Do you like the seeding system?
 

After hearing plenty of people bagging on the new seeding system, I wanted to know how much of the FIRST community is aginst it. Last year's double/triple score super cell rule took some heat but it was also supported by many people. This year, I have not heard a single person speak up in favor of this system. So, please vote in the poll, and help gauge how many of us support or oppose this system.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

No! BTW there is no poll attached.

Ahhh now it's there. Still no!

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Patience, patience. Even with copying and pasting I cannot add a poll instantaneously.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

You should have put a no in gigantic letters.
I would have taken that one.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

No. The ranking system allows teams who have never attended a match with a robot to be ranked in the top eight (Bayou Regional). It also rewards mediocre play and severely punishes the winning team if they have any penalties... since when did losing get you ranked higher than the winning team?

This completely counter intuitive ranking system is only going to hinder the growth of FIRST. No one wants to join a "competition" where you can do better losing then winning. It gives no insentive to go out and give it your all every match.

At least with the old system of Win-Loss-Tie, you deserved your rank. Now some teams would get lucky schedules and end up ranking higher but that is always going to happen so people need to quit whining.

Go back to the "old" Win-Loss-Tie system, its easier for spectators to understand and rewards those who came to play, not just sit motionless on the field.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I agree KoKo Ed. "NO"

I understand that FIRST is attempting to make it so everyone wins . . . but in reality not everyone can. You fight and win ranking. Not lose for it.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

So basically it's FIRST's version of No Child Left Behind. Because as my wife said if no one gets ahead no one gets left behind.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Where's the "It's too early to tell" button option? I don't think it's fair to judge it until after we see how it plays out in the 7 matches we usually get at nationals.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

It DOES do its job by discouraging defense in Quals once alliance partners understand what SS/CP mean. It also does its job in greatly rewarding teams who persevere with a difficult schedule.

It severely falls short in the 'competition' part of coopertition. Why not just put everyone on the same alliance and make them cooperate towards the same goal? With it, there's no point in trying to get spectators to watch because it'll just become another convoluted ranking system just like college football.

It severely falls short during week 1 when only one alliance performs well and one of the robots on that alliance gets an inadvertent penalty*. The alliance where the robots didn't or barely moved comes out on top in the seeding scores, which are much longer term.

*let's face it -- penalties this year are practically unavoidable -- coming down off a bump onto a ball even though there was no way to know a ball was there still gets someone a penalty for 3" incursion??? This is really my only rant about this year's game.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

The poll is set to close in 45 days, so you can vote even after Championships are over. You can vote anytime, so everyone can make up their own mind at their convenience.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I (for the most part) like the new seeding system, but teams aren't using it correctly. There are strategies not utilized aside from scoring for your opponents and I'm surprised not many teams have played with them and how many jump straight to the idea to score for opponents. It could be a great system if used correctly, but sadly it isn't.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I like the idea.

I like the idea that teams should focus on building robots that play the game well, rather than robots that prevent other teams from playing the game well. I like the idea that there is no honour in "blowing out" weak opponents. I like the idea that students have to work together to develop a strategy that is good for everyone. These are all good ideas.

But I don't think this scoring system is a good way to achieve them.

I'm sufficiently open-minded to give the system a try before reaching a final opinion on the system, but I think it has some serious weaknesses from a practical point of view. The goals of the qualifying rounds are now just too far removed from the goals of the elmination rounds.

Jason

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Could you imagine if pitchers threw lobs to the opposing team, or if hockey teams played with an empty net? That what this ranking systems does it think.

-Keaton

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

They are the complete opposite of one another.
It's insane.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

No, I don't like this years system. It seems to be rather confusing to me as far as picking out the attributes necessary to make up a winning alliance.

It works in theory in that it should put a spotlight on offensive oriented teams, or teams that are playing GP and 'how the game is supposed to be played'.

I know some people don't like defense because it hinders the abilities of other teams and doesn't let the robots shine. In the past few years FIRST has tried to find ways to kill off the 'defensive juggernaut' style of play through various means, but as the time comes around on Saturday afternoon and the top 8 are making their picks defense still comes into play as a picking factor and sometimes it is very beneficial to the alliance, defense wins championships (we won a regional this way). In this system however playing defense in qualifiers becomes a lose-lose situation. You may attempt to play defense in qualifiers but you hinder your chances of moving up to be picked on Saturday afternoon.

