Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

This actually means that the losing alliance can get higher seeding points than the winning alliance. As a simplified case, consider that the winning alliance scores 10 points and is penalized 8, but the losing alliance scores zero. The winning alliance gets two points, but the losing alliance gets 10!

This actually makes it unprofitable to play defense if you are winning. In fact, if you are winning by a lot, it makes it profitable to SCORE ON YOURSELF to drive up the losing alliance's score!

I don't like this change. It penalizes defensive bots, when defense is an integral part of the game itself.

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

Quite a bit of interesting reading here guys. However, in and among all your talk of collusion, scoring for the other alliance, etc, etc, you need to consider what each of those behaviors will mean when it comes time to choose alliance partners. It is assumed that your team would prefer to be one of the top eight, right? Is there anything about the seeding situation that changes that? Now, if you don't make it to the elite 8, what about your behavior during the elimination rounds with respect to seeding maximization will make you stand out as a desirable partner for the elimination rounds?

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

I think we will see two outcomes from this:
1. Teams who don't do any scouting, and end up in the top 8, will select alliance partners based on final seeding number (as often happens).
2. Teams who have an effective scouting team, will recognize what you can do, regardless of seeding points. I plan on scouting shots on goal vs number of goals, regardless of which goal it is. If we are an alliance captain, we will look for teams that have that kind of firepower.

... Now, here is the problem though, and I think the comment reflects this ... the strategy during the elimination rounds is different than the qualification rounds. In the quals, seeding points are the focus. In the elims, wins vs loses are the focus. So, things like defense, ability to score when being defended, etc... will be hard to judge if everyone is just scoring. Quals will be primarily offensive games, the elims will be defensive games.

Steve

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

Any team that tries to collude for ties won't meet success this year.

First, the kind of teams that game Ranking Points by intentionally going "Hey, let's make a match 10-10, then BOTH STOP" aren't the most honest teams around. I'm unfortunately willing to bet at least one team will set something like that up, then backstab the alliance they colluded with.

Secondly, both alliances need to keep track of every penalty and counteract them. These penalties then need to not be overturned after the match. Both the number of penalties and the chance for review make forcing ties unreliable.

These two together makes me think predetermined matches won't be a feasible strategy this year.

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

Yes, you have a point about "making friends". But that's not the point of the discussion.

FIRST wants to promote coopertition. I get that. I even support it. But this scoring system is not well thought out, and will actually DETRACT from coopertition. Consider a few cases:

1) The score is a blowout; let's say the score is 30 to 8, with 45 seconds to go. I'm on the alliance which is going to win. What is my best strategy? To turn around and score goals in the other team's goal (what is called in soccer an "own goal". Why? Because goals scored for me give me one point for seedings; goals scored for the other team give me two points in coopertition bonus.

2) Same scenario, but I'm on the losing alliance. What is my best strategy? Again, to turn around and score goals for the other team. Because goals scored for me are worth nothing to me and my teammates, whereas goals scored for the other alliance give us one point.

3) I'm on a losing alliance, and I have balls coming into the corral with about 30 seconds to go. What is my best strategy? I HOLD THE BALLS and take intentional penalties. I'm going to lose anyway, and this improves my proportional score vs. the opposite team.

4) Whether I'm on the winning or losing alliance, do I go after the bonus points? Absolutely not. No matter which alliance I am on, those points benefit my opponents more than they do me.

Yes, they are trying to promote coopertition. And yes, that is a composite containing "cooperation". But it's also a composite containing "competition". This scoring system is just not well thought out.

And no, I don't think that pursuing these strategies would hurt us unduly in the selection process. Everyone knows what the point structure is. Everyone also knows that seeding points no longer matter in the elimination rounds, so the strategy changes then.

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

This scoring system is an embodiment of the Coopertition patent granted to FIRST last year. That patent has been in the works for years. I think it's been adequately thought out.

All your points make good sense, except where you say the strategy changes between qualification and elimination rounds. That assumes that the strategy in qualification rounds is merely to get more seeding points than your opponents. I believe that the primary strategy is to get more seeding points than all the other teams, and the way to do that is to win matches (preferably close ones). The secondary strategy is to make yourself likely to be chosen as an alliance partner by high-seeding teams, and the way to do that is also to win matches.

