|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Alliance Selection System
my problem with the 1-8, 8-1 really only occurs during the smaller regionals. about 45 or less. At the second regional went to the team who seeded first's alliance one. They had 1 really amaizing robot, 1 really good robot, and one robot who placed 40 out of 42 and only won one of their games. I know that seeding doesnt always indicate ability but this was the second time we saw them at a regional and what i saw, they totally earned the place they got. So im kinda rambling but what i mean is that through this system, teams that dont deserve to win could be carried through the finals just because they are one of the only teams left. Now im not sure how much i like the other system but i do think its slightly fairer but at the same time not so much
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Alliance Selection System
Top 3 teams after seeding get ticket to champs.
8-1,1-8, no picking within top eight. Winners get ticket too. If winner is one of top 3 seeders then ticket goes to next in seeding. Not enough tickets and just thinking out loud. I really dislike picking with-in top eight. |
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Alliance Selection System
You would think this is another one of those topics beaten to death around here (role of mentors anyone?), but I haven't seen a good thread on this for a long long time. That's surprising, because every time I watch a livestream, the people in the chat constantly complain about the serpentine draft.
To be honest, I quite like it. Let's examine the prior actions of FIRST and their goals, as well as a few other things that support serpentine besides the competitive aspect. First, a couple things must be understood about Serpentine Draft. As Bob Steele said above, the goal of it is to average the quality of each alliance (1+2+24 and 8+9+10 both equal 27, or an average power of 9). Of course, this isn't 100% true. If you take a look at some events, in many cases, you will see a defined tiering of the ranks. To take Fingerlakes as an example because I attended, the first seed there, 1507 was 8 QS higher than the second. At others, we see tiers of the top two or three teams being 4-6 QS higher than the rest of the top 8 cohort. Below that you see a tier of the 'upper middle class', which in my opinion has grown heavily this year. Below that you see teams that are clearly not going to be in elims. The effect this has on the serpentine is that based on how each regionals tiering happens defines how the draft plays out. In an event with highly dominant team (Fingerlakes), the first seeded alliance will have a heavy advantage. In a very deep field (IRI, MSC, CMP), where the 8th can still be drawing from the tier directly below it, they have the huge advantage of getting two selections in a row. This was shown at Queen City where the 8th picked a triple balance alliance and won the regional with it. The point must me made, though, that the affects serpentine method changes based on regional and there is no one size fits all analysis of it. However, in general, the goal is to level the playing field, give all teams a chance, and make the eliminations more suspenseful. The question is, are these the goals that FIRST intends? I would argue that they do. Consider this: You spend thousands of dollars to register. Thousands more to transport a team, feed the team, board the team. If there was literally no chance of winning unless you were in the top 5%, very many people would lose hope, lose fun, and fail to be inspired. There's already enough of that with the Canadian teams and 1114/2056 dominance, but that's a completely different can of worms that I don't want to take a position on. By leveling the playing field, the serpentine draft makes eliminations more exciting. That's what packs stadiums. That's what gets FIRST noticed. The GDC has gone out of their way in previous years to make games that are good for crowds. To ruin it by ending the rankings after qualifications would be a major setback in the changing culture to celebrate STEM arena. Looking at what FIRST has done in the past, the goal of a regional is clearly not to send the best three teams to Championships. There are six slots per event: Two go to the best two robots. One goes to a good robot. Three go to outstanding team acheivments (RAS, EI and Chairmans). Without even counting open registration, that's 60% of the teams per regional are not going based on robot performance. To anyone who says that the draft should be 1-8,1-8, you are essentially ending it after qualifications. There isn't anything intrinsically wrong with that, to be honest. The eliminations are fun to watch, no doubt. But I think that District systems are solving this issue. By allowing the top 5 teams at MAR to go beyond those who already qualified, they solve the issue. Teams that don't win but still have outstanding robots (1218) still get to go. You still have fun an exciting elimination matches. And the other deserving teams (RAS, Chairmans, EI) still get to go. Just to stir up the discussion (and I don't like this idea myself): What if the top 4 teams were randomized for order of pick? The same with the next 4. |
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Alliance Selection System
Quote:
At some regionals, it was shown that just being in the top 4 doesn't always mean an automatic bid to champs. Look at Oregon or Queen City. The 8th alliance beat out the #1s all over the place, and I'm sure there's other regionals where the #1 got upset by a lower alliance. Going off of that idea, it'd be interesting if instead, it was 1-8, random pick order or random assigned. |
|
#20
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Alliance Selection System
At a "shallow" regional, the serpentine draft is the worst way to choose alliances.