This system is a two headed beast. On one side you have the qualifiers where you need to excel almost completely on your individual strengths to prove to be worthy of being picked by upping your ranking points and then on the other you have the elimination rounds where it no longer matters what the score is as long as your alliance has a one point lead. This has been achieved for years by picking a well rounded alliance of teams that complement your skill set and complement the skills needed to 'play the game how the GDC meant it to be', this includes playing heavy defense.

After only watching one webcast I have made the observation that this system almost hides every other attribute besides how well you can shoot the ball. It is a really fuzzy system of determining the true power of one robot or another in more than just offense. From a spectators point of view from one weekend it was really hard to really pick a favorite or determine the slightest hint of dominance and who was going to be in the #1 seed. The only way to see these things is going to be heavy duty scouting and for a event that is looking to haul in more spectators then ever this is not a good thing.

-One more thing that I just realized this system veils compared to a W-L-T system. As you go out to the field for qualification you have a certain alliance strategy in mind, if you completely disregard your teammates you have a high chance of ending up with a big fat loss on your record indicating you may not be a very good cooperative alliance partner on Saturday afternoon. Being stubborn this year is hidden because of a lack of a definitive WLT record.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

No.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Not to put to fine a point on it but:


This system sucks more than our ball possession system.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

flat out terrible...

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

No, the scoring system is completely upside-down. Basically if you loose you win (or tie, depending if the enemy alliance got any penalties), if you win, you loose. The system seems to be there so "everyone wins", but in reality not everyone wins.

I think Koko Ed put it well
Also, wasn't the scoring system supposed to be easier to understand this year?

~David

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

The scoring was supposed to be, but they never said anything about the ranking system.

Seems like they switched the "complicated-ness" of the two, for some reason...

-Tanner

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

*sigh*

The system makes my job as a strategy guy very difficult, because as much as I want to tell my coach and drivers to score score score with the robot that we spent SO MUCH TIME trying to make into something which could SCORE A LOT (generally the point of a game), I cannot. I understood g-14 last year, to an extent. I think this system is this year's g-14, as it is counter-intuitive, but worse in the sense that it is also easily manipulated. I've seen teams with losing records in picking positions this year, is that alright? Is that acceptable? Should alliances be chosen by those whose robot is less effective? If you would like a perfect, specific example: team 1717 D'Penguineers have designed an amazing robot this year. It hangs quickly, effectively, and they can score a goal from any zone at a whim. They were 41st going into friday, and after 1 match, jumped to around 12th. Something about that doesn't seem right. They shouldn't have been that low, as they did amazing during the matches, but even so they were able to jump 29 places in one round...

Something seems off. I, personally, don't enjoy it. I like the idea of a ranking system as opposed to wins and losses, but it requires some major tweaking to meet it's original goals of rewarding tough competition.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

At first I did not like the seeding system at all, but I am now coming around! The system rewards a high scoring robot. At DC there were 9 qualification matches and the for the most part the best scoring robots were seeded highly. Yes you can force the seeding higher through agreeing to score all the balls in one goal and all get the winnig alliance score but the best way to get a high seeding is to play the game. Scoring a lot and winning against a tough alliance will get you far more seeding points. And yes it does discourage defense during qualification rounds.

I am really curious about one thing though! Are there teams that start the build season with a wholly defensive strategy in mind?

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Brilliantly stated.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

In addition, Michigan teams have their own state ranking to keep in mind where a win is two points and a tie is one. Then there are various points for being chosen for eliminations and awards. For the teams that didn't win an event or one of three awards, they need these points to qualify for the State Championship. IMO teams need high scoring, penalty-free matches that are only a point or two apart.* After watching Kettering, I didn't see too many of those. Hopefully we'll see more matches like this as competitions progress.

*I think this is where the coopertition comes in. If this were to happen, it should balance out the ranking system as well.

FiM update #3 Page 7 has the section on point values for Michigan ranking.

I like the general concept as it encourages close matches, but over all, I don't like the new system.

