Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

Lets look at a hypothetical match:
Say winning team "W" scores 6 points and gets a 3 point penalty. Losing team "L" has a final score of 1. This would mean that W gets 5 seeding points (3W + 2x1L). L would get 6 seeding points (W's points without penalies).

This means that a team will have to be very aware of the score during the match. I find it a litte odd that this kind of scenario could happen.

My $0.02

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

Like alot of people I am still very confused with this seeding system, to me it looks like 'collusion' will be rampent and the winning team will be determined by a coin flip at the beginning of the match between the two alliances. Here's my logic:

Teams will be ordered first by seeding score. then the cooperation bonus is the tie braker. Therefore teams want the highest seeding score, making it far more important then the cooperation bonus. I would much rather loose a match help the other alliance and get double the seeding score then compete and get the cooperation bonus that only counts as a tie braker. here are the applicable rules:

where seeding points are defined as:
so lets take two sernerios one where all the teams score for RED and one where they compete.

6 teams scoring for RED:
RED 20 points
BLUE 0 points

therefore the seeding points are:
RED 20 seeding points
BLUE 20 seeding points

Coopertition bonus would be:
RED 2*0 = 0
BLUE 0

In my interpretation the Coopertition bonus is totally separate from the seeding points, it says nothing about adding the Coopertition bonus to seeding score in the rules. This is where I think I may be wrong, someone please correct me if so.

the two alliances compete:
RED 10
BLUE 7

Seeding points:
RED 10
BLUE 10

Coopertition bonus:
RED 2*7 = 14
BLUE 0

To me with my interpretation I dont see a situation where teams would actually want to compete against one another... I'm not even going to get into the situation where the loosing teams actually receives more seeding points due to penalties on the winning team.

I am confused and don't see how this seeding system makes any logical sense, what am I missing? :confused:

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

You quoted it yourself:

The bonus does add to seeding points.

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

Ok that was the part that I thought was not worded well, to me it was not clear if the Cooperation bonus was a totally separate tally of points being used as a tie breaker or added to the seeding points.

9.3.7 should really read something like this to make it more clear:

"The total number of seeding points and CoopertitionTM Bonus points earned by a TEAM throughout their qualification matches will be their seeding score."

I got confused when they didn't reference Coopertition Bonus points when describing the seeding score.

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

The Coopertition(tm) Bonus has units - seeding points. The points earned by Coopertition are added into your total. Coopertition bonus points are also used - separately - as a tiebreaker.

Penalties are a double whammy this year, so don't do things to get penalized. You lose seeding points, and then you could also lose the match meaning you don't get any bonus.

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

If the score is 0 to n, they have 1 seeding points to gain for every point they score on themselves, whereas if they score on the opponent, they have 2 seeding points to score for themselves. This is true.

However, the 0-alliance is allowed to have 2 robots blocking their own goals. They can also forcibly score on the other alliance's goals, which the winning alliance has no incentive to block.

Both alliances don't benefit in a high-scoring tie. Only one does. If an alliance score is n-u with p penalties on the team with n, with u<n, the n-alliance gains 2u + (n - p) seeding points, larger than n seeding points that the losing team gets.

If u is 0, then the winning alliance gets n-p seeding points, and the losing team gets n seeding points. I don't see how the losing team has any benefit to scoring higher in a tie; only the winning alliance does. You could say it increases their chance of winning, but that's not what we're talking about.

It's not; the coopertition bonus is added to their running total seeding score. See 9.3.5:

They want to compete to win for the Coopertition bonus. If they win, they get it. We can't go assuming what the score will be, then postdict the team's behavior.

I never got to get my post back; I don't know why - it said the post was moderated and it never showed up. Here's the gist of what I was saying:

Some would say that this will encourage a lot of colluding. But who do they think will be colluding - two alliances? Hardly. The only collusion that will happen if this strategy is employed is between the teams on one alliance planning to score 0. What is the incentive for the other alliance (the alliance who stands to win the Coopertition bonus) to collude with the losing alliance? If they don't, then they get the Coopertition bonus. Intuitively, though I may think otherwise, it seems that most players view this strategy as counter to GP or the spirit of the rules / FIRST. This would be an additional disincentive to use this strategy.

