Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I personally don't think the idea was to reward someone who doesn't produce very much, but instead rank teams in a way which takes into account how difficult their opponents are, which the previous ranking system didn't do.
Is this the right way to do that? Probably not, but I think that's what GDC's (or whoever made the final seeding decision's) goal was.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

So the scoring system is a nationalized institution owned by the government paid for by taxes on all citizens for the general public good (not unlike the police, firefighters, public libraries, public education, mass transit, Interstate highways and the military)? :confused:

I don't like the new scoring system, but socialism it is not.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Okie Dokie,

Lets try to stick to the merits of the debate and focus on the issues.

Perjorative labels isn't going to get us anywhere.

With all due respect !

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

If you do this, do you believe that any alliance would believe you from that time forward?

I know that my scouting has a column for trust. Basically we ask a few questions that we already know the answer to, but to which many would not want to announce to a scout team. We also watch the matches for 'cooperation' and 'quick strat changes'.

I know that if we saw that happen, we'd not pick you. I could even see teams that decline your invite to an alliance because they don't trust you.

I'm one that says learn the system and use it, yet I would not use your 'tactic'. There are far better ways of using the system as it's designed. If this is the only strategy you can see within the rulesset, then (I believe) you have missed the point of how the seeding system was designed.

You will ultimately be known for what you do, not what you say. Consider this when you make these decisions.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I agree with your perspective on the probable intent of the seeding system.

If everybody played the game to maximize their own score, then this seeding system would meet that intent very well, I think.

The issue is not the seeding system. If F.I.R.S.T. needs to take any feeback from this it is that the change should have been highlighted at Kickoff and discussed. It is a big change and you know, most engineers don't appreciate being surprized by a big change.:ahh:

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Thanks, last time I pointed this out (in 2009) my inbox was full of hate mail within a few days!

So to address some of my criticism on this forum, yes, I did think that last year's game also had elements of socialism in it.

To address other comments:

@Rizner - Once again, great intentions, but terrible implementation.

@artdutra04 - I understand that this doesn't look exactly like socialism, but the philosophy/reason behind the rules has its roots in socialism.

My suggestion is that FRC teams should draft an open letter to FIRST outlining our concerns.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Is there a link to a site that explains the ranking system? If so, I'd very much like to know how it works so I may form an opinion.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I think if you do this, you will want to include a solution. One that does in fact take into account the difficulty of opponents because I believe that is an important thing FIRST is trying to do.

My suggestion would be to have winning alliances seeding score be what they scored + what their opponents scored, while the losing alliances seeding score be what they scored + what their opponents scored / 2.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I am not a fan of the new seeding system. I somewhat understand the fact that FIRST is trying to incorporate coopertition into the field, and I respect that they are trying, but I feel that helping out teams in the pits in order to produce a fair game on the field was perfectly fine. I do not see this seeding system lasting very long within the future years of FIRST.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Try the game manual. Section 9.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

You still have it backwards. Both socialism and this ranking system (allegedly, I may add) have some fundamental philosophies that may have similar origins. The philosophies that govern this system did not originate with socialism, nor did any of the philosophies of socialism itself. The concepts behind it predate the system of government. Please stop trying to tack on terms that already get applied far too incorrectly as it is in order to bolster you point via shock value.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

So I gave myself some time to sit on this before even opening Chief Delphi...

We knew the seeding system well coming into competition. Im not certain all of our kids were convinced of it, but I ran all the numbers early in the season (like many teams did) and caught the whole "it doesnt pay to play defense" thing. I also noted how the bizzare 6vs0 could play out.

That said, I will admit we started the day with a less than optimal robot, but wanted to win...
First Match: Played to win, but it was the second match of the day, results 2:1, ehh...
Second Match: Played to win, but got completely annihilated, 9:0 after penalties!! This match vaulted us into somewhere around third place!! Half the team was dumbfounded, how could we lose, but go up in ranks!! They finally caught on...

Next two matches, played to win, won one, lost one... ugh heavy defense!

