Re: Am I the only one who LOVED the seeding system this year?
 

First always tries to limit the value of defense in the game. With this scoring system they didn't find a balance and as a result "negative defense" (scoring for opponent) was worth more then scoring for yourself. The system works but just needs a little tweaking (Losing team gets points from their own score as suggested)

As I see it, in the working world when you start a project you will be rewarded for accurately assessing the situation and set your scope, and project goals accordingly.

That said from what I saw of championship qualifications vs. regional qualifications. A lot more teams at championships decided that they didn't have a shot at being a top seed and played full throttle to show off their skills.

Re: Am I the only one who LOVED the seeding system this year?
 

Steve, are you saying that a team winning a match 1-0 should be considered equally good as a team that wins a match 20-19, and similarly, that they should be considered BETTER than the team that LOST the 20-19 match?

Yes, winning should have value, but it should not be the primary metric of determining seed position, as it is mostly unrelated to robot performance, however, the alliance SCORES are much more indicative of good robots.

Re: Am I the only one who LOVED the seeding system this year?
 

Are you trying to say that a soccer game with a score of 21 - 16 has better teams than a game that ends up 1 - 0? If you watch basketball you can watch the last 2 minutes to see who is going to win in most cases. If the score was 2 - 0 in a basketball game does your response to the first question remain the same? What I see is an attempt by FIRST to make lots of scoring (like basketball) with no defense, then, say defense is important because we are changing how the game is to be played.

Maybe, if the playoffs were every alliance plays against every other alliance and their ranking scores decided who won the field I might go along with your logic.

Re: Am I the only one who LOVED the seeding system this year?
 

Winning seeding points = W + 2L
Losing seeding points = 2L
Tie = 3*score

I saw this suggested several times and I'd like to echo that it would be the best system for this game. Scoring is simple (not too much on-the-fly math involved when explaining to spectators), the coopertition bonus is still in place, and it removes the incentive to score for the other team, even in tough situations. You get what you score, and a little extra for winning.

Also, did anyone else feel that seeding points for each game should have been posted on the screen along with game points? It just seems strange to not show the actual points that each team gets out of a match...

Overall though, I did thoroughly enjoy the seeding system this year. It did a very good job of placing excellent teams on top.

Re: Am I the only one who LOVED the seeding system this year?
 

I liked it for the most part, after the tweaking, I like being rewarded more for a better performance, tho I would still like a win/loss system, I will take this too


but here is my crazy conspiracy theory (that I don't really believe since the evidence says this was not true):


The GDC came up with this scoring system to encourage the 6v0 games in order to teach us a lesson in life. While competition does drive people to do their best, in order to achieve the greatest possible outcome, we must all work together.



A bit preachy, don't like being preached to on the field, but I dont think its true, and sorry if this has been brought up before

Re: Am I the only one who LOVED the seeding system this year?
 

In Breakaway, it's obvious that a game with a score of 21 to 16 DOES generally have better teams than a game with a score of 1 to 0. I don't believe 1075guy was making any reference to soccer...

Re: Am I the only one who LOVED the seeding system this year?
 

I like the three alliance format with randomly drawn qualifications. Sure it means that we are sometimes paired up against a powerhouse alliance or are playing 3v2, but then again sometimes we are on that powerhouse alliance or we are the ones with the dead robot. It is a great lesson in the importance of paying attention to details. On the other hand... I do not like 6v0 matches. I do not like other teams scoring "for" my team. I do not like having to switch in the middle of the match to scoring for my opponent when it is obvious that I will either win/lose. I like being encouraged to try our best throughout the entire match. As such, I fall in the camp that think the seeding system needs some minor tweaking. My recommendation is similar to others in this thread:

Win: W+L+C
Tie: 2*T
Loss: 2*L

Generally this scheme promotes scoring; however, this scheme eliminates the 6v0 motivation, partially reduces the motivation to score for opponents since goals are weighted equally, and rewards both alliances for a high-scoring close loss. Perhaps obviously, the key component is the bonus points awarded for winning (C). In games where the GDC wants qualifications to emphasize offense, choose C to be small (or zero). In games where the GDC wants to promote winning through defense, let C be large relative to the expected value of the total score.

Re: Am I the only one who LOVED the seeding system this year?
 

Lots of good discussion.

My general comment is that the FIRST community is robust to many things. If we can survive the game Coopertition FIRST which had a flawed game, a flawed tournament structure AND put the drive teams in psychological pressure cooker that was beyond belief*, we can survive anything. But that does not mean that it was a good idea.

By which I mean, that yes, I agree, the sorting system in the end turned out to be not as bad as we all feared and in fact, you could argue it was even better at making sure certain kinds of good teams made it to the top of the ranking than FIRST's historic methods.... ...BUT... that does not mean this was a good sorting method. IMHO.

