9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

[theycallhimtom]

9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to the penalized score (the score with any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE.
All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE.
In the case of a tie, all participating teams will receive a number of ranking points equal to their ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties).

Am I missing something or does the losing and winning team get the same number of points? This basically makes the game cooperative as both teams should only score for one alliance in an attempt to maximize their score.

Another significant rule:

9.3.9 Qualification Seeding
All TEAMS in attendance will be seeded during the qualification matches. If the number of TEAMS in attendance is 'n', they will be seeded '1' through 'n', with '1' being the highest seeded team and 'n' being the lowest seeded TEAM.
The Field Management System will use the following seeding method:
• TEAMS will be seeded in decreasing order by seeding score.
• Any TEAMS having identical seeding scores will then be seeded in decreasing order by their highest coopertition bonus.
• Any TEAMS having identical seeding scores and highest coopertition bonus will then be seeded in decreasing order by cumulative ELEVATED/SUSPENDED points earned by their ALLIACES throughout the Qualification Matches.
• Any TEAMS also having identical highest coopertition bonuses will then be seeded based on a random sorting by the Field Management System.

[Matthew2c4u]

Fixed for rules.
Read my post below

[Monty Python]

9.3.9, teams will be seeded based on highest seeding score. It's still a competitive game though, because cooperition points will be the king maker (two times the losing alliance score, if manipulated correctly, that's going to be a lot. It's definitely the G22, I think that's the number anyway, of last year). Remember that according to 9.3.5, only teams on the winning alliance earn cooperition points. Winning in qualifications is still very important.

Oh and just remember that the cooperition score is twice the losing teams score, so even if it were cooperative (which it isn't!) it wouldn't make sense to only score for one team anyway.

[ScottOliveira]

The way the rules read, the two teams get the same amount of points if there are no penalties by the winning team. If the winning team gets a penalty, the losing team actually receives more points than the winning team.

And while Matthew2c4u would normally be correct about the ranking points, the manual doesn't mention them in this game (that I have seen yet). It appears so far that the game is based solely on the seeding points.

[theycallhimtom]

I was missing:

9.3.5 CoopertitionTM Bonus
All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a coopertition bonus: a number of seeding points equal to twice the un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE.
In the case of a tie, all participating teams will receive a coopertition bonus of a number of seeding points equal to twice their ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties).

So if red team scores X and blue team scores Y and red wins then

Red team gets X + 2Y
Blue team gets X

if blue wins

Red team gets Y
Blue team gets 2X + Y

[ScottOliveira]

I originally read that as the coopertition bonus being separate from seeding points, used to break ties, but I believe you're right. That makes the system a bit more sensible.

[EricH]

I caught that too.

There are two scenarios here; which one is the actual one can be resolved quickly around the time Q&A opens.

W is winner; L is loser. Points refers to the pre-penalty score.

1) Coopertition bonus is not added to seeding.
W gets Wscore (which is Wpoints-Wpenalties)
L gets Wpoints

L comes out ahead, if not even. Ouch.

2) Coopertition bonus is added to seeding, and tracked separately as well.
W gets Wscore+2*Lpoints
L gets Wpoints

W comes out ahead by quite a bit. Better.

Effectively, ranking points have been eliminated from the equation (despite a reference to them), as has W-L-T. This is quite an interesting method, as it is now theoretically possible for a team with a 0-X-0 record to seed above a team with a 1-(X-1)-0 record. I'm not sure if I like it or not, yet, but it'll still be interesting. (Hopefully, W-L-T will still be tracked.)

[XaulZan11]

At first glance, I don't think I like the change. Mainly because it causes it difference in Qualifcation and Elimination matches. As Eric pointed out a team (Team X) that has lost every match could seed higher than a team (Y) that went undefeated. But, when elimination matches come around, team Y will be more likely to take home the gold than team X. I know this is the extreme case, but I don't like the fact that what it takes to be sucessful can be drastically different from qualification to elimination matches.

To look at it another way, a team could have a fantastic stratedgy that just wins matches, although ugly and not resulting in many seeding points. While this team will likely do very well in elimination matches, it is unlikely they will seed very high.

(I think it is similar to college football's overtime rules, which completely remove special teams play, other than field goal kicking. A team could be dominating field position and returned a kick or two for a touchdown, but when overtime comes around their advantage or how they tied the game is now completely obsolete.)

[Kyler]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

At first glance, I don't think I like the change. Mainly because it causes it difference in Qualifcation and Elimination matches. As Eric pointed out a team (Team X) that has lost every match could seed higher than a team (Y) that went undefeated. But, when elimination matches come around, team Y will be more likely to take home the gold than team X. I know this is the extreme case, but I don't like the fact that what it takes to be sucessful can be drastically different from qualification to elimination matches.