We looked at our next match and by all of our scouting data, there was no way for us to win. So we decided to give the "help your opponent" strategy a try. We intended to block our goals with 2 robots, and use our middle bot to feed the opponents. Unfortunately, they didnt catch on fast enough, and played enough defense to knock over one of the robots that was trying to feed balls to the middle, and the middle robot couldnt help get many balls over, but interestingly enough, it still sort of worked! Final score was 5:0, winners got 2 penalties, so we LOST and got 5 rank points, the other alliance WON and got 3 rank points... we vaulted back up in the rankings... Needless to say everyone watching was confused, they thought we were "stuck in the goal".

Next match, we played to win, opposing alliance had a lot of issues, and we won 9:0, would rather they have scored, but it was still good for our rank points (better than any of the 2:2 matches).

We looked at our second to last match and said, well we are the much stronger scoring alliance by A LOT, and the other team had two bots that were playing Defense nearly all qualifiers. We got together with 229 and convinced all the teams to implement the 6v0 concept, with us feeding the opposing alliance. At the start of the match, our robot scored 3 balls for them... our parents and spectators were dumbfounded. They thought our drivers were confused. We then scooted to the middle and proceeded to feed them balls the whole time. Result was 11v0, a reasonably successful 6v0 score, and a much higher score than if we had let them play defense on us.

Our last match (despite what Jeff said), we actually intended to win. We had a strategy that we thought could beat the 217/1551/3044 alliance... but then our two partners died right at the start of the match (control issues - one accidentally hit the power on the classmate ugh). Our drivers quickly realized this and scooted themselves into our goal and just sat there, not intentionally playing 6v0, but realizing that we were up against a really tough alliance and there was no point in just boosting their rankings. They didnt walk away from the controls in protest, there was just nothing else they could do. And I will tell you it made for an even more dull match with 3 robots just sitting there. We made it to 3rd seed following that. It does seem very weird that a team that "gave up" because two alliance partners were dead gets rewarded for basically just not hindering our opponents.

We finished in 5th seed, not bad for a 5-5-0 record. I will be honest, it felt really weird, but we were playing to the rules.

Honestly, if all of the teams took on the same attitude and played to how FIRST was hoping this played out (which I think the intent was just to eliminate defense), then we would have much more epic offensive battles on the field. But with the near/mid/far zone starts, I think so many teams see the "far zone" as their defensive soccer player, there to mess up the other teams from scoring. While true in eliminations, it just hurts the entire field for qualifiers. I think if FIRST just made some "no defensive contact" rule it would have had a much better effect. Instead you end up with strategies where sometimes its better to "throw the match" if you think you are going to be defended.

However, I think if you look at FLR, the good teams that played to win the matches ended up at the top for the most part. 1551 definitely played every single match to win, and I think 217 and 145 did as well. It really just mattered if their opponents decided to play defense or not. I will be honest, we played to seed high, and I think there will be a lot more of that coming up. But if teams start to recognize how all of this works and stop playing defense (maybe until the last 30 seconds), we will see a lot more high scoring matches and a lot more high rank scores & coopertition points. But until teams lay off the defense, 6v0 and the "sit in your own goal" strategy are going to be played by teams aiming to select their own alliances. Its confusing as all heck for spectators, and its really hard to switch gears to strategize for finals, but its the rules we have. You figure it out.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I think that this system does, in fact, add to the strategy in this game.While this does( in a few cases) encourage a 6v0 match, for the alliance that has been predetermined to 'win' the match, It makes more sense for them to break the agreement, and start scoring for the opposing alliance. While this (will) confuse the audiance, it helps boost the winner's seeding score. I see this system in a similar light to the WLT system, in that in both systems, you're trying to maximize your ranking/seeding score. The difference is in how you do that. With the WLT system, you maximize your seeding score by beating the opposing alliance. In the current system: you do it through co-operating between alliances and breaking those agreements. It's similar to a Oliopoly/Cartel in economics. It pays to collude, but once you're in the collusion agreement, it pays to break the agreement. It is harder to win in this system, because if the opposing alliance is good, then they can cause the breaking of the collusion agreement to backfire, and benefit themselves even more. The plus side to this, is that you are rewarded more heavily for taking the risk. On top of that, there is the strategy of just wanting to win all of your matches. In that strategy, it pays to play defense, but you aren't rewarded as well. It makes this game even more about strategy, rather than having a good robot.


My 2 Cents...