Here are specific cases to consider.

Curie Match 100.

Teams:

469 888 111 Vs. 1114 231 288

Team 1114 was ranked #1 at the time. Team 111 was ranked #2.

If 1114 plays it straight, it may have won, but it probably would have lost. Rather than give 111 a great seeding score by going down with a large losing score, 1114 and company decide to play it 6 vs. 0.

Final score: 29-0

Both 1114 and 111 get a good score by most team's standards but 111 is denied the opportunity to gain a lot of ground on 1114.

Is this right? I don't think so. Let me rephase that. Is this smart and legal play by 1114? Yes. Is this the type of activity that FIRST should be encouraging? 100% No (imho).

Curie Match 137.

Teams:

1379 440 115 vs. 1114 2667 3234

1114 is in 2nd place in the rankings (but 111 has played 10 and 1114 has only played 9 so no surprise there). 111 is in a pretty good position but 1114 can over take them if they get a monster seeding score.

1114 and company should win but their opponents probably won't likely put up enough points.

1114 decides to score for their opponents. The problem is they get a little too clever by half and score too many points for their opponents. The score should have ended in a 13 to 13 tie but for 2 DOGMA penalty points by their opponents.

Was is smart for 1114 to score for their opponent? Yes. Should FIRST be setting up a system where this is what teams need to do to seed high? Again I think not.

Your thoughts are welcome.

Joe J.


*one of the members of our drive team checked himself into the hospital after one regional, thinking he was having heart issues -- it was just the stress of the tournament -- stress that FIRST baked into the cake

Re: Am I the only one who LOVED the seeding system this year?
 

In general I liked the direction the seeding system moved this year toward rewarding robots that accomplish the game objectives well.

I do agree with the opinion expressed by many here that the loser should not receive any part of the winner's score. There are two main issues cause by that aspect of the current system. The first is the 6v0 problem where it may be in a teams best interest to forgo scoring for their own alliance. While the strategic implications brought about by this strategy are interesting, I believe most would agree that, given the chance to design from a clean slate, it would be best to make the 6v0 outcome less desirable. The other issue occurs at regionals with a small number of teams that are clearly a cut above the rest. At Northstar playing a match with 71 or 1986 in it (either with or against) was better than a win in most other matches. A few teams in the top 8 may have seeded a bit better than they should have by having 2 or even 3 matches with 71 or 1986, the fact that they didn't need to be on your alliance makes this scheduling much more likely.

With regards to defense being discouraged in qualifiers, I am all for that. I am not saying that defense is not an important and interesting part of FRC games, but to me it makes sense that a robot that primarily specializes in defense should not seed in the Top 8. NBA players like Bruce Bowen (a few years ago), Ron Artest and Trevor Ariza are known as great defenders, but if there were a giant redraft of all the NBA players they would not be anywhere near the top. The top would be players like Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Kobe Bryant and Dwight Howard, players that shine on the offensive end, but are also flexible and can contribute defensively in order to win games.

Re: Am I the only one who LOVED the seeding system this year?
 

I agree. I think any scoring system which can force teams to make unpopular or confusing decisions needs improvement.

I have no qualms about teams scoring for the other alliance. 188's strategy to make 1114 lose their super cells was one of the neatest strategies I've ever seen. If the scoring system forces top tier teams to score for their opponents to ensure they get a high ranking, I'm cool with that too. Do what you need to, I'd love to join your alliance! ;)

That said, it's confusing for the audience. And because people interpret it as borderline legal/cheating (when it is totally legal) it doesn't make many friends. And that's unfortunate.

FWIW, I think this system did do a better job than straight WLT. I like the idea of giving the loser their own score (or some multiple). Much beyond that I think it gets too complicated.

Re: Am I the only one who LOVED the seeding system this year?
 

I strongly applaud the efforts of the GDC to downplay defense and reward offense.

Unlike most of our favorite sports, defense is simply easier in your typical FIRST game. Scoring requires a robot to perform complex actions. To "play defense" is for the most part to simply get in the way. Two great teams might play a 1-0 match, but two poor ones will seldom play a 20-19 one.

Re: Am I the only one who LOVED the seeding system this year?
 

First, I just want you to all know that I dislike this seeding system immensely. I can understand the need to rank robots based on performance, but there were too many ways to exploit the system this year that it backfired in my opinion.

What I Liked:

1. Ranking robots based off of performance. The higher your alliance scored the better you did. I like this part! But why should you have to score for the other alliance if they suck? What's wrong with a 15 - 0 match? If the good alliance scored for the other wouldn't it just mess up the ranking system and defeat the purpose?