To look at it another way, a team could have a fantastic stratedgy that just wins matches, although ugly and not resulting in many seeding points. While this team will likely do very well in elimination matches, it is unlikely they will seed very high.

Your first point is sometimes true but it is also possible that a team went undefeated with the old season not due to them being the best robot there, but due to luck of the draw giving them the good alliances (or easy opponents). The new system isn't perfect but neither was the old one. At least this way takes into account the competition you were up against a little better. In the old system a win counted the same (essentially) even if the other alliance was a no show. Of course, this system could give a no show alliance more points than the winning alliance (if i'm understanding it) depending on how its being implemented so i guess that raises a whole new set of problems.

I do agree with your second point though. I guess it discourages defense.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Matthew2c4u

Basically if you win you get 3 points for your main ranking score, if you lose you get 0 if you draw you get 1. If theres a tie then the secondary score kicks in.
Those are secondary ranking scores so that a team who plays a good game against a great alliance gets credit for it.

In what section of the game manual do you find this?

[kirtar]

Section 9: The Tournament

What I see as the intent of the rule is to discourage cut-throat competition in the qualification rounds. It is perfectly to your advantage to keep the score close (e.g. win by say, 1 point). The idea is that the scenario that is the most beneficial to both teams is a high-scoring, penalty-free tie. It's like the previous system (I think on that one it was called either ranking points or qualification points. I don't remember which was which) in which one portion of seeding was based off of the score of the opposing alliance. However, it is now included in the primary seeding value (your total seeding points) as well as being the first tiebreaker.

The scenario that would be the most beneficial to a single team is to have the opposing alliance lose to a ridiculous number of penalties while still obtaining a high score (and not have any penalties).

[leafy]

If the losing team's score is 0, then they get the same seeding points as the winner, discounting penalties.

If the winning team gets a penalty, and the losing team scores 0, then the losing team wins for seeding points.

The optimum strategy is thus to convince your alliance partners to score 0, and help the other team score as much as possible on you to maximize *your* seeding points. You must also defend against all attempts at a counter-strategy to score points in *your* goal to get you points, because their seeding points increase by two every time they score for you.

You can block both of your goals by moving 2 of your robots blocking your own goals, and having one of your robots pushing balls into their zone.

[kirtar]

This has a few problems. Remember that you are being compared to other teams. Unless everyone does this, you would be much better off either tying or winning (but not losing). Because you get 0 points for the "coopertition bonus" you will be far behind those who win in matches where this doesn't happen, but only possibly ahead of those who lose in said matches.

This can only get you ahead of one team. Look at the big picture and it will become apparent that winning by a close margin in a high scoring (and penalty-free) match is much better for your team (as well as your opponents).

The reason for this is that while yes, the points from your proposition will be equal/better than your opponent depending soley on penalties. Even tying would be a better option because even if the score of each team is half of what happens in your proposition, if you have no penalties, you will recieve 50% more seeding points, putting you in a better position of those who you didn't play against, and may still come out ahead depending on penalties on your opponent.

Besides, your proposition in the end seems to simply be a malicious strategy where the primary aim is to hurt the opposing alliance rather than to help your own. This isn't exactly a zero sum game. Ties are possible, and what really matters is the amount of seeding points you get with respect to other teams.

[leafy]

Unless everyone does this, you would be much better off either tying or winning (but not losing)

Everyone being your alliance, or everyone being people in the competition? In the former, yes. In the latter, no; The cooperition bonus is only deterministic of the seeding rank with people whom you tie seeding points. If you don't score any points, the maximum points the other team can get (will get) is increased (even doubled or more) because you aren't going after any balls.

[EricH]

Actually, if you had read the thread, there are two points of view. You have one of them.

The other is that the coopertition bonus is added to your seeding points (hence the "bonus" part), to produce a much higher seeding point total. Instead of the winner getting their own score as seeding points, the winner gets their own score plus their coopertition bonus as seeding points.

Also note:

9.3.7 Seeding Score
The total number of seeding points earned by a TEAM throughout their qualification matches will be their seeding score.

Now, see this:

9.3.5 Coopertition™ Bonus
All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a coopertition bonus: a number of seeding points equal to twice the un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE.
In the case of a tie, all participating teams will receive a coopertition bonus of a number of seeding points equal to twice their ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties).

In other words, the Coopertition Bonus is in fact seeding points, which in fact are added to the seeding score, which is your ranking.

Winners have a distinct advantage here, especially in close games.