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

maybe this is a new coke vs. classic coke situation. the GDC implemented this system so people would hate it so much they would beg to go back to the old system. Then once the old system is reimplemented people would stop complaining about it and all in the world would be good. Food for thought

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Nope, I liked the old system, it wasn't perfect but it was intuitive and didn't require me to do what-if analysis to figure out if I want to try to win a match!

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

This is doing real damage to FRC. I feel my respect for FIRST and enthusiasm for the activity diminished, and I sense the same in others. I have always strived to have my students embrace every lesson that FIRST teaches, but not this lesson. That winners are really losers, that it is just as good to be lucky or sneaky as it is to be excellent, that the system will hand you reward even if you don't earn it. Trying to force more equal outcome for everyone does not work in FRC any more than it does in real life, and it discourages excellence just like it does in real life. I cannot explain to my students why their ingenious robot is very good at winning the game, but not at winning the tournament, because I do not understand it myself. Whatever abstract goals were envisioned with this system, they are lost in the real application of it. If implementing the ideas in the "coopertition" patent was needed just to legitimatize the patent, then I wish it could have been experimented with somewhere else. FRC was thriving and was not broken, but was "fixed" anyway.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I understand GP and all of that , but This has turned FIRST into one of those fake soccer little leagues (the ones where they don't try to win) or little league tee ball It makes me question why I didn't sleep for six weeks.

PS- this comment only applies to a small number of soccer organizations, I didn't mean to offend anyone who has played,or is involved in, little league soccer.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Color me an idiot. I read the rules, viewed our regional this past weekend, and still am not confident that I understand the seeding concept.

Our first year, we finished next to last in the standings. Last year, we were even worse.:eek: I would have been happy this year with being a third of the field from the bottom, and thinking we made good progress. We built a much better bot that never had a failure. At one point, we were 29th of 60, downright outstanding! In the end, we were 3W-5L-2T. I figured, yup, we could make 40th or so and feel good. Nope, ended up 53rd. It is so counter-intuitive to win a match and lose rank. And, what's with being penalized for playing defense? The game is patterned after soccer, where the most valuable player might just be an outstanding goalkeeper. I have a hard time encouraging our students to do their best, while wondering if they will go backward if they do so. Frankly, with the cost and the huge investment of time to build the 'bot, I'm starting to wonder if it's worth it for 20 minutes of playing time. Sorry to sound so down, but my expectations of reaching mediocrity this year were blown way out of the water.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I've been involved with FIRST for 6 years now, and in those 6 seasons I've seen a lot of changes. I remember the pre-bumper days, plastic tetras, the IFI feud, and the static blasted CRIO's of last season.

However, I've never seen something comparable to what I have seen this season.

I've never seen a season where teams have actively considered going onto the field and doing their worst, because scoring 0 wouldn't allow the other alliance to travel as far in the rankings.

I've never seen a season where a legitimate strategy for gaining position in the rankings, was to score for the other team.

I've never seen a season where nearly every match was decided by how many penalties were accumulated by the competing alliances. (although 2008 was arguably this way as well)

I've never seen a season where nearly every team brought to the event, a functionally identical machine.

Call me old fashioned, crude, or whatever you like. I am not a fan of this game, these rules, the ranking system, and the overall direction FIRST seems to be heading.

Just my .2

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I remember those days...but unfortunetely things change and we just gotta change with them. There's always going to be things we like/dislike about each years game, but we just have to play the game and adjust. It's still very fun though :)

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Has anyone analyzed the rankings and seen where teams would place if it were run on a W-L-T/Ranking Point system like last year?

(sorry if it's been done earlier in the thread, it's late)

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

This is what I don't think teams are seeing... if you score in a situation where you can't win, not only are you "helping your opponent in the rankings" but you are also potentially starving them of balls that they could be using the boost YOUR rank score. In the matches where we played 3v0 or 6v0 it wasnt to HURT the other alliance, it was to HELP ours. We let them have all 12 balls so that they could maximize the field score, rather than playing defense or fighting over balls.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I really don't like this system and things i am reading. Rookie teams pay attention-If some team asks you to just sit there and block the goal,don't. They may tell you that you will be helping yourself gain points but all you are doing is helping them. That team already thinks that you are not good enough to win and will never be on their pick list. You busted your butt for six weeks,now go kick that ball in the $@#$@#$@#$@# goal.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

NO. I agree with matt. In the 7 years iv participated as both student and mentor, i do not like the current direction of FIRST.

in 2006 i really thought the games were going in the right direction. 2008 had me SHOCKED and this year has me down right concerned. I think how FIRST handles next years game is going to be pivotal.