Except, of course, for every other way. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Alliance Selection System
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the 1-8, 8-1 draft order. It favors the number 1 seed enough that teams want to be there, but at the same time gives the lower seeded alliances enough chance to win.
Everyone says they want the "best" robots at a competition to win. I don't at all agree. If we want the best robots to win, why don't we just have the judges watch all the qualification matches and then determine which robots are the "best"? Oh right, we don't do that because that would be stupid. It would be like a science fair or robotics exhibition. I want the best alliance with the best strategy to win. If the robot/team that everyone agrees is the "best" isn't on the winning alliance, too bad. There's always next year. There's no such thing as "should have won". |
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Alliance Selection System
I always hated the fact that #1 can pick #2. At Boston this year, Miss Daisy and The Pink Team were clearly a few notches above the rest so when they ended up on the same alliance the regional was virtually over. Then I realized that if they could not have picked eachother (and if they hadn't qualified elsewhere) one of those teams would not have qualified for champs.
|
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Alliance Selection System
Quote:
Here's the pickle about most alliance selection proposals: either the top two teams chose each other, and there is essentially no chance of anyone else winning, or the top two teams can't chose each other, and one strong team doesn't qualify for championships. The "compromise" option is to split up top teams, but allow top seeded teams to automatically qualify for championships. |
|
#24
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Alliance Selection System
Quote:
Quote:
Let me put it this way: By seeding #1, the #1 seed has earned the right to pick whoever they want. By artificially restricting that pick list, you deny them a reward for seeding #1. Now who wants to seed #1? Continuing that line of thought, #2 has earned the right to pick whoever they want, or accept a #1 invitation. Clear down to #8. Clear to whoever ends up in the #8 spot. Any team can decline, too--that is their decision, and their right. There is the risk that they do not play if they decline, and that is their decision to make. If I'm #1, and DampRobot comes up to me and says "Because I don't like you beating everyone, you can't pick the top 6 robots at the event because they're in the top 8", I'm not going to be happy. At offseasons that have this sort of rule, everyone knows going in that that's the rule, it's an offseason, we're here just to have fun. But when it's a berth at the World Championship potentially on the line, every team in the eliminations wants the best alliance they can be on. This is a competition, folks! (That doesn't mean that the real mission of FIRST should be ignored--but you've got to remember that this is the FIRST Robotics Competition.) Last edited by EricH : 17-04-2012 at 12:17. |
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
|
I see everyone here worrying about the top two slots, but what about the third robot? 1-8,8-1 means that while building the 22nd best robot at the regional leaves your result up to luck, your odds are still much better than the 8th best robot. It seems very unfair that the 10-18 teams are screwed for champs spots even compared to the less deserving group of 19-24 ranked teams.