Yes. One of the rookie teams we mentor this year did. They were formed right before kickoff, and were still recruiting students during the first week of build! They went to their first competition with two students, the only two they have. Due to lack of time and students, they build a purely defensive robot.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

See my signature.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

When first rolled out I thought this was the year that we would have a good game to play. Boy was I wrong. Again too many penalties to decide matches and a very convoluted ranking system. Sorry but many more years of these types of games and not sure I'll play

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

After coming back from Peachtree, I can say the system has a lot of bugs in it.
Reviewing scouting sheets that my team compiled, at least one robot in the top 10 was dead for more than half the rounds it entered. Although the finals turned out to be extremely well played and exciting, I was disappointed to see some of, in my opinion, the best teams in the regional ranked 25 and below. At one point, my team with at least 3 wins was ranked behind a team that had no wins.
Why would there be a system that punished teams who could play the game well and rewarded others that could not?

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Yes. The more thought I put into it, the more I like it.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Rewarding incompetence! Just like the bank CEO's who got bonuses for not doing their job!:confused: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

It makes it easy to play the game backwards: park two robots in front of your own goals and have the last score points for the other team. Or else play 6 robots against zero (there's coopertition for you.)

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

After getting back from the Autodesk Oregon Regional I can say whole heartedly that this new system is a complete and utter failure. I can't tell you how many people I talked to that were in agreement that it makes no logical or practical sense what so ever. If FIRST hopes to increase Public viewership with the current system then they should hope that no one ask about how teams are seeded and keep them away from the ranking monitor. Most of the public who only visit the stands don't know what a team is ranked, only the results for each individual match.

For all you strategists: After having a conversation with a mentor from the #1 seed at Oregon I learned how to play the system.

• If you are loosing, score on yourself.
• If you are winning, score on yourself.
• Only score on your opponent if you are unsure who is going to win.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

No I do not. It is damaging to FIRST. You explain it to the public and they look at you like you are crazy.

FIRST wants to avoid the negative things that happen in sports. Everything in sports is not negative. We threw the "baby out with the bath water". The system is a little too PC.

It takes the 'C' out of FRC and makes it the FRPCC. Worse than restrictor plate racing in NASCAR.

We need to provide incentive for teams to help other teams get ready for the competition.

But when it is "time to compete" it is "time to compete"...... boogity boogity !

while I'm here:

it would have been nice to have a ball score = 3 points, a penalty = 1 point, and hanging around 6 points or autonomous score 6 points.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I gotta say no, but I like the idea. I understand what FIRST is trying to do, to make it so that teams who want to be succesful have to work with their opposing alliances, but it kinda screws things up. Teams that go undefeated can end up being ranked lower than a team that lost half of their matches by getting their opponents scores. So, the concept is good, the implementation is bad. For now, I'd say the win-loss system is better.

Another problem with it is the fans in attendance. A parent may see their child's team to exceptionally well, but be ranked 20th or lower, and have no idea why. Only someone who has actually studied the seeding formula can really get it, and even then it's a little confusing.

So FIRST, you hit the ball, made it all the way to third, but got out before getting home.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

At least we know exactly what every every off-season event will change.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

No, we didn't like it. We were on the winning side in about half our matches and still ended up far down in the rankings.

If they don't want to award "blowouts" they could find a better way of doing it, I'm sure.

Still, we're not going away mad. FIRST is wonderful. We had a good time and learned a lot. We'll be back next year with enthusiasm.

jw

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

We hope.
I'm fearful that there may be some who are so fiercely loyal to the home office vision that they will sacrifice their competition to prove that they were right.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

As of right now I'm going to say no. I'll wait until after the Championship to vote for real though.

I don't like the seeding system because it's encouraging some teams to lose. When a team comes to me and asks wholeheartedly "Will you throw this match with us? We'll make out better in seeding points" I feel like something is wrong. While winning isn't the most important thing out there, Doing your best is. If a team can sandbag and be rewarded with a higher seed there's something wrong.

Personally, My Driveteam and I didn't concern ourselves with seeding points in NJ. We had no desire to seed, nor were will running well enough to attempt it.

I'm still looking forward to events further out though. Once teams are aware of how the system works and that both alliances should concern themselves with scoring and not playing defense in qualifications (I see this happening in week 4/5 Events and The Championship) the system may grow on me.

IMO, G14 (2009) is back, it's just transformed.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Now imagine it carried over to the elimination round.
Finals on Einstein - a hard fought third game.
Blue scores 2
Red scores 0
Blue has 1 penalty.
IT'S A WIN FOR RED!!!!!