This is actually false. Even with the example you gave, it's false. If alliance W gets 8 points, and alliance L gets 8 points, then it's a tie. As per 9.3.4, they get seeding points (it says ranking points, but probably means seeding points) equal to their own alliance's score. In this case, each alliance gets 8 points, plus twice their alliance score (as per 9.3.5). This results in a net gain of 24 points.

Only in a tie, though. That's an edge case. And it still doesn't apply retroactively to this strategy.

If alliance L gets 0 points, then alliance W gets 8 points for their seeding score. Alliance L also gets 8 points. Primia facie, this seems to be a loss relative to other teams that are playing other matches. However, the previous case is only in the case of a tie. If the previous scenario had a much more likely difference in score, then the points become unbalanced:

Say alliance L gets 6 points, and alliance W gets 8 points. W wins, netting 11 seeding points. L gains 8 seeding points.

This is much more likely than 8-8; consider last year's game. FIRST data shows that at an average regional (picked one at random: New York City Regional 2009) there was only 1 tie. That's hardly enough to offset the median or mean ranking score with this new system. Even when counting for the fact that the range and standard deviation were both higher, the number of ties will still be significantly low enough.

Another important fact is being glossed over: the number of balls is doubled when one team is playing to score 0. If they are constantly fighting for each ball, then of course they'd only get 8. That means that 4 balls total were recycled. This number would be quite higher - perhaps 12 or more (speculative) - increasing the total ball count. This would, I think, overcome the incentive to work for a coopertition bonus.

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

In case anyone missed it, here is the new algorithm run against last year's championship divisions.

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

This section has been clarified in Team Update #1:

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

If the score is 0 to n, they have 1 seeding points to gain for every point they score on themselves, whereas if they score on the opponent, they have 2 seeding points to score for themselves. This is true.

However, the 0-alliance is allowed to have 2 robots blocking their own goals. They can also forcibly score on the other alliance's goals, which the winning alliance has no incentive to block.

Both alliances don't benefit in a high-scoring tie. Only one does. If an alliance score is n-u with p penalties on the team with n, with u<n, the n-alliance gains 2u + (n - p) seeding points, larger than n seeding points that the losing team gets.

If u is 0, then the winning alliance gets n-p seeding points, and the losing team gets n seeding points. I don't see how the losing team has any benefit to scoring higher in a tie; only the winning alliance does. You could say it increases their chance of winning, but that's not what we're talking about.

It's not; the coopertition bonus is added to their running total seeding score. See 9.3.5:

They want to compete to win for the Coopertition bonus. If they win, they get it. We can't go assuming what the score will be, then postdict the team's behavior.

I never got to get my post back; I don't know why - it said the post was moderated and it never showed up. Here's the gist of what I was saying:

Some would say that this will encourage a lot of colluding. But who do they think will be colluding - two alliances? Hardly. The only collusion that will happen if this strategy is employed is between the teams on one alliance planning to score 0. What is the incentive for the other alliance (the alliance who stands to win the Coopertition bonus) to collude with the losing alliance? If they don't, then they get the Coopertition bonus. Intuitively, though I may think otherwise, it seems that most players view this strategy as counter to GP or the spirit of the rules / FIRST. This would be an additional disincentive to use this strategy.

This is actually false. Even with the example you gave, it's false. If alliance W gets 8 points, and alliance L gets 8 points, then it's a tie. As per 9.3.4, they get seeding points (it says ranking points, but probably means seeding points) equal to their own alliance's score. In this case, each alliance gets 8 points, plus twice their alliance score (as per 9.3.5). This results in a net gain of 24 points.

Only in a tie, though. That's an edge case. And it still doesn't apply retroactively to this strategy.

If alliance L gets 0 points, then alliance W gets 8 points for their seeding score. Alliance L also gets 8 points. Primia facie, this seems to be a loss relative to other teams that are playing other matches. However, the previous case is only in the case of a tie. If the previous scenario had a much more likely difference in score, then the points become unbalanced:

Say alliance L gets 6 points, and alliance W gets 8 points. W wins, netting 11 seeding points. L gains 8 seeding points.

This is much more likely than 8-8; consider last year's game. FIRST data shows that at an average regional (picked one at random: New York City Regional 2009) there was only 1 tie. That's hardly enough to offset the median or mean ranking score with this new system. Even when counting for the fact that the range and standard deviation were both higher, the number of ties will still be significantly low enough.