Im all down for GP and coopatition, but if FIRST keeps pulling the competitive side out, we might as well show up, get our awards and leave. I believe GP shown in a non competitive environment is called being a good person. We should teach how to show GP in a HIGHLY COMPETITIVE environment. Now thats something to be proud of...

My thoughts after week 1.
- robots all look the same...
- I think the bumper color change idea is horrible...
- scoring system is confusing and crazy...
- The laptop things? i wanna kick it...:mad: :p
- These penalties and rules are silly too
rant done :D

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Sure wish the GDC and Dean would read this and comment.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I'm gonna take a shot at this and propose what I think may be a better system. Borrowed nearly directly from the swiss rounds of a Magic: the Gathering tournament:
Rank is based on match points. you get 3 points for winning, 1 point for tying, and 0 points for losing.
The first tiebreaker is your opponent's match points. this summed amongst all opponents in alliances against you (counting teams once for each time they faced against you).
The second tiebreaker is your allies' match points (low being better than high. once again, counting teams once for each time you allied with them).
Third tiebreakers would be whatever endgame score is appropriate for the game, and fourth is random.

By tie-breaking off of record instead of points teams no longer have any reason to score for others, but still rewards teams for fighting against harder opponents.

I believe the scoring system is not the place to discourage defense, however I would consider a tiebreaker based on a highest average points scored, but throwing out the top and bottom scores as outliers.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

[rant]
So, maybe in 1776 the colonists should have just adjusted? It was so very fun being a colonist.

Yes a bit extreme but honestly if we ever get complacent and stop caring about the things we feel are wrong I would hope FIRST would just close its doors and shut down. If you feel passionate about something you should ALWAYS try to improve everything you touch.
[\rant]

On one hand I agree with you, before seeing our ranking drop when we won I was of the persuasion to go out there and score balls until my robot can move no more. Now I am questioning that. I am not a competitive person normally but I do take extreme pride in my work. When I have a robot that, by going out there and doing its best is essentially penalized for it I begin to think that doing my best isn't what FIRST wants from me. In short, I am hurt and appalled at what FIRST is seemingly forcing me to do. In 7 years I have gone out to WIN every match. I have lost matches 128-0 I have won matches by the same margin. I have been on teams who can barely field a drive team and teams that can't find enough for students to do. I've seen a ton, but NEVER have I seen something as utterly disrespectful as a team not playing their best against another team.

Do you hear me FIRST? You are encouraging me to disrespect my peers, my friends! Nay, you are essentially FORCING me to. I should never have to choose between doing my best and ranking high, the second should follow the first.

Yes, I will be writing a quick program to help me figure out what the best way to play a match will be. I will never ask a team to not do their best, even if the program tells me that would be the best option. I will ONLY suggest it as an option if it benefits EVERY single team on the field.

I apologize to the teams I offend by not playing my best against you. I will play FIRST's game this year because I owe it to my students to make sure they go as far as the robot they built can take them. I will not like it and I will be hoping that they change back to a system that rewards respecting your opponent in the future.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I invite you to check out 2003 when team openly brokered deals so thier stacks would survivie the whole match (they took a long time to create and were easily knocked down in seconds) so both teams could seed better. The for it/against it is very similair to this year and the debate was very passionate.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Oh, and if you guys want to see more on the subject back then just type in a search on the term collusion to see the fireworks.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Noting the pattern of changes the GDC has made midseason in previous years, the only suggestion I've heard anywhere that has a remote chance of making it into this year's rulebook is the one about the losing alliance using their own score rather than the winner's score. I think the only substantiable fact that remains regarding the system is that it will not otherwise change this season.

Thus, once we've said our piece on here the only thing left to do is to simply get over it.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Has anyone considered that FIRST is trying to put a real life lesson into this years game? Maybe the prisoner's dilemma that they created is there to simulate the real world, where everything is not only not fair, but possibly counterintuitive?

Example: A promotion in the workplace is often not decided by who works the hardest, who does the best work, who is the best leader, or who has the best ideas, but instead SENIORITY often trumps all these qualities which would make more sense as to why they should be leading. Lets say you figured out that your Firm does promotions based on seniority, so do you not work as hard? Or do you continue to do your best work?