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I like the system. I know it's "Really Really Bad" to cross post, but I long-windedly voiced my opinion in another thread.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...0&postcount=45

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I dislike that, unless everyone on my team becomes a strategy-shark, very frequently they have NO idea what their teammates on the field are doing.

It's disappointing to win a match, but walk away unhappy because the number of points scored was low enough to actually hurt your ranking.

A significant number of teams at the Oregon regional did not understand the system and played inappropriately as a result.

I am not a fan.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Talk about a 'race to the bottom' for FIRST.

Here at the Bayou Regional a team that never fielded a working robot was in the top 8. Of course being picked by them for elimination made for an automatic FAIL.

Frak Coopertition™. What does the C mean in FRC anyway?

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

It is really wierd for rookies. They are expecting a competition, plain and simple.

The help they get from everyone in the pits is great and appreciated. But they expect a competition. Getting less than that has the potential to be a little insulting to a persons fair sense of play.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I (and most of the rest of my team) forgot about this new system, and were playing like every other scoring system...
we blew out the first 4 matches on friday at GSR, like, completely ahnialated them (like 5-0), and then went to go look at the rankings... we were in 14th...
what a surprise that was :|

I see what they are trying to do with this system, but it is not being achieved in the right way...

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Older movie called Wargames. Computer talking.
" Interesting game. Only logical move is not to play"
Something like that.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Yes, I like the seeding system.

I appreciate that the seeding system encourages scoring in the qualification rounds. I understand that the seeding system discourages the use of defense throughout an entire qualification round; however, strategic defense could still be valuable in a close match. I also like that the strategy can be much different in the elimination rounds.

I remember a regional where a team that had not shown (except for their human player) for their first several matches was ranked higher than us. That was on the previous W-L-T system and when we were still going two on two. So the arguments about how this particular system distorts the rankings rings hollow to me.

I am concerned about the amount of penalties and the potential for incurring incursion penalties while crossing bumps; however, that is a separate issue from the seeding system.

Based upon what I'm reading here and in other threads, this year's version of heavy defense is to block your own goals, score for your opponents and hope that they incur penalties. At least there may be less damage to the robots during qualification rounds.

Net, I don't think that the problem is with the seeding system. It seems to me that if each alliance did their best to score as much as possible for themselves that the best teams would be rewarded and end up as the highest ranked. If an alliance wants to take the risk and score to increase their coopertition bonus, good for them.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I hated this system. It seems like it is slighting good robots from being seeded where they actually deserve. Blowouts? Bring them on! If the other team didn't have the right strategy, or just had robots that didn't work well together, then if they get blown out, they should be seeded lower.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

No. If FIRST wanted a 6v0 game they should have invented a 6v0 game. There are serious reasons why the 2001, 2002, and 2003 seeding systems are no longer being used.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

1511 did this in their final qualifiaction match against 217 by walking away from their controllers and I highly commend them for it. Kodos for the Graciousness and the Professionalism to form a Union by means of a silent protest.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

My answer is NO!

It messes with my mind...

We win 3 matches in a row we drop 15 spots....... we lose 1 match and we jump up..... hmmmmm it is better to lose then to win in many cases.

Something is just not right here..... Cooperatition leads to a boring set of qualifying matches....... some teams are starting to see.... if you are loosing the match then score for the winner you are points ahead for your team overall.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I think as the season goes on, it will become all 6-team alliances. The only thing to discuss will be which side is going to "win" that time. I find it frustrating.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Scene set-dark alley-atlanta- friday
" You help us win and maybe we put you on pick list."

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

"Win" would have worked under the old system - strategic losses are now more important.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

So Mr. Drake and I have been fussing about this for a little while now. Let's look at this scoring system from a real life situation: We are at war and we are killing lots of their people...OH Wait!! We need to make this a "close game", so we kill some of our people. :rolleyes:

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I know what you mean, but it's not like that. If two very powerful alliances go full-out on each other, they don't get annihilated; they both get a lot of seeding points.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I think the system works almost perfectly if everyone just plays their hardest. It can severely fall apart if people exploit it for seeding points, however.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Regardless of whether you like it or hate it, or whether it was planned or unintended consequences, the mere fact that we are having this discussion and that there is so much turmoil within FRC is evidence enough that it was a bad idea. Having games or rules that many do not like is one thing, but when a new system causes teams to give up on playing the game, and a large contingent of the FRC community feels the "C" is gone form FRC, then we have a serious problem, and damage is being done to FRC.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I think that in a different game this seeding system would work. But in breakaway, with penalties playing a large part in the scoring, messes things up.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

My thoughts exactly. I'm forced to think that they did not at all intend for the game to be played that way. I also find it impossible that we could go from Lunacy (a game in which points were scored on and against our opponents) to a game where we are supposed to score for and with them. I assume that the GDC's intentions remain basically the same from year to year, and those two games just don't reconcile.

