Are we reading this accurately?
 

As we were reading the manual we came upon something in section 9.3.4 and section 9.3.5 about the scoring. the way we were interpreting it is this

Team A scored 50pts
10 pts worth of penalties
40 seeding pts
+20 coopertition pts
=60 seeding pts

Team B scores 10pts
0 penalties
50 seeding pts
0 coopertition pts
=50 seeding points


Are we reading the rules correctly?

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

Yup.

Seems to me that team A didn't think about what they were doing

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

Here's the odd part that I still don't get about the current system:

You said team A gained 40 seeding points.

But in the end, they get 60 seeding points, when they "added" the extra 20 coopertition points (BTW, it wasn't mention, but a good example of how they got 20 coopertition points is that they scored 20 points for tean B? Not to logical, with team B having only 10 points and no penalties, but...). But seeding points are seeding points. You can't have something have two values at the same time (college mathmatics prove that I think, but luckly I haven't got there yet :D ).

I believe it is 40 seeding points for team A, and 50 seeding points for team B. Let's say that the current points from the game are the final points for ranking.

As I understand, first the seeding points are counted. Team A has 40 seeding points, but team B has 50 seeding points. So team B is ranked higher than team A, although team A have won the last match.

If we were to say that team A and team B both have 50 points, and team A has thier 20 coopertition points, then their ranks are determined by the coopertition points. Team A has 20 coopertition points, and team B doesn't have any coopertition points at all, therefore team A being ranked higher than team B.

I think people are getting to confused about it (or probablly I just can't accept with the system being this way this year, because this topic is being discussed WAY too much IMO :rolleyes: )


Please DO make me stand corrected. :)

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

The Coopertition Bonus is awarded in the form of a bonus to your seeding points.
Consider yourself corrected.

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

Take a deep breath, Bomber. Sit if you have to. Team A gets 60 seeding points from two sources: Its winning score of 40 plus its coopertition bonus of 20 (based on team B's score of 10)
Team B: gets 50 seeding points based on team A's un-penalized score of 50, but no coopertition points for the match loser.

I'm not going to dive into the rest of your post, but see if you can calculate the seeding result of A scoring 50-30=20 points versus team B's "pure" 10 un penalized points. That is the truly interesting aspect of this year's seeding process.

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

Ok, I went one more time through Chatper 9 of the manual.

At first, it didn't register in my brain, but at some point it hit me - There are MATCH SEEDING POINTS from matches and there are SEEDING SCORES made up of total Match Seeding Points + Bonus Coopertition points.

Now I'm actually glad that I finally understand how this work,

But the thing is... NOW IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL!!!!!:confused:

Why would the GDC create such a confusing system?! :mad:
Coopertition points taking priority over seeding points (when there's a tie in the seeding score)....

One more question - Are coopertition bonuses acummilated through all of the matches, or in the end, only the highest coopertition bonus acheived in a single match is counted for the seeding score?

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

As I understand it:

Match 1: Win 6-4
6 seeding points + 8 coopertition bonus = 14 seeding points
total seeding points all matches = 14
highest coopertion bonus = 8

Match 2: Lose 4-10, after 1 penalty for you and 2 penalties for opponents
12 seeding points + 0 coopertition bonus = 12 seeding points
total seeding points for all matches = 14 + 12 = 26
highest coopertition bonus = 8

Match 3: Win 10-9, after 1 penalty for opponents
10 seeding points + 20 coopertition bonus = 30 seeding points
total seeding points for all matches = 14 + 12 + 30 = 56
highest coopertition bonus = 20

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

First, the seeding system is confusing because it's new and you haven't seen it before. Anything you see that's new will be confusing because you try at first to relate it to the things you have already seen. This works enough times for you to be more confused when it fails. In the case of the FRC and GDC and several other acronymities, they may actually have been trying to cause the confusion in an attempt to make you think about what to do this year.

FRC and GDC have a daunting task each year to try to keep things interesting, challenging, approachable, intimidating, etc etc to a wide range of participants. Those who will "play" this game range from rookies to varying degrees of experience with past games. How shall the team structure be preserved without making it virtually impossible for a startup team to participate? Have you ever thought about what it would take for a startup enterprise to compete with a well-established one? Even giant firms have trouble introducing new products that appear to compete with their own product lines.
Innovation is one answer for the startups. FIRST is trying to foster that thought and give those of us who would try it a place in which to get experience in the application of our thinking. Continually changing the game in some respect is one way in which the playing field can be levelled, even if this year it has bumps on it.