So knowing this did anyone not work as hard to build the best robot they were capable of? So a few robots got a free pass into the ELIMS.
But in case you haven't figured out, the FIRST system is biased towards offensive robots, as is this new ranking system. (Although this new system is even more biased.) The top tier offensive robots are going to end up selecting on Saturday (or at least until they get picked). So in order to keep you options open you have to build a scoring robot, that will have the option of declining to select your own alliance. FIRST is rewarding scoring, because scoring is harder than defending, so thus FIRST is rewarding the people that have built the more capable robots (Theoretically)? (Tell me if the logic is wrong). Sure a few slip through the cracks, but I personally believe that FIRST is trying to reward the teams that complete the most difficult tasks well.


So lets pretend you could't/weren't able to/don't have the resources to build one of the most capable robots. So how would you go about making sure you got selected in the eliminations? By showcasing your robot. By showing your tremendous defensive abilities. By showing how easily you can hang at any opportunity you can. The way that this post is sounding, is that everyone believes that the GDC put a random ranking variable into the equation or that only teams that cheat, lie, and swindle ranking points can get the chance to select there alliance. And if so, isn't the Qualifications essentially like a tryout to see who can impress the randomly selected teams enough to get selected? Kind of like a tryout for a sports team you may not have to have your best day but if you can do something to make you memorable you have that much better of a chance to get selected.


And i personally believe if any team is confident enough in themselves that they will score for the opponent to boost their score (In a match in which they hold the win already), kudos 217 and others, this system is designed to make sure you guys, the offensive juggernauts will be deciding alliances.


My personal view is that when it comes to scoring collusion that all going for one goal is less effective because of the number of robots crawling in one zone just inhibits itself, whereas there is just so much more you could gain by playing minimal defense and concentrating on maximizing your scoring.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I did for Kettering, however it is only based on points from a win or a tie (because I don't remember how they differentiated after that). Any time a score was the same, teams were ranking in order they were on the spread sheet, unless a team had more wins. The first column on the left is the current ranking and raw data. The column on the left has teams ranked in order based W-L-T points.

It's pretty interesting.

Attachment 8861

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I would even suggest the following seeding scoring algorithm

The winner of the match gets the winner's penalized score, and the losers unpenalized score times 2 (same as today)

The loser gets the loser's penalized score, plus half the winner's unpenalized score.

Ties are handled as today.

The reason I am still involving the winner's score in the loser's seeding points is to equalize biased schedules. 1318 2009 on Galileo had an extremely favorable schedule. We managed to eke out being undefeated, but had a much lower OPR than 111 (undefeated) or 67 (undefeated until the very end). I feel this proposed system would have ranked us lower, but would have reflected OPR/DPR more closely as a measure of robot performance.

This system still rewards the winner for winning by the smallest margin possible, and the incentive of seeding points will get both teams to be scoring, and usually for different sides. If they are scoring on the same side, it won't be for long.

No changes are made for the penalties, since teams should strive not to have them (I know they happen anyway, but First people are smart and can learn to avoid them.)

Let's look at a hypothetical match where the current score is R8-B6. If the game ended now, R would earn 20, and B would earn 10. If the match hasn't ended yet, what does each alliance want to do? Blue earns 1 seeding point for every 'normal' goal, but only 1/2 a point for an opposing goal. Therefore, Blue scores 'normally'. Red has the incentive to score an opposing goal, since it is worth 2 points, but the game is close, so it may not be worth the risk. That is up to the leading alliance to decide, and would make for some quick changes to match strategy. On the defensive side, the trailing alliance wants to defend against the leading alliances goals, to improve their chances of catching up, and the leading alliance again gets to decide if it is worth the risk to leaving the opponents goal undefended, and risk an upset at the end.


Another case discussed here often is the tie case. Let's say 5-5 (10 seeding points if it ended right now). For both alliances, a 'normal' goal would count as 6 seeding points (6-5 gives 16 and 8 seeding points), while an opposing goal would LOSE 2 points. So in this tie situation, both teams want to score, and also defend the opposing goal 'properly'.

