Re: Week 1
 

We actually thought of that as a strategy so we wouldn't blow teams out. Unfortunately here in Kettering some of the top teams don't realize that. Looking at the scores you see that many of them are all 0 - x. If not that then ridiculously high scores, and an opponent with one or two points.

Another thing is for us teams here in Michigan we get more points for matches we win. I myself am finding this really hard to decide between state ranking points or our rank within the regional; or at least finding a balance between the two.

Re: Week 1
 

I thought some of you would find these numbers interesting.*

<EDIT>Info deleted. See below for correct numbers.</edit>

Re: Week 1
 

KC's only had 69 matches so far.

Re: Week 1
 

Since we're throwing out interesting numbers, I haven't had time to do this for all regionals, but here are the average seeding points per team per match and average team numbers for a few regionals:

BAE
Average Team#: 1099
Average SeedPts per Match: 6.60

FLR
Average Team#: 1332
Average SeedPts per Match: 6.46

KC
Average Team#: 1739
Average SeedPts per Match: 6.19

WAS
Average Team#: 1908
Average SeedPts per Match: 4.06

I know this is an incomplete set of week 1 regionals, but I'm heading to bed, and wish I had the time to crunch them all =).

Re: Week 1
 

I'll do the rest of them and add them to this post when I'm done

SDC
Average Team#: 1656
Average SeedPts per Match: 5.30

GA
Average Team#: 2029
Average SeedPts per Match: 4.23

Bayou
Average Team#: 2096
Average SeedPts per Match: 4.76

OR
Average Team#: 2129
Average SeedPts per Match: 5.65

GG
Average Team#: 1215
Average SeedPts per Match: 6.85

GT
Average Team#: 1783
Average SeedPts per Match: 5.24

Re: Week 1
 

I would say this year's qualification seeding is consistent with the much of FIRST's history (at least since I joined in 2000). Last year's Win-Loss-Tie seeding is a relatively new concept (introduced in 2004 making its run for 5 years, RIP). Before that (if you think back) we had a system of Qualification Points that were determined by an annually changing formulas of the winners and losers score. I guess it is true that "you don't know what you got till it's gone". The only thing I believe to be a new concept is that the loser gets the winner's unpenalized score (correct me if I'm wrong). This allows for a losing alliance to get more seeding points than the winning alliance if the has more than twice as many penalties as the loser has unpenalized points. I'm sure this has happened several times already with all the blowout wins and penalties. This concept still baffles me ;)

I dont know about "closest to 2001". The years immediately following 2001 and before 2004 it were pretty close.

2002: Zone Zeal. Winner got none of their score and 3X the loser's score in QP which lead to interesting strategies like this . Highest QP was #1 seed. Everyone remembers Beatty's BEAST (Team 71) that year as one of the most dominate bots ever. Few remember that this domination caused them to seed near the bottom before being picked 1st overall on route to a National Championship. Since the nature of the game was to battle over a finite number of points (the 3 goals) that is significantly different than 2001

2003 Stack Attack. Winner got their score plus 2X losers score in QP. This lead to some collusion and debates about its role in the game. Even in the Elims wins didn't really matter all that much. Each round, two matches (no more no less) were played between opposing alliances and whoever compiles more Elimination Point (scored exactly like QP expect renamed EP) advances. Often the winner of Match 1 would purposely score very low in Match 2 to assure victory. I think this makes it the closest game to 4v0 and 2001. (Note: I don't like to make that comparison because 2003 is infamous and I personally loved my first full year in 2001. At least 2001 was advertised as 4v0 point scoring competition instead of sometimes being a defacto 4v0 like 2003)

Even before 2001 in 2000, Team 25's National Championship bot was able to descore and score balls between alliances to ensure a close victory and tons of QP in the Quals. With the W-L-T seeding, some teams still scored on themselves to improve their ranking. FIRST Rules always encourage high-scoring, close matches and lead to strategies to accomplish that (and perhaps debate about those strategies). The new qualification seeding is not unprecedented, but it is perhaps a step backward.

Re: Week 1
 

Thanks, my mistake. I should have taken a closer look at the raw data.

Summary of scores as of Friday night week 1:

Autodesk Oregon Regional, Avg:2.27 Max:9.00 In 62 matches.
BAE Granite State Regional, Avg:2.55 Max:9.00 In 55 matches.
Bayou Regional, Avg:1.93 Max:9.00 In 43 matches.
Finger Lakes Regional, Avg:2.55 Max:11.00 In 51 matches.
Greater Kansas City Regional, Avg:2.33 Max:11.00 In 69 matches.
Kettering University District Competition, Avg:2.79 Max:12.00 In 41 matches.
New Jersey Regional, Avg:0.00 Max:0.00 In 0 matches.
Peachtree Regional, Avg:1.64 Max:8.00 In 57 matches.
San Diego Regional, Avg:2.03 Max:8.00 In 57 matches.
Traverse City District Competition, Avg:2.04 Max:7.00 In 46 matches.
Washington DC Regional, Avg:1.47 Max:7.00 In 59 matches.

Re: Week 1
 

I can't wait to the off season events start up so I can see how this game is played without he dopey ranking system dragging people down and let people cut loose with their robots all day long instead of just in the eliminations.

Re: Week 1
 

It's easy to criticize when you dont have to come up with a system of your own.

If you believe there is a better system the put it forth ... otherwise it's useless chatter and noise.

**note** don't point to last years system which allowed a bot that was broken and never reached the field to be an alliance captain because of favorable allience matchups. ;)

Re: Week 1
 

Perhaps I missed it, but I'm surprised that there isn't a general good/bad sportsmanship rule. If it were my decision, I would yellow card any team that chose to use a strategy to "game the system."

In the first place, participation in FIRST is not about winning. But I won't try to argue/defend that point.

Because regardless of if you want to believe that, the spirit of the rules for the game and tournament is to score points. If the rules system doesn't reward the best teams and alliances of teams for scoring, then the system should be fixed. However, the answer IMHO is not to become a NASCAR pit boss and find every trick in and out of the book to win.

The answer is to keep scoring points and let the community judge the true winner of the event, and the true winners of participating.

George

Re: Week 1
 

Good stats! Thanks for calculating all of this. In that data, do you have the penalty info as well? I think it would be interesting to see the average number of penalties in each match, too!

Re: Week 1
 

It doesn't surprise me that DC is so low. Most of the teams in DC were severely impacted by the multiple snow storms during the build season. I would expect similar numbers at Chesapeake, Philly, and maybe even in NJ. Many teams in the Mid-Atlantic shipped incomplete and non-functional robots.

Thanks for doing all these stats, it will be interesting to see if the averages go up today - and if averages start to go up in week 2.

Steve

Re: Week 1
 

Oh Yeah! FIRST wants an audience friendly game, and this one is pretty easy to figure out for the lay person, but its like watching paint dry....

We need more action!

Re: Week 1
 

As an inspector at Bayou I will sum up to problem with the ranking system. It is Saturday morning and we have 1 robot left that hasn't passed inpection. They are not even close and they only have 2 more qualification rounds left to play this morning. I seriously doubt they will ever get their robot on the field.

Oddly enough the same team is currently ranked 2nd at the end of Friday. Something is seriously wrong when a team can show up at a ROBOTICS competion and never field a ROBOT but be ranked 2nd. Now think about the implications when that team is in the top 8 and gets to pick...

Re: Week 1
 

OMG...:ahh: