Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

This is a competition the last time I read the name FRC (FIRST Robotics Competition) not a hand holding , let's be nice event. The fact is that again FIRST has gotten it wrong unless their attempt was to make inept teams as captains in the alliance selection. The fact that you can lose a match and be in as good or better position as those that won is not competition at all. They also said that they wanted a observer friendly system but how do you explain that your team won but the other team with a worse record is advancing into the elimination round as a captain? Wins, losses, ties and ranking points worked.

Maybe we should be called FRHHE or FIRST Robotics Hand Holding Event.

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

Haha! Well said!

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

This is the way I see it:

You get more points if you win against a higher scoring opponent (which some would consider to be a 'better' opponent), because you get more of a coopertition bonus. The coopertition bonus separates those with the same seeding score because it would rank you in some fashion for the difficulty of your opponents. You get penalized more for penalties than your opponents if you win because they want penalties to matter for more than just the one match (or they don't want a team that's way ahead to create a few penalties to stop the other team from hanging and taking the win, because they may get 2 points in penalties but stop a 3 or 5 point play).

I also think this will change things from having 'power' alliances which pop up some times, when the top seed picks the second seed, who were the only two undefeated teams the entire competition. Sure they may not win the regional but odds are in their favor. This way undefeated teams may not be in the top 8 (if they were just a great defensive bot?), and if chosen they can't say no and wait to be chosen by somebody else.

Just my two cents.

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

Don't you think that the teams that play well should be rewarded?

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

I do and I think they will still be ranked high, but there's the chance they aren't the number 1 or 2 seed. I don't know if this is the best way of going about it but I think that is they're aim and reason for changing it.

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

If you read my comment back on the first page... I really believe that teams that play well WILL be rewarded...

It is just that teams that play well against other teams that play well and win are rewarded more than teams that play well against other teams that don't play well...

Sooooo... if you want to be rewarded.... and seed high... you win but through coopertition... (no comment) you score points for the other team that they can't score themselves... you are rewarded with a bonus.

If two alliances are playing hard and just go head to head....then you have balanced scoring and the seeding system works as it should.

What can happen in this situation is that you have a GREAT alliance that scores for itself and also for its opponent....

From a spectator viewpoint this is bogus.....

You could also have a team deliberately blocking their opponent from scoring for them.... if they know they (losing alliance) have lost what is the point in scoring for themselves.... why not let the other team get all of the goals because you (the losing alliance) are only going to get that score for seeding anyway...

I can honestly see a match where a team is blocking both of its own goals and attempting to score goals for the other team in order to gain seeding points...

The game will look ridiculous to a spectator that is only watching that particular game...

One rule that should have been made is that an alliance should not have been allowed to intentionally score goals for the opposing alliance.
an alliance could "help" score goals by putting the balls into the other team's home zone... but the scoring would have to be done by the home team.

Imagine this...... One alliance does not show up...(highly unlikely... of course) The other alliance begins to score on both goals.... just making sure that they score one more ball into their own...

Explain that to a spectator....

I wonder from year to year just why we have to have these complex rules...

From my experience ... many rules are made in anticipation of actions that were never contemplated by the teams playing or the individuals involved.

Spectators are going to see domination in the elimination rounds...
why not prepare everyone for those rounds by playing the same game in the qualifying rounds...

This will be two different games....more so this year than any other we have ever had...

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

Agree with Bob once more. :)

Definatly hard for the spectator to understand that specific match, and adding that rule will deffinatly make it a more understandble and make that specific event seem like a gesture of "OK, you're having trouble. The best I can do is pass the balls to you. Do your best to score what we give to you." and it's still the losing alliance's challenge to keep scoring.

About the losing alliance getting points scored from the winning alliance, I think a good counter strategy would be to keep scoring for the winning alliance (increase seeding points that are taken from the winning alliance's final score). That'll increase your losing alliance's score if you know you will lose (which IMO you shouldn't think so at any match and to surrender soo soon, because the final score is judged only in the end of the match, and anything could happen till the end and those coopertition points are well worth it). But, of course, if eventually the winning team does win, and you've scored for them, you've increased thier score quite alot, and they would've gained a very big bonus to their seeding points from all the points they added to your losing alliance.

I understand now, but it really still remains confusing for those who see the game for their first time.

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

Actually, if all three teams on one alliance doesn't show up, by Section 9.3.6, all three teams would receive red cards, and the winning alliance (presumably the one that did show up) would only receive their own score as their seeding points for that match, regardless of how many points they scored into the other goal.

Besides, with no one there to return the balls, they could only score at most 12 points for the other alliance, and every goal they score would leave one less ball on the field.

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

Assume the three alliances only send their human players.

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

Each individual match has the potential of awarding seeding points in a way that doesn't quite represent team "goodness" the way you might see it. But I think the end result after many matches seems much more likely to rank teams in an appropriate order than a strict win/loss tally would. Losing a match to a very powerful alliance shouldn't always be worse than winning a match against a very weak alliance.

The coopertition bonus this year isn't a directive to let your opponents win. It's a way to account for the various strengths of different teams' opponents. Are there ways to game the system? Sure there are. Will they make a real difference in the outcome of matches? I don't believe they will.