The last case often discussed is the x-0 score. Let's say R0-B5. Again, Blue want's seeding points, so scores for Red. Red also wants seeding points, and scores for Red. The match score quickly becomes the first situation above, and we have an exciting competition.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

How about the FIRST Robotics Cognitive Dissonance Competition - FRCDC ?

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Let me see if I've got this.

Loosing a close high-scoring match is rewarded more than winning a close low-scoring match.

Loosing a lopsided match is rewarded close to the same as winning a lopsided match.

The loser of a low scoring match that was made close by the winner committing many penalties is rewarded more than the winner.

The winner of a close, penalty-free match is rewarded almost three times as much as the loser.

I like this system; makes me want to play my best with the best to score as much as possible while going for the win.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

After reading a lot of this thread, one word keeps coming up, “collusion” could someone either post a definition or a link to where I could find what this means?

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Here you go.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Not to side track the thread, but why?

I think this change was absolutely brilliant, from both a spectators and coaches point of view. It beats the hell out of every other method FIRST has used (flags, LEDs, trailers, and even the awesome rotating lights). It has never been more quick or intuitive to see what robots are on what alliance and what their team numbers are. Kudos to FIRST for the bumper color rules.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I do agree that it is very efficient at determining alliance colors, but with certain teams color schemes it causes an eyesore effect when your blue or red bumpers are a little skewed on the color wheel in contrast with the team graphics on the robot's guarding.

Back to the main topic. One thing I have noticed about the people who don't have a problem with this system keep coming up with different ways to say 'get over it and play the game'. My main problem with this idea is that you may learn to play the game in qualifications by manipulation of the scoring rules to your ranking advantage, but this system still hides the beneficial attributes necessary to play in the new scoring system that comes with the elimination rounds.

There has to be a better way of weighting your wins to make a more accurate seeding list. What if you take the same system as before, where you get two points for a win, one for a tie and zero for a loss and multiply this number by your strength of schedule. Just like the NFL your strength of schedule will be determined by your opponents W-L record, averaged out of course over each three team alliance you face in each match.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

The average spectator doesn't care about the "blue alliance" or the "red alliance" rather they care about individual robots such as the one their son/daughter built (from the perspective of a parent) or perhaps the robot they built themselves (from the perspective of a student). Already design constraints of this year's game resulted in most robots looking very similar (short boxes). With homogeneous bumpers, it makes it even harder to tell the robots apart. Just having a different number marked on the bumper is not a good way to distinguish your robot. For one, they are unreadable on web casts. Also, from back in the stands, I bet many people may have trouble reading them.

This year, you can't just look for tiedye bumpers and say, hey, that's Wildstang.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Here's a seed point calculator for anyone interested:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=934119

enjoy.

~

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I guess I don't have a problem with the system because I felt like it worked at Kettering. No one made it into the top that made me think "Wow, how did they get there?" and I don't think I ever saw a 6v0 match(I might be wrong, which someone can correct me if I am). Everyone just played to win, and it worked out well.

The problem with it is primarily that it can be exploited to make for some weird situations, and every once in awhile a normally played match also ends up weird. It's not the best way to do seeding, not by a long shot, but I don't think it is a terrible system. On the plus side, it takes into account the power of your opponents, on the negative side in certain extreme situations it falls apart.


Something like that would work better. Another idea I've had and have seen others suggest was the winner receiving the total score for the game and the loser receiving their own score plus .25x the winner's score, or something to that effect.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

All of Michigan has incentive to win matches with the MI State Ranking system, so that largely "fixes" the system over there.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I think more people may have liked the seeding system if most of the penalties were eliminated. It hurts to win matches by a large margin, when your opponents score is 0 and you have penalties.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Most teams don't follow threads like this on CD. After this past weekends regional, many teams don't even read all the rules (even the coaches). This past Saturday (yes, Day 2), I found myself explaining to a 10 year veteran team how the ranking system works this year. ARRGGHHH!!

So while all of you will know how to adapt to this year's ranking system, most teams won't - which really hurts all of us.

When we started our 6th match in DC, the other alliance wanted us to do a 6v0 match, which we considered and then they said something to make us change our mind. While I knew the concept of collusion would happen during season, I honestly didn't think it be on the first day of Week 1. Sad.