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

I disagree that this system promotes coopertition. Yes, that is the GOAL -- but it encourages the teams to look for what their own long-term best interest is. Whether they pursue that or not, for the rules to ENCOURAGE it is just wrong.

Nor is it right or true to the spirit of coopertition for the two alliances (all six teams) to pursue something that is beneficial to all six. That would be cooperation. Coopertition includes competition, and a fair and honest competition is part of what we should be encouraging. These rules detract from that.

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

If I am about to play a match vs. an alliance I know I have little or no chance of beating in head to head competition, I see no reason to try and score for yourself. I have every reason to have the two weakest robots on my alliance blocking my goals, with the 3rd bot scoring for the opponents. The opponent now has no choice but to boost their score as much as possible, giving more points to us, the "losers" of the match, as well. "Collusion" isn't the issue, it's the fact that not colluding can still result in a boring, onesided match, where the weaker alliance can strong-arm the stronger one into scoring for them. In another game (09 for instance) this seeding system might have worked. But not for a game where an alliance can easily lock up their score at 0 or close to it. Please change if you can, I still can't believe FIRST actually thought this was a good idea. Great game GDC, just go back to 09's competition section of the manual please.

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

Breakaway Rules Section 9.3.5:
So earning penalties would not affect the winning alliance's seeding score for the game.

If you are losing, then scoring a goal for the other alliance gives all six teams on both alliances 1 more seeding point, which improves their seeding scores over the teams that are not in that match. So, this strategy of hoarding balls in your alliance station is not necessarily a good idea. (Unless you think that there is no chance for a goal to be scored for the other alliance.)

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

First off, where did I say STOP? I said shoot for a tie.

Next, Even if a tie doesn't happen, high scoreing close matches will yield the highest number of seeding points ... and thus help each team accordingly.

If you read the last line of my post, the Nash Equilibrium will force a team that is 'on the bubble' to change it's strategy and want to win for the bonus coopertition seeding points.

Seems to me like the closer we get to the elimination rounds, the less we'll see any collusion ... Hmmm, didn't I say that before :P

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

ugh. FIRST wasn't kidding when they said that this year our brains will hurt. I'm So confused at the moment. So W/L/T's aren't going to matter at all? Could a Powerful team end up lower than a weaker team because they have more points?

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

Correct
This has happened in the past and will happen again.

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

Depends on your definition of a powerful team. Do you have another scale for power other than the seeding ranking scale as defined in this year's rules?

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

@Refresh:
Yes. Here is an example of what you might be talking about:

Team A wins all 10 of their matches with a score of 5-0.
Team A has 50 seeding points.

Team B's robot breaks down in the first match and they lose 0-51. They go back to the pits in an attempt to fix their robot, and don't show up in any of their remaining 9 matches.
Team B has 51 seeding points.

So Team B is seeded higher than Team A.

Obviously this is an extreme example, but it is possible.

Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
 

I don't understand. Who do you think is getting the seeding points? Only the winning alliance gets the coopertition bonus. How about one alliance gets 12 and the other gets 11. Losing alliance gets 12 seeding points, winning alliance gets 34. No matter what the losing alliance does, if they lose, then it doesn't matter how much they lose by, except for a tie. In fact, they have an incentive to score, if they know they are going to lose, as little as possible in order to minimize the effects of increasing the opposing alliance's coopertition bonus.

No, read 9.3.4 and 9.3.5 again, noting the bolded phrases. Losing alliance does not get points based on the losing alliance's score:
The scenario you mention only occurs in the case of a tie. How many ties were there in a random regional? I found one in that regional I linked; ties are infrequent and shouldn't be expected.

No, it doesn't. See above. Coopertition bonus is only awarded to the winning alliance.

Again, please read the rules. The losing alliance does not get the Coopertition bonus.

You also failed to address my point that in a shutout, the number of potential maximum points is increased, possibly doubling or more.