2. Two loses wouldn't kill your chances of being in the elimination rounds. My rookie team was in the top 8 in TC District event despite losing a few matches Friday due to technical problems. However on Saturday we performed well, and our rank showed it.

What I Hated:

1. Socialism. Yes, it is socialism. Your alliance could throw the match and get more seeding points than if they actually tried. Yes I understand that you could get the most points by scoring huge numbers for you AND your opponent, but that won't result in accurate rankings unless the alliance is composed of several top-notch teams.

2. Teams throwing matches. I understand why they did this, but honestly there is no honour in winning this way.

3. Irony. There were several times where I saw a team throw a match and then compete their hardest against teams in elimination rounds. Why not keep the seeding system from quals to elims if it is a good one? Basically they're saying that in qualification rounds teams shouldn't try and win, but instead get the most seeding points so they can be number one - even if that means throwing a match.

In order for this type of seeding system to work, the GDC needs to come up with a game that is designed around it. The trade off is that the game would be extremely hard to understand for the audience.

Personally, I'd like to see a game where robots work together but are ranked on their individual score. They could do this by RFID tags or something like that. But given the issues this year with the very simple automated scoring, I think refs could actually track the points better.

Re: Am I the only one who LOVED the seeding system this year?
 

I certainly didn't love the seeding system this year.

But I didn't dislike it as much as I thought I would.

But really, like or dislike is irrelevant in the face of the logical inconsistency inherent in the system.

Specifically, as has been mentioned previously... the losing alliance has basically no influence on the score they receive.

Consider an alliance where all three robots break down, flip, or are otherwise incapacitated in the first 30 second of the match. They lose, 8-0 and each robot... even though it doesn't work... gets 8 points.

The next match the losing alliance plays, and while all three robots work... they don't work so great... but manage to pull off a close 5-4 loss. They get 5 points.

The robots that don't work end up ranking higher than those that do.

So the system works great, if you're winning. But if you lose... particularly if you play hard, and play to win, but lose close matches... you end up ranked behind robots that don't work and were continually blown out.

I don't have a problem dropping the WLT ranking for a points based system... but I think FIRST could go a long way to improving the formula for next year. I wouldn't want to use this formula again.

Jason

Re: Am I the only one who LOVED the seeding system this year?
 

It also seems there is an appearance versus reality issue:

If you score for your opponent, it looks like you are helping them by keeping the score close. The reality is that scoring for your opponent only helps you.

If you really wanted to help your opponent, you would beat them 20 - 0.

The "coopertition" aspect seems backwards in this respect.

Re: Am I the only one who LOVED the seeding system this year?
 

i agree with Jason....and with Joe ... a good start towards a better system but full of imperfections.
What we saw at CMP was proof of that.... no teams should ever be put in a situation where if they win they may be at a disadvantage..or if theyplay hard and lose aclose match they could be at a great disadvantage...and losing a match big would help them..... the teams at CMP that did this... were playing by the rules and more power to them....

A team that puts in 10 points should get more seeding points than a team that puts in 5 points...
It is really as simple as that...

How about something really simple.... the alliances get their respective score ?

Teams playing other teams that are good will have to score more points to win...

This would, however, lead to more "blowouts" of teams and that would not be so good.

How about a scoring system that would be your own score divided by the difference between the two scores.... so a 10-5 win would give 2 points to the winner and 1 to the loser...???
hmmmm perhaps a bit extreme....probably lead to good teams scoring low against not so good team or scoring teams FOR the other team ...

3-2 would yield 3 points for the winner and 2 for the loser...
hmmm this would not lead to big scores...unless both teams were scoring...


Sliding scale? Multiply a winning team's score by 5 if they win by 2 or less
Multiply a team's score by 3 if they win by 2-5
Multiply a team's score by 2 if they win by 5-10
Multiply a team's score by 1 if they win by >10

Nothing seems to work very well here....

I think it should come down to points scored...by both teams... with some sort of bonus multiplier

Actually the old way we did it.... prior to this year... isn't bad...
Perhaps a modification of that...

Winner's team score plus loser's team score...

Loser gets 2x their own score...

match is 10-5 Winner's qual points 15 Loser's qual points 10
In a match like the one at CMP Winner 29 Loser 0
Winner gets 29 points Loser gets none... (hmmmm not much of a temptation to throw a match..

This actually seems like a pretty good scheme... and very simple...
A loser can NEVER get the same score as a winning team....and will always score at least 2 lower.
good points... promotes scoring... gives good losing teams a decent score based on their OWN abilities
inhibits throwing matches... no advantage for scoring for an opponent...

bad points... does not prevent blowouts...

any suggestions? perhaps a penalty for too big a difference? (I don't like that....I think that GP should prevail.... that teams should realize that beating up on a team that can't do much is the wrong thing to do....but....)


????
No perfect system here.. I think