GDC: The public won't understand the scoring system let alone this game, if teams are scoring on themselves or simply not playing. It's just ridiculus. Plain and simple. I spent a good portion of the day last Friday explaining the ranking and penalties to spectators, parents, and other teams. Why do you do this to us? If you want more folks to participate in FRC, YOU MUST KEEP IT SIMPLE and straightforward. I hate to use this as an example, but BattleBots was entertaining and popular because it's so simple.. go destroy the other robot! (Disclaimer: I'm not a fan of Battlebots) Keep the game and scoring system simple next year!! Let the robots be complex, unique, and well engineered!! I think this system may have worked out better if it didn't have the bumps, or get rid of the 3" incursion penalty, something to increase the odds of scoring and/or decrease the penalties.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

QFT. The President of FIRST was at FLR and I'm still waiting for an official comment. Sadly, I don't think we will be getting one.

:(

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

No, I do not like the seeding system. Nor do I think the public does. When I asked what he thought of FIRST, one of the kids on our guest program told me that he liked the idea but the competition was no fun (he specifically referenced the seeding system). Same thing from my parents who were at the event and saw the rankings.

FIRST is a competition, and we can't leave that out when we talk about all of FIRST's many elements. Of course we have gracious proffesionalism and coopertition that seperate from many competitive events. But you can keep all that and still make it competitive out on the field, which this seeding system doesn't.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I wouldn't expect much of a comment or change at this point, but perhaps at least an acknowledgement in Atlanta. I imagine many teams will work the new system to our advantage for the rest of this season. I know our team is already making a "Top Ten" list for teams that haven't competed yet when we go to our next competition. Here's a start...

1. Don't play defense in qualification matches.
2. Don't let a ball get under your robot.
3. Don't mess around the bump if there is a ball there.
4. In qualification matches, moving two robots into your offensive zone is a good thing.
5-10. ???

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I still think it's rather easy, even from the stands (though I haven't watched a webcast) to identify which robot is which. And I've never met a spectator who didn't understand the concept of the 3v3 match, and why they should cheer for their robots' partners as well. Especially for those not concerned with an individual team (such as VIPs, visiting area school field trips, and event sponsors), it makes it even better.

I remember plenty of years when I'd be trying to explain what is happening to people in the stands (or scouting a match) and even having myself getting confused as to who is on which alliance.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

5. HP must remain focused on returning balls - Don't watch the game!
6. During the Finale, stay away from the opposing alliance's tower and hanging bots
7. If you are going to hang, only extend during the finale (too tricky for many to stay in contact with tower prior to finale - although some can)
8. Don't play defense
9. Don't play defense
10. Don't play defense :)

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I'm going to agree with Sean here. I'll show someone a 2008 video, they'll be completely confused who's on what team. 2009 was a step in the right direction, but the whole game confused them. 2010, my friend walks in during a webcast, "wow red team's kicking butt!"

Maybe 50% of the bumpers should be red / blue and the other half should have nothing close enough to those colors to confuse anyone. Or maybe some variant should be allowed (red camo v blue camo, red tye dye versus blue tye dye, etc). But as it stands now, we have a bulletproof identification system.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I think that you can credit (or blame) Travis Hoffman of Delphi Elite, Team 48 for the rule about red and blue bumpers. As I recall, he is the one who suggested the idea to F.I.R.S.T. on this forum the first year that bumpers where required.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

This might have been what the GDC was originally thinking, but the reality that there are so many loopholes and cracks in this system that it ends up doing more harm than ever intended.

Maybe teams won't take advantage of the system, and I know that in Michigan our district/championship structure fixes the problems with this for us. However, I still noticed that at TC there were many teams who hadn't won many matches doing very well in the rankings.

Since we already know how to take advantage of this system, I think the real question should be "what is the spirit of this rule?"

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Actually you can thank (or curse) team 1038 who hadtwo sets of bumpers color for whatever alliance they were with in a given match.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I am a little confused on how the scoring system works. In the rules it says that when there is a tie, you get your score with penalties added. However, everyone is saying that a tie is like how you win. For example, if it was 10-10 with no penalties, then everyone gets 10. But what other people are saying is that if its 10-10 with no penalties, then you get 30. Which rule is correct?

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

if it was 10-10 all 6 teams get 30 seeding points, assuming there were no penalties. Because, ties act as a win, so your points (10) plus 2 times ur opponents score (20).