Another important fact is being glossed over: the number of balls is doubled when one team is playing to score 0. If they are constantly fighting for each ball, then of course they'd only get 8. That means that 4 balls total were recycled. This number would be quite higher - perhaps 12 or more (speculative) - increasing the total ball count. This would, I think, overcome the incentive to work for a coopertition bonus.

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

So maybe I'm wrong, but is this how rank is determined?

1) w/l/t
2) seeding points
3) coopertition points

Am I missing some steps?

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

Nope. You're just adding one - there is no w/l/t ranking this year. And coopertition points are included in seeding points. The tiebreaker is max coopertition points, if seeding points are equal.

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

You're both missing and adding steps.

Note the lack of W/L/T , and note that your Coop bonuses are added into your seeding score per Update #1. Your highest Coop bonus is then used as the first tiebreaker.

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

I must admit, I'm a little leery of this seeding system, due to the many strange scenarios that immediately come to mind, or have been described in this thread.

What I'm trying to do, though, is stay focused on my team's goals. Besides learning, having fun, sense of accomplishment, etc, when we go to a competition, we want to win. It would be strange if we didn't. But would we really feel good about winning, if it was because we came up with the best strategy to manipulate the scoring system? That would be a strange accomplishment. I think I would advise my students to just play the game as best we can, keeping in mind the seeding system in that offense is more productive than defense, and you shouldn't blank the other alliance, and leave it at that.

Maybe at the competitions, the top 8 alliance captains will be made up of those who are best at "working" the seeding system, and then their alliance partners will be the ones who are best at playing the game!

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

Here, again, I beg to differ.

2 alliances decide to work together to attain higher seeding. Both are capable of 10 scores without defense:

In a '0 to x' game scenario -- each will score 10 points for a total of 20 to 0. each will get 20 {winners score (20) + 2x coopertition score(0)} seeding points and 0 coopertition points.

In the 'tie game' scenario -- each will score 10 points for a 10 to 10 tie. Each will get 30 {their own score (10) + 2x coopertition score (20)} seeding points and 10 coopertition points for the tiebreaker.

I see this happening early in the regionals as teams jocky for seeding points ann I see it breaking down as teams get closer to the elimination rounds and need to 'remove' potential opponents from the elimination rounds (at least as team captains).

Again, because of the changing structure of seeding, teams strategy will shift forcing each team to re-evaluate each strategy (and thus the Nash Equilibrium) before each match.

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

Please, please, please work out your math. No matter what, there is no configuration in which with the same total score that a win will give you more seeding points than a tie unless the losing team had penalties. Regardless of whether you win or lose, you automatically get points based on your own score after penalties, and then twice the opponent's score prior to penalties. Say for an example that n points are scored in a match (after penalties). In a tie, each team has score n/2 after any penalties. Then each team gets n/2+2n/2 in seeding points. If a team shuts out the other, it will simply get n-p. If the match has a winner (winning margin of even number x), you get (n/2)+x/2+2((n/2))-x/2+o) for the winning team, yielding 3n/2+o-x/2. Unless the losing team has penalties, given a certain total score you will always get more seeding points by tying. As a note, this function is actually applicable to many scenarios (including a shutout) Oh by the way, the losing team does benefit from the tie since it actually gets a coopertition bonus instead of not getting one.


Your entire argument falls apart given that both scenarios imply cooperation (in the context of this thread). If both alliances are aiming for a tie, there will still be an increased total score. My point is that given a certain total score that no matter what, both teams receive maximum points in a tie situation (barring more than 2 points in penalties as shown above).

If you even read the entire topic, you would see that I am arguing that if you are organizing with the other alliance to maximize your seeding points, that a tie requires far fewer points to be scored than a shutout. In a tie, you receive 50% more seeding points than if you were score all of them in one goal. In addition, 2/3 of these seeding points are in the coopertition bonus, which is the first tiebreaker (and the last before random as well).

I'm not even sure what you're even saying in your first paragraph because it is unclear. However, I am able to tell that you completely misinterpreted my entire statement. My statement is that in pure theory, if the alliances worked to score a tie (in which case scoring output would still be doubled) you will always receive 50% more than a shutout. I included a proof above to show why this is the case. As for why I put down 8-8, it is because it was an arbitrary value. I could have easily said that a score could be 12-12 or even 10000-10000 because it does not change the fundamental relationship