Also I have invented a new word: Collusitition.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

David, a lot of people have made comments similar to yours. The rules of a game are, in my opinion, a perfect representation of the goals of the game designers. Teams are HUGELY rewarded for being seeded highly -- why would you expect them to ignore seeding-improvement strategies? There is a classic management essay entitled "On the Folly of Rewarding A While Hoping for B." That's what the FRC GDC is doing here -- hoping for a good, tough competition while rewarding bizarre behavior that makes no sense to the audience. I feel sorry for the FRC students that have to explain this to "civilians" in the stands. Makes you yearn for 2006 when the game was simple to understand (robot basketball) and the winners were the ones who won the most matches.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Which is why I selected mixed feelings. The rules should be designed more appropriately, but it also reveals a nasty tendency that many people have to try to exploit any system they are in for their own good. That's not always a problem, but it certainly can be.

I know as a former driver that if my coach had ever asked me to throw a match for qualifying points, he would have been looking for a new driver and I would have been done with FIRST.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I second this.

[Michigan Specific Rant]
Compounding this if you win and go down you decrease your chance of picking (which is worth X points for qualifying for MSC) but increase your overall points by some amount smaller than X, Y. If you lose you raise your ranking increasing your chances of picking (X) but sacrificing the chance to gain Y for sure. Since when did a robotics competition come with opportunity cost?
[/Rant]

Coupling this with the massive amount of penalties being racked up just by playing the game and FIRST may as well have renamed the Qualification Matches "Demonstration Matches" and then picked 8 random Alliance Captains.*

I've read the rule book, I competed with 2 teams at a competition, and I STILL have barely a clue how this thing works. What chance does a random spectator have? This game could have been awesome but the sheer number of penalties and a wonky ranking algorithm is making it so that spectators have no idea what is going on.


*To anyone who was an Alliance Captain last weekend, you guys played the game as written and came out on top. Good job, you earned it. I am disagreeing with the rules of the game not your ability or skill.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I find it appropriate that most of the people agreeing with this system have yet to play in it.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Has anyone here factored in the Coopertition Bonus, or that other matches in between yours may have also affected your position?

In a game that is 5-2 with one penalty on the left, the left gets 8 and the right gets 5 seeding points.

The only trouble is with "blowout" matches.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I lol'd.

It's true, once you play with it, it sucks. This is coming from someone who benefited from the system, with my team seeding 6 at San Diego this weekend. That, in case you were wondering, was our highest seed at competition. Ever.

That doesn't change the fact that the seeding system sucks, rewarding the wrong things currently.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I commend you for that. I would have done the same. I decided against doing that not because it is un-GP but it is poor sportsmanship. As coach of the team, let it be known that Team 2834 the Bionic Barons will never agree to cooperate with other teams to throw a match. Please do not even ask. If our opposing alliance try to throw a match, we will score one point, get all the balls to our near zone and I will tell my driver to guard the balls so they can not score for us.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I put up a "simulation" of the seeding system for a 57 team 8 game match.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...t=83903&page=5

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I spent most of the morning Saturday behind the desk in Pit Admin at KC trying to explain the rankings to people. This was not an easy task. Doing the same job with the system used my first four years in FIRST was fairly easy. The 2*Wins+1*Ties+0*Losses system for qualifying points was straightforward, and the fact that ranking score was a tiebreaker based on the loser's score led into the "encouraging close, high-scoring matches" explanation. Both were fairly easy to determine from raw match score information. Under the current system, it's hard to even determine whether the numbers are correct or updated, since penalty information isn't visible on the match results list, and there have been a lot of penalties and a lot of 0-0 ties that resulted in non-zero seeding and coopetition points.

I'm not going to judge any team negatively for their legal strategic decisions under this system as long as they are honest about them, put a robot on the field that is as good as they can manage, and don't play "single out team X and try to make them go down by any means so I can go up". Everyone would like to be in the position to choose alliance partners on Saturday, and it's possible it's going to take some weird roads to get there. It's also possible that all the exotic strategies will be found to be a bad idea in most practical situations and will fade away as the season progresses.

