[FRC4ME]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Your post makes a whole lot of assumptions that may or may not be correct.

<G14> -- Where do you see anything in the <G14> rule that talks about the realtime scoring system. The onus of <G14> is on the teams and does not require a accurate realtime scoring system.

The rule itself doesn't mention it, but I honestly doubt the intention of <G14> was to penalize teams for doing well. All I can think of is that the GDC wanted "stop scoring or score on yourself when you're really far ahead" to be another strategy component, which depends on real time scoring.

Serpentine draft -- While it is true that you have no control over the quality of your opponents, you do have some control over the points scored against you. There are no rules about allowing an opponent to score on you, nor one against scoring on yourself. Doing so is a tactical decision that teams must make. If they choose not to make that decision then their RP will reflect that.

Once again, this only works if the real time scoring is accurate. This year, at least, it was so laughably inaccurate, many teams probably would have been better of without it. I saw some matches in Atlanta where the real time scoring showed one alliance winning by 60+ points, then the final score showed the gap to be one or two moonrocks. When the real time scoring is that inaccurate, you can't expect teams to score on themselves; it would be more of a random crapshoot than a strategic decision.
[/quote]

Autonomous -- Just because your main goal of autonomous mode was to get away from the human player does not mean that that was the intent of the GDC. Many teams used autonomous for much more than getting away from the human player. However, I do agree that we should not give bonuses for choosing 1 strategy over another.

If the GDC had intended for teams to score in autonomous, then yes, I think it was a serious oversight of them to not provide adequate incentive to do so.

Originally Posted by jpmittins

I liked the supercell in the middle; it made for some intense races to move three feet. Plus it was hilarious watching the robots continue to drive forward as per their autonomous code, despite the other robot doing the exact same thing in the opposite direction. Probably the funniest was CHASS's bot vs. CHASS's other bot. Or else 2753 versus anything, only because of how fast and powerful they were.

Supercell in the middle sounds like a really fun idea. I like this one.

I always like the serpentine draft; it makes the alliances much more equal. If Regionals ever did 1-8 1-8, I would lose all hope for FIRST since it would kill all hope of the lower seeds getting anywhere in the games and goes against the fairness and equal opportunity FIRST promotes. I hope serpentine keeps staying.

QFT. Without serpentine, I know my team would all but give up if we were on the 6-8th seeded alliance. The imbalance of power there is just too strong.

Originally Posted by Steve Ketron

If you really want to solve the luck and fairness arguement, then I, like many others, believe that FIRST should get rid of the 1-8 selecting each other and make the selections 1-8, 1-8. This is about as fair as you can get and also takes the luck of your qualification round groupings out.

You can't get rid of the 1-8 selection one another. That creates huge GP problems; you would have many teams intentionally losing the last qualifying match (and therefore screwing over their alliance partners) to stay out of the top eight so they can be picked by #1 or #2. Which would you rather be - a member of the #1 alliance, who gets both first picks, or captain of the #8 alliance, who gets both last picks?

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Well, those teams who won all or nearly all of their qualification matches should be rewarded with a fairly substancial advantage. For some events, depending on the distribution of teams (where teams 16 and 17 may be better than teams 2 and 24), it may be better to be seeded 8th. I don't think it is fair that a team who lost more gets an advantage.

In most regionals, there is one team with a perfect record; this team is #1. #2-#7, sometimes even #8, all have one loss. On Newton in Atlanta this year, every one of the top eight teams had a 6-1 record. The RP made all the difference in sorting them. And, given the inaccurate real-time scoring, I don't think teams should be rewarded all that much for a high RP.
[/quote]

The problem with the 1-8 1-8 is that the top 8 seeded teams are not always in the best teams. I don't think having a 1-8, 8-1 selection is the correct answer to solving the problem. It's more of a band-aid to the problem. The only way to fix the fact that 'bad' teams seed high is more qualification matches. Increase the sample size and you will get better results.

Yes, more qualifying matches would solve the problem for good, but until we can figure out a way to do that and still meet time constraints (Michigan district system, anyone?), 1-8 8-1 is the selection process which produces the most fun elimination tournament for everyone.

Also, I think maybe RP should be based on alliance score rather than opposing alliance score. The current RP is a remnant of coopertition that just doesn't fit the current competition model, IMO.