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

First bold, 1X of your score.
Second bold, 2X of your score

Total, 1X + 2X = 3X

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Here is a link to a seed-point calculator:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=934119


~

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Apparently FIRST heard/saw our concerns! Team update #16!

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Actually, I like the colored bumpers. Heck of alot clearer and easier to see then the Flags and not as clumsy as the rotating lights. I think part of the issue of identifying individual teams is more due to low robots in order to go through the tunnel then anything else...

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

seed point calculator has been updated:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=934119

~

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Moderators, is there a way to close the poll? When people who voted before the team update are voting against those who placed their vote after team update #16, it's no longer reflective of the views of the community.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Is FIRST kidding? They changed it between regionals... they already messed up the first run of regionals, why fix the others? :confused:

Oh well. :rolleyes:

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, we cannot close the poll without also closing the thread.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Make 4/5ths of FIRST unhappy just so the 1/5th already unhappy can have company?

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Well if a programmer was running the show she would create a new thread on the same topic.

Post a final thread on the current topic with a link pointing to the new thread.

And then close the current thread.

Kinda like a jump or a goto or even like an 'exec' system call in linux.

We would then have 2 threads on the same topic. One pre 'now' and one post 'now'.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Fine by me. This thread has served its purpose and its useful life is over.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Hmmmmmm. A rules change in the middle of the stream. Well, that will be good for all teams except those who could only afford to attend a Week 1 regional. Makes me wonder how much better we would have done under the updated rules. :mad: Sorry, I'm not feeling a lot of GP at the moment...

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

One of the things that made me truely love FIRST is that it is (was) completely fair in the fact that everyone had to play under the same rules and specifications, regardless of whether people liked the system or not.

... Thats not true anymore.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Well.....as a rookie team coach, reading these negatories makes me a little nervous in the service. :eek: Our team worked on playing aggressively, keeping the opposition out the tunnels and from hanging, moving under the tunnels and more or less being a "sweeper", mostly defence with the ability to get "garbage goals" when available. Sounds like our thinking is sadly wrong if the system is that convoluted. Guess we'll find out next week. arrgh...thought we were though flying by the seat of our pants!:(

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

If you have a good robot and drive team, you don't need to be seeded to win. You just need to have smart scouts on the seeded teams.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

any one knows how to post a new post on chiefdelphi??

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

A new post ... you already did ;)

A new thread (which is what I assume you mean) ... click on the portal link on the orange navigation bar, then click on forums on the navagation bar (on the portal), then click on the forum you wish to add the new thread to, then click on the blue 'new thread' button at the top of that forum.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Quite true. But, I wouldn't hang my hopes of making finals on assuming a top-8 seed would do their homework well enough to be aware of ALL the other teams. IOW, if you finish quals in the top 24 seeds, I think you have a WAY bigger chance of being on one of the 8 final alliances, than if you were 37th out of 60, for example. I don't think there is enough time to be intimately familiar with the entire field, so the top 8 seeds are likely to first look at the other top 15-20 to form their alliance, and perhaps wouldn't even consider a team in the bottom half of the standings, even if they do have a god bot and driver.

(I'm coming from a point of view that surely won't apply to all teams. We have only 10 students, so we just don't have many bodies to scout very well. It's challenge enough to check the machine after each match, work on improvements or repairs, revise software, etc. to be ready for the next match.)

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Here's a link to a seed-point calculator, so you can play "what if" to find out what the seeding points would be. May give some useful insight:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...19&postcount=1


~

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

My gripe with the scoring system is how a team could score on themselves, score none for themselves, and with a score of 12-0 get just as many qualification points as the team that got the 12. I am happy about, however, that the winning team gets an immediate 5 points added to their score.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I have a gripe about the system too.

In one case, we watched a robot on an alliance "turn" on their alliance partners. They intentionally started feeding balls to the other team. They did this because they were very close to moving up in the standings and one good seedings score would get it for them.

Through the whole thing, I watched the two somewhat functional bots do the best the could for their team, while the one really good bot proceeded to literally hand the game to other guys, just to up their ranking.

It made me very upset and pretty much highlighted what is wrong with this whole system. There should never, EVER be a reason that you're helping the OTHER team win. Period. I don't care if you call it strategy, or smart play. It destroys the spirit of the game.

(Not to mention hurting the two semi-functional bots hopes to make it to the State Championship, which is based on win/loss).