Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Please note that I do not like the system either. I am just bringing the point up that it may not have been the GDC that made the final call.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Did any offseason not change G14? A much less disliked rule than this one...

You know, I have to say I bet 2001 would have been much, much better than this year. I mean, at least then you didn't play two different games with the same robot. If I had to do it over again I'd build a dual configuration robot.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

... and I find it amusing that those who couldn't figure out how to use the system in their strategy then bash on it.

[*start rant]
It was amazing how many teams I needed to talk to to teach the seeding system. Many had no clue how it worked and did not even read those sections ... and many were veteran teams.

Strategy involves how to advance your team within the rules. So if you don't understand the rules, then shame on you. Quit bashing on it and start using it as it was designed to be used.

... and before people start stating "Un-GP", understand that the rules are written in a specific way for a specific reason. Just because it doesn't fit your idea of what it should be doesn't make it "un-GP".

If you cannot figure out a way to adapt your strategy to use the seeding system as designed, then cry me a river, it's not the seeding systems fault. It's your own inability to adapt.

And this comes from a team that plays solid defense
[*end rant]

The above, as usual, is JM(NS)HO.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Having played in a week 1 regional, I know we ended up explaining the ranking system to a number of our alliance partners on Thursday and Friday.

We ended up getting crushed (7-0 after penalties) in one qualification match and it helped our ranking at that time, a lot. Seems to me that if you are winning you want to win the close game but if you are losing you hope for a blowout.

There were also ball incursion penalties all over the place as well at DC which greatly influenced scores.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I believe most people are evaluating the seeding process through a paradigm that there should be a winner and loser for every match. You are missing the brilliance of the GDC. The Qualification matches represent a time for all teams to play against the "Game", not each other. I'm not an economist, but Woodie Flowers and the GDC are smart enough to know that real life situations are actually quite complicated. In business, cooperation can lead to a win-win situation. Breakaway Seeding matches should be evaluated in terms of “Game Theory”. Remember the movie “A Beautiful Mind” about the Economist John Nash. Economic theory is every bit a science as chemistry or physics. Be willing to challenge you own bias and paradigms (mostly influenced by culture and sports).

Although scoring against our selves goes against our culture and ingrained sense of fairness, we must consider the “Game”. We are competing against the rules of the “Game”. Not each other.
For this reason, Team Overdrive 2753 is open to the prospect of scoring against ourselves -- since the “Game” is our opponent. In essence, win /losses in qualifications, means nothing. And that is OK. Once the elimination matches start; however, we will always play to win.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I preferred the previous seeding system. We will work with the current system. Neither system is perfectly efficient at ranking all the teams. Both allow a few teams to be "carried" into alliance captain slots. Beyond that though, that's what scouting is for. We are inclined to just play our best and not try to game the system. I would encourage others to do the same. If everybody did that, it would be a better reflection of the relative performance of the teams.

Perhaps the system will be tweaked for next year. Who knows. I don't expect any changes for the remainder of the 2010 season.

(PS: I am out of the country on business and couldn't take my computer. Thank God for computers in the hotel lobby!)

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

For some reason I want to say "Fungibility of Game Rules" rules !

Of course we are playing against (or with) the game rules. But to what end ?

It seems that teams are going to adapt their behavior to give them the best competitive advantage, they are going to game the game rules.

Game theoretic becomes fungible.

We still have a team on team competition. We just can't explain it to the general public. And then we wonder why we get funny looks !

IMHO, I think the coopertition should be up to the starting bell and the match play a traditional competition.

That is a super easy story to sell to the public. GP, good sportsmanship, all the rest. Anything else is just too difficult.

And I'm perfectly happy helping teams beat us up on the field in the simplified model of GP and coopertition.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I see where you are coming from. One of the problems that I have is that Chapter 7 of the manual clearly states:

I then tried to find a direct statement in Chapter 9 that says the objective in qualifications matches is to maximize the alliance's seeding points. I couldn't find one (maybe someone else can?). I think we all infer that the goal of qualification matches is to maximize our seeding points but that leads us to strategies that directly oppose the main objective of the game which is clearly spelled out in the manual.

As an aside I found that the dictionary definition of "qualification" (at least the one that I used) stated that qualification does not necessarily imply competence. I evidently had lost that caveat somewhere along the way.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I understand. I quoted you to include the links. Since it is patented, I unfortunately expect this to continue.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

If the point of the game is not to win, then the GDC should have changed the scoring during the match to show the respective seed scores that the alliances would receive. Announcing a wins and loses in front of the curtain and seed scores behind the curtain doesn't make sense.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

There are plenty of us who understand these rules perfectly well. We get what needs to be done to succeed in this system. But we refuse to sacrifice the reason we started competiting in FIRST to begin with simply to rank higher, and we're angry that we're being asked to.
There are plenty of engineering competitions where you don't compete head-to-head against other competitors. You simply try and obtain the highest score, fastest time, or lightest weight contraption. FRC has been different because it adapted the sports model, direct, head-to-head competition. It took a model that's engaging and fun to watch and adapted it.
There are many of us who aren't willing to give that up. We're not going to sacrifice the reasons we picked FIRST over other competitions to begin with, or to reduce the quality of the product delivered to the crowd. We're not going to throw matches to seed higher, and we're pissed that the new ranking system is asking us to do so.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

On a side note, I find it very amusing that in a time where there always seems to be threads throughout CD about how "it's not about the robots" and "winning or losing" by a LOT of people, yet the seeding system now which doesn't have winners/losers is getting sooo much heat...

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I plead guilty to what you are talking about. Here is my perspective.

We spend 362 days a year promoting FIRST and STEM education. And 90% of our time at a competition trying to support and help people out.

It would be really nice to allow the kids that 10% of the time on those 3 days at an an event (I didn't say competition) to let it rip.

It isn't an 'A' OR 'B' decision. It is a 'A' AND 'B' decision that incorporates and exceeds anything that happens in sports.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

This is an excellent point. Showing a "final score" on the scoreboard and announcing a "winner" for the crowd, but having the real score and the real winner be something else on the other side of the curtain is at best confusing and at worst disingenuous. Can you imagine watching a sporting event where the score on the scoreboard is not really the actual score, which is something calculated behind the scenes but never shown? The goal this year was for the game to be enjoyable and easy to understand for spectators. If FIRST really believes in the cooperition seeding score system, then let that be the score that is shown on the field and not hidden behind the scenes. Let the crowd see for themselves that the winning team lost and the losing team won.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I find it interesting so many teams are saying that the only way to prosper from this system is to let others score or to score on yourself. Use some of that innovation you all had throughout the year and try to come up with a strategy that works within the limits while not giving away all defense, offense, or a complete match. Sure it will still be different from eliminations, but there are ways to play a real, competitive match while still maximizing your seeding points. Also, I'd say wait a week or two, see how other regionals deal with the issue, and continue the discussion from there. Many things may change about strategy by then which doesn't involve throwing a match.

Also, as far as using this system but changing it for next year -- what do you think the effects would have been if the losing alliance gets 1/2 the winning alliance seeding score? Still uses coopertition I suppose, but seems more geared towards winning each match.