I trust everyone's scouts to find a way to see quality and ability. Good robots will still be what wins championships.

If things continue under this system, the audience is going to be confused during quals, and we should try to help them as much as we can. It is my intention to make sure that all of our people in the stands at our next event are prepared to explain to other people's confused grandparents, bus drivers, and random spectators why someone thought it was sensible to start scoring own-goals mid-match, or why all six teams are scoring in one direction, preferably in as neutral a way as possible, even if we decide it isn't a strategy we are willing to participate in. The most graciously professional thing I can think of to do is assume positive intent any time I can and play the best game we can with the cards we were dealt.

Given the strategic implications and the level of confusion and distress it invokes in both informed and uninformed observers, this is not the ranking system I would have chosen, and I would prefer not to use it again. On the other hand, I am not privy to the design constraints the GDC members were using when they selected it, and I respect them enough to play it out and not make final judgments after one week. On the third hand, if they decide this isn't what they wanted and make a change, I will not complain.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I concur, heh. Combined with the inevitability of penalties, this new system hurts a lot more than people would believe, especially in the early weeks when the rules are still subject to interpretation by the referees. (Did anyone else notice the refs in DC calling G41 too much even though the parts were from malfunctioning subsystems and it obviously was not intentional?)

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Week 1 quals, penalties were the deciding factor in matches. Period.
Unfortunately, many teams simply did not understand the ranking system until it was too late.
One problem the current system has is the following: that fancy TBA image in our signatures lists W-L-T statistics. When we go back to our schools, our faculty/staff/students ask how we did. I'm struggling to explain the concept of, "well, we lost more than we won, but our seeding scores were great!" (which they weren't but you see my point).
Jury is still out in my mind, we'll see in later weeks how things flush out. In my eyes, the #1 and 2 seeds at DC (1727 and 3123) were certainly deserving, irrespective of how they were awarded.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

This is probably the worst seeding system I have ever seen. When you have the ability to have a match where everyone (and not by collusion across the field) can play a 6v0 game, there is something HORRIBLY BROKEN about it. I am pretty unimpressed with the GDC this year. Between the ridiculous penalties and the utterly broken seeding system, I'd say this was the worst set of rules I've seen in my 7 years doing FIRST. The game would be AWESOME if these rules didn't suck the bloody life out of the game.

After losing 3, tying 1, winning 3, and our bot scoring 2 whole points the entire day, we were seeded 19th at the end of Friday. We could drive. Our kicker didn't work. Our hanger didn't work. We got like 15 penalties.

After we fixed most of the problems, we won two more, lost one more and then seeded 30th overall.

Win, and you are penalized. Do NOTHING and you are rewarded handsomely.

Explain to me, please, someone, how the hell this is possible.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I find it Ironic that FIRST selected a game to be as inviting to the public as possible (Soccer just prior to the World Cup), and yet the results have been more frustrating or counterproductive then ever before...

People talk about Gracious Professionalism, and I know we all have different meanings for it, but I am seriously glad that my Dad was not there on Sat to see any 6v0 matches. He's been a fan of FIRST ever since I started and is an even greater fan of Soccer. I invited him to come out this weekend. He couldn't but did make the effort for Friday, driving three hours from Rome NY where to date my former High School still doesn't have a team.

If these facts doesn't seriously say there is something wrong about this game, then nothing does.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I think before we jump all over the GDC we should consider that it may have come from higher up. Patent = Coopertition

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7507169.html

http://osdir.com/patents/Games/Metho...-07507169.html

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

These rules are offensive to a persons intrinsic sense of fair play.

We should help each other get to competition, through inspection, and get through the whole year.

But once the robots are on the field of play it should be a 'gladiatorial spectacle' !

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Well, people patent germs and viruses that can kill the entire planet. Doesn't mean they have to use it.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I tried to keep an open mind through our first regional, however playing through it has convinced me that it is a bad idea. In fact, quite often in led to our alliances not cooperating, and changed gameplay for the worse.

When a game is designed so that if you know you are going to lose, your best strategy is 'take a dive' or worse, score for your opponent, IMHO that has destroyed the game and competition.

