Quote:
Originally Posted by IKE
There is still a mathematical and motivational disconnect with the seeding system.
Your seeding score must be based on your alliances score in order to have you motivated to do well.
Case in point: Archimedes. Going into the match Team 33 had the #1 seeding score (the eventual event #2) going against team #254 the eventual event #1. The only team that could contest this position lost a match before us. We could have done a 6v0 or even sandbagged the match in order to ensure we kept the lead (anything less than us scoring 13 pts. and loosing). This match had a great set of teams and had the potential of being spectacular. We knew this, and our opponents knew this. We made a conscious decision that rather than throw the match, we would go for it. then end result was a spectacular 20 to 18 defeat that catapulted 254 into the lead. This set the new seeding record of 61 points. For us, a 22 to 0 defeat would have been much better with us blocking shots on our goal likely playing against the entire other alliance and one of our partners that had a vested interest in our opponents doing well. That's what I don't like about this seeding system.
In order to get the same benefits, they could have done:
Winners Seeding= Winners points + 2* loosers points + C
Losers Seeding= 2*loosers points.
This would have had all the benefits and not given the incentive to do a 6v0.
Do we regret Qualifier Match 119? Heck no. We had spent two days getting one of our alliance partners ready for the Battle Royal, and it was arguably the greatest match of the year. 20 to 18 with 4 bots off the floor and the last 2 points scored in the final 10 seconds! It was spectacular. Great job 254, 330, and 45 and thanks to our partners 233, and 1111 for helping put on a great show!
And that is one of the reasons I am not in love with this seeding system.
|
I agree. Winning big matches puts too much of a skew on the rankings because the LOSING alliance doesn't really get enough credit for the fight they put up. Losing a match 20-2 is much easier to do than losing a match 20-19, and yet, they're worth the same to the LOSING alliance. The WINNING alliance gets far more benefit from the close match. Why shouldn't the LOSING alliance get a proportional benefit to the closeness of the match?