|
|
#26
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Alliance Selection System
Quote:
First: You are assuming that the rankings mean anything about the quality of the robots. Any assumption you have along those lines is not true due to the ranking system. It may be valid at a particular regional. It may even be valid at most regionals. But it is not valid across the board. Second: Why is a robot ranked lower than another robot any less deserving? Team 4. Los Angeles Regional, 2006 and 2007. Picked out of the bottom of the field both times. They have two blue banners from that, and I'll tell you for a fact, they earned both of them. Any claim that they were "carried" is without merit--they were one really good defender and pushed at least their weight around the field. Third: Now I'm addressing the "screwed" part. Why do you think we play the game? If you want to go there, Einstein 2010 was a waste of time; 1114 and 469 won. (For those keeping track at home, 67, 177, and 294 have the blue banners for Einstein 2010.) Three years before, 177, 190, and 987 should have just laid down--they'd have never made it out of the divisional semis. Again, each has a blue banner from Einstein 2007. To carry this into professional sports, the Yankees and the Patriots should just get the titles each year. (See: 2007 and 2012 for the Patriots in the Super Bowl.) If we didn't play the game, you'd be right. But we play the game, we play to win, and we play strategy. Fourth: You mean "picked teams" not "ranked teams". There is a difference. An 11th ranked team is not necessarily an 11th picked team. In fact, they might be the 8th picking team, and picking the 32nd ranked and 15th ranked teams in that order. (Making up numbers here... but it's not out of the question.) Enough ranting out of me on that. I have a challenge for anybody complaining about the serpentine draft: Come up with another system that works. You need to reward teams for seeding first somehow (otherwise, why bother?), you need to make it so it won't take forever to get alliances, and you need to have it reliably come up with exciting matches all through the finals, preferably with a lot of upsets. Oh, and you need to have it so that teams won't throw matches to be picked by their preferred teams, or pre-make alliances and decline out of all others. (Both of which were determined to be issues in the first two years of alliances.) Go! |
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Alliance Selection System
Quote:
Under my proposal, of course it would be possible to cheat, and of course, it would be hard to catch the cheaters. I'm mainly envisioning a G26 type rule that would essentially say that purposefully placing out of the top 8 is "not in the spirit of FRC and disallowed." The purpose of the rule would not be to punish teams that attempt to place out of the top 8 strategically. It would instead clarify the intention of the GDC, and allow the team's decision do depend on the team's integrity. To answer your question about the incentive to be #1, seeds 1-3 could be automatically offered spots at district or world championships, in addition to being able to chose from any of the 42 other teams first. There would still be an incentive to do well. Top teams would still get their well earned spot in St. Louis, and eliminations would be more competitive. I'm simply trying to propose a system that both allows dominant teams to go to championships, and creates more exciting and competitive elimination rounds. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Alliance Selection System
Quote:
I know you know that, and I know you weren't implying that, based on your use of the word "theoretically", I get that, but you are comparing two totally different "cheatings". One, where teams do things against the FIRST rules, such as the theoretical work on robot after season. The other, when you look at it, really isn't cheating. It's playing to the game. In order to rank this year, you needed to balance, so what did teams do? They balanced. If you need to have a close game, you let your opponents score a little. If you needed a landslide victory, you'd do your best every match. If your rules (which I agree with mostly, BTW), are set in, a team could try and play to get a lower rank, but if I remember correctly, purposely throwing a match is un-GP, since it effects your alliance partners, and I remember someone recently got penalized for that (don't quote me on this). But then you have to look at it: Is a team throwing a game, or are they honestly having problems? For an example, 254, 2011 World Champion team, at CVR. They were having some problems, and ended up not being in the top 8. Heck, they were even behind us most of the time, which has never happened in the history of our competitions together. Could they theoretically be throwing matches with the intent of being left behind so they can be chosen by the top alliance of 1717 and 330? Yes, it's possible. Were they? I doubt it. If a rule like this were in place, I'm positive the refs will be making some mistakes that will change the outcome of the event. So while the rules that both you and I have previously thought of would be beneficial, they make the game just that more difficult, and can cause some unfair rulings. Looking back, over my suggestions, and everyone else's, I think the current serpentine draft is fine the way it is. All other methods mentioned bring in new problems or difficulties that make everything harder than it needs to be. Last edited by Andrew Lawrence : 17-04-2012 at 01:40. |
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Alliance Selection System
All of this has more than likely been said multiple times, but 1-8 8-1 is really the best overall formula for draft selection. Does it have flaws? Sure it does!
In particular, the team I mentor had an unusual year mechanically where we had an excellent design, but just couldn't seem to work out the bugs. At our first district, we were lucky enough to get picked by the #6 alliance in the third round. We were also lucky enough to upset the #3 and #2