I hope "FIRST" does not continue with this system in the future.

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.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

QFT

To quote one of our mentors: "Any game that asks you to score against yourself in order to get ahead in life is dumb."

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Paul of 217 started doing this at FLR in order to explain to the crowd what the ___ was going on. He did a great job MCing by the way and hope gets the chance over at Michigan!

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

System is terrible. At the end of Friday's competition there were 3 teams that has a win loss record of 5-1. One of the teams was in 10th place, one was in
30th place and one was in 38th place. Our team ended with a 7-2 record on the win loss and we ended up in 36th position for the ranking. Did not get selected for the finals.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Sorry for the double post here, but this thread seemed like a good place to share as well.

<soapbox>
As I reflect on the numerous threads & posts flooding CD on this topic, I find myself wanting to comment on the greater objective/direction that this year's "seeding system" is promoting. Aside from the strategies, rules, approaches, legal vs. ethical, and all the other ideas that have been discussed here, I would like draw the attention to what I feel is an alarmingly slippery slope FIRST seems to be approaching by engraining the "coopertition" concept into "competition" rules. A little background may help explain my position:

1. I've coached my 11th grade son's FLL/FRC teams since he was in the 4th grade. As a FIRST Operational Partner I've run one of the country's largest FLL State Championship tournaments for the past four years, that attract 750+ students and 85+ FLL teams to the California's Central Valley each year. I'm a huge fan and ambassador of FIRST and its impact on the youth in our communities.

2. At the 2006 World Festival, my FLL team won 1st place in the first ever FLL Alliance Challenge with the Ocean Odyssey missions, where we worked with 3 other teams from the U.S and Denmark - our first feel for true FIRST coopertition - (the Denmark team didn't even speak english) IT WAS AWESOME!

3. I've also coached every sport my 3 kids have been involved in from baseball, football, hockey, soccer, etc. - and have always appreciated the distinct differences a program like FLL/FRC brings to kids who gravitate away from traditional sporting programs - and the opportunities they find here.

So with all that said, I can tell you from my experiences that a large part of the attaction of FIRST is the packaging of learning (math/science/tech) WITH the excitment of COMPETITION that speaks to our innate competitive spirit that I believe drives the human race towards accomplishment, improvement, and connecting with others. And while I'm not wanting get all philosophical here, I can't help but feel this year's game philosophy is squelching this spirit AND forcefully directing our brightest minds into a "thinkset" that I feel is ultimately weakening us as a society/community.

It's been mentioned in other threads/posts how there are plenty of opportunties for coopertition off the competition field - and I agree 100%. I'm proud of how well this program promotes and practices it (this web site is a classic example) - our team would be lost without it! Even as we get onto the competition field - the alliance format allows for tons of cooperation! But let's cooperate to triumph over the opposition! What's wrong with that? Opposition is a force in life that we must all learn to deal with - and I've always felt that FIRST's approach of competing & dealing with opposition by THINKING & USING YOUR MIND was the perfect answer ... Not by removing the opposition and morphing it into cooperation. Opposition doesn't always WANT to cooperate, yes?

But I do fear FIRST is trying to change the face of competition ... as strong competition seems to be viewed more and more as a bad thing, so bad that we have to start changing the rules/game to MAKE SURE that we cooperate. I know I'm not alone in my thinking as I've seen others lightly comment on this elsewhere, but I want to put my stake in the ground and call a spade a spade. Let's not water-down honest competition that boasts "the thrill of victory, and the agony of defeat" - it is afterall what makes this program tick - and if you don't belive me, look at all the posts of how teams are trying to use the coopertition rules to - do what? WIN!!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a proponent of win at all costs, and/or winning is the only important thing. However, "striving to win" in a gracious and professional manner brings with it amazing results ... many more than "striving to cooperate" will ever see. I'm sorry, but that's just weak.

I understand the lofty touchy-feely goal of everyone's a winner, but we don't live in a world where everyone's a winner, nor should we want to, IMO. In Pixar's movie, The Incredible's, the villian Syndrome wants to sell his super inventions to everyone in the world, giving everybody superpowers - "Because when everyone is super ... (evil laugh) no one will be!" Kind of corny, I know, but it speaks volumes.