My take on the seeding system is that experienced teams that might have dominated in last year's scoring system will need to re-think how merciful they are toward the newer teams' efforts. Co-opertition? A cute term for it? Maybe it is, but the fact remains that all teams will have to make more effort in their alliances and their scouting to put them in the best positions for the elimination rounds. In short, we all will have to pay more attention to the other teams' performance and results or risk missing an advantage obvious only in hindsight.

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

You are correct in your analysis - but there is more to this story.

1. The team's ranking would be based on the total seeding points for all matches - 56 points

2. If two teams have the same number of total seeding points - in this case 56 points - then the tie-breaker between the two teams is based on the highest coopertition bonus - 20 points would beat a lower highest coopertition bonus, allowing the team to be higher in the rankings.

3. The total of all the coopertition points - 8 + 0 + 20 = 28 would be used to determine the winner of the Coopertition Award.

Steve

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

There are a couple of ways to look at this.
At first I didn't see it but perhaps now it is becoming more clear.

We have to make a couple of assumptions...(I am not agreeing with them but they have to be made for the new seeding system to make sense..)

Assumption One: Teams that score more points should be seeded higher.
Assumption Two: Teams that score more points against losing teams that score more points should be seeded higher....

OK
In any match a team gets the game score they scored
The losing team gets the same...(plus any penalty points that the winning team scored...)

AND the winning team gets twice the score of the losing team (without penalties)

SO... Teams that can score more points against teams that score well too will be seeded the highest....

This is simply a refinement of past year's seeding systems.

The problem in the past is that the first qualifier for seeding (WIN-LOSS)
Didn't take into account the quality of the teams on the field)
Again please refer to the assumptions above....

A team could win by 1-0 and you get the same "seeding points"
It was only in the second qualifier that the quality of the opposing teams came in to play.

This year.... that is not true. You will be seeded by the points you score... and if you win you get your opponents score doubled...

In a great match... both teams scoring at will and going right to the end...you will see the highest seeding scores...

In a defensive match you will see low seeding scores... so a premium is placed on offense this year...

caveat... the gloves come off in the elimination rounds...but by then we have the best teams on the floor (see assumptions above...)

So you see that it is NOT about letting your opponent score... or being gracious or anything like that.... it is simply about making the game more exciting to an "American" audience ..

it is rather ironic though... that the game and the game pieces emulate
"soccer" which prizes the ebb and flow of the game and strategy over high scoring.

I have played the beautiful game my whole life... I shudder to think what soccer would be like with even 2 balls on the field... let alone 2 goals for each team...

We should be prepared to score.... and score again....

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

Then what would be the point of scoring? At worst it would be a tie in seeding points and the opponents wouldn't get cooperititon points to help them:confused: .

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

The problem is that do you really think that your whole alliance won't score? Or, if your opponent notices that you aren't scoring, he will try to score at least one point on you. That completely screws the system up. But with only one opposing robot allowed in your side of the field, that could work If your alliance doesn't try to score also.

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

That made TOTAL sense!!!!! :D :D :D

Thank you soo much, Bob! Deffinatly a good correction of the ranking system. BZ to the GDC! :D

There are tricks onto this system, as I see now, but I don't think they are really worth it. Not if you have a good robot. I haven't went too far into thinknig about it, but as I see it, only teams with bad robots could use a good strategy to gain score by "forcing"their opponents to score less in some way.

I think the best way to get ranked first place is to just play really good and to coopertate with the opposing alliance.

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

Does anyone else feel this whole seeding points/coopertition bonus thing would have been a whole lot easier to understand if they hadn't tried to give a special name for the bonus? A simple "Winner gets their own score plus 2X the loser's score" and "Loser gets the Winner's score" would have caused far less confusion. (Yes, I know penalties complicate it some, but you get the idea) Coming up with special names for things always leads to trouble - remember all the "Where do I buy REGOLITH?" threads last year?

Re: Are we reading this accurately?
 

That assumes the GDC wanted to make it easy to understand! How often do we have to really study the language of something, look at how some obscure word is used, etc... to translate or understand a technical note, set of directions, and so on. This is good training to work at understanding what they are talking about rather than having it laid out in simple terms, since this is reality out in the "real" world for many people every day!

Think of this as a logic puzzle that makes you think! :)

Steve