for more challenge at the annual forums) but more importantly by providing more equal opportunity for the other teams as opposed to stacking the alliance deck with top seeded/performing teams. (We've also seen this "locking" approach done at Off-Season events and it actually works quite well.) Rank still gets the chance to pick first and sequentially - not serpentine- so they still have some earned advantage but then we get to see which of the ranked teams really is the "best of the best" in terms of performance, scouting, and leadership of the alliance they can form. It's just one more chance for a ranked team to problem solve with limited resources, limited time and in a challenging situation while sharing the experience.

With that I think Mallot's original post should have said "unfortunate to the lower ranked teams" rather than "unfair to all the teams", because had that regional been a little bit larger the intense excitement of those younger teams in the elims would have probably been limited to mostly veterans and the inspiration of those young teams would not have existed as it did. I think the more teams who experience something like the elims the more people who will be more deeply inspired by participating in the program or at the very least that much more motivated to come back next season.

Personally, I think I like the idea that was mentioned of a random #3 pick idea and the potential opportunity it gives the remaining teams. From what I saw last week, the lower ranked teams in the elims gave just as much effort as the higher ones did in the elims and with great effect regardless of their rank or capability, they had a lot of heart. Again, consider what a morale boost this could be for a lower ranked team or how inspired they might walk away simply because they got to be in the elims. Isn't this idea in-line with our FIRST's Inspiration mission and also a balance (albeit a reduction) of a teams picking options? Even if the top 8 took the next 8, they all would have to help the random third and work with it's strengths and weaknesses to get the best from it for the alliance and help pull them up in more ways than just the event.

Re: New Aliance Selection?
 

At the Florida regional (which some say has the hardest competition) the #3 seed won, while the #1 seed was defeated by #5 in semis.

Not else left to say that hasn't already been, but I agree that the top seeds are usually purely because of good/decent alliance pairing on both sides. I say this as being the #27th ranked seed and coming out in the second placed alliance.

Drawing out of a hat is a bad idea in my opinion, for more reasons than one. Just one that you probably didn't think of, many teams leave after qualifying matches if they are doing downright horrible/robot broken/whatever. Getting a random picked team would become just like playing the lotto... bah, just an all around bad idea in my opinion (sorry to your wife!).

Re: New Aliance Selection?
 

Well a lot of that went on in galileo it was strange indeed, that is smart strat. and im glad to know more about the behind the scene picking! But it is also very disheartening that a lot of alliances were pre made without looking at the new good bots (like us) that did not get picked in 2005 :(

im VERY happy about the 3rd team pick being reverse order (8-1) this year, and i disagree with making seeds 1-8 not be able to pick within the 8, last year, being 11th seed @ glr, and having the top 8 teams pick within each other to cause team 1596 to become the 8th seed was amazing, and in my opinion its a great opportunity to 9-12th seeded teams.

and a good example of #1 seed alliance not winning, last year GLR, our alliance (8th seed), knocked the #1 alliance (teams 1,??,??) out of the finals :D, albeit, we didnt win, 66,67,68 did.

-kevin

Re: New Aliance Selection?
 

[quote=Tim Arnold]

Just one that you probably didn't think of, many teams leave after qualifying matches if they are doing downright horrible/robot broken/whatever. Getting a random picked team would become just like playing the lotto... QUOTE]

I agree with this comment and think the selection process would have to be just as if the "selected" team were being asked by another team and not be automatically permanent. So if a teams KNOWS they are broke down or are having other major problems it would be incumbent upon such a team to graciously decline, then the "system" (not numbers in a hat) would remove them and make the next "selection" from available teams.

As for the lotto: Yes it kind of is. But it would also put teams in a position where they would have to accept that they cannot control everything, expect the unexpected, take life as it comes and to learn to make the most of what could be a very "dynamic" situation. Then collectively try to get everyone to rise to the occasion. It's been my experience that many valuable life lessons come out of these types of situations for everyone involved.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the current system or proposing this idea as the "best" way to go. I think it really comes down to what we as FIRST are trying do and where we are placing the ultimate value and finding a way to facilitate that into the competitions. Which raises the question of are we gradually becoming more like a "sport" and celebrating peformance or are we trying to inspire and develop quality-critically thinking people who learn to work effectively in diverse groups and celebrate the triumph of the human spirit? I support this discussion because I was disturbed this year at how many students from other teams complained about their robots (both here on CD and at the events) and about how they thought they we just no good compared to "everyone else". Somewhere the point seems to be getting lost this year- maybe it's always been there to some degree and I've just never noticed? Or who knows maybe we are starting to feel the side-effects of "getting the best of what we celebrate" as Woodie likes to say.