However, not being a winner, doesn't mean you're a loser either. The FRC program and its outcomes are dealing with different degrees of success, yes? But it's the COMPETITION that creates the scale on which we measure those degrees. It's the COMPETITION that makes us want to move up those scales each and every time we COMPETE. It's the COMPETITION that makes us and everyone around us, better. You can't call something a competition, and then strip out all the elements that engage our competitive spirits. It's crushing, depressing, and outright frustrating.

So as I step off my soapbox, I just wanted to share my thoughts around the subject and hope they serve as a warning to FIRST and to join in solidarity with others that have spoken out against this new system and its inherent problems. My concerns may go deeper, because I'm so passionate about what this program has always been about, and I'm concerned about its future. But I suppose I could have justed posted the following:

Minimize Competitive Components = Minimize Growth & Attraction & Spirit

Force "coopertition" through rules/regulation = choke the competitive spirit that's made this program what it is

</soapbox>

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Here are my thoughts.

First, anyone who agrees with these rules should read "Atlas Shrugged".

Second, I know that my team will have a serious conversation about implementing this strategy.

Third, the scoring system is basically socialism.

Any time a governing body rewards someone who doesn't produce very much the same amount as someone who does, it is considered socialism. While socialism, and the GDC, may have had good intentions...both only encourage cheating and mediocracy. If teams decide to go with this strategy, spectators will be confused, members will be frustrated, and the sport will lose it's credibility.


I believe that even if a team is in last place the FIRST community does a great job of making them feel like winners, and anyways we all know that it's not about winning. Hopefully, in the future, the GDC will have more faith in the teams to uphold the values of FIRST rather than trying to enforce them.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

Amen brother! My previous rant didn't quite get to that point - but I'm glad you had the courage to point it out. AGREED!

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I can't help but think this system could easily be fixed with one tweak:

Give the losing alliance their own score when determining seeding points.

You do this, it removes the case where the losing alliance gets more seeding points than the winning alliance, and it removes much of the incentive to go for the "6v0" strategy. It worked reasonably well for qualifying in 2003 and before (though I still prefer W-L-T scoring) and would take care of most of the biggest complaints.

All this being said, I think the system worked reasonably well in Manchester. I'm sure I'm about to be flamed by some team that lost one or two matches and seeded in the 20's, but most of the teams that seeded high at BAE were also the teams that I scouted and had performed well in their matches. There were, as always, exceptions, but that happens with ANY ranking system - we've all seen the teams that get declined multiple times because they squeaked into the top 8 on a fluke, before. By and large, though, I think things sorted themselves out well at one regional, at least. I'd be interested to know why things turned out so poorly at other events. Any thoughts on why?

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

O.K. Some of you are saying we should quit bashing the new seeding system and just work within it to the benefit of our team so try out this scenario. Let's say my team is on the red alliance and we get together with the members of the blue alliance and get them to agree to score all points for the red alliance so we both get a high number of seeding points. Cool. So our alliance gets ready to play but we discuss the finale period amongst ourselves and hatch a plan to get even more points just for ourselves. We decide that we are going to score as many points as possible for the blue alliance during the finale period without giving them enough to win. That way both alliances get a high number of seeding points but the red alliance also gets a bunch of coopertition bonus points. We win the match and win the higher number of seeding points. Is this what Dean wants? No. Is it fostering GP? No. Is it understanding the new rules and using them to our advantage? Heck yes. So, for those of you that say we should just learn how to use the new system and quit bashing it, be careful what you wish for.
For me, I think Dean has outthought himself and did not for see these types of consequences. I hope I don't see this type of thing happening. It is not what FIRST is about but the new rules are fostering this type of activity. I hope they learn by next year that if they want teams to help each other then the game had better be designed to foster that type of activity rather than some ridiculous seeding point scheme that the audience we are supposed to be gathering cannot possibly understand.

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I would check your definition of socialism. Under your definition the old system was also socialist! (oh no!...not socialism!..what could be worse!??!?!). If I'm with 111 and they scored 25 moonrocks while I sat in the corner and did nothing, we both got 2 ranking points, even though we did not 'produce' the same amount.

Not trying to start a debate, just pointing something out...

Re: Do you like the seeding system?
 

I think you're onto something here.

It rewards teams who score well whether they win or not. I like it, because it emphasizes doing your best and playing your heart out which is what I firmly believe this is what it's all about. If FIRST wants to de-emphasize winning, but still keep matches exciting and make sure teams are doing their best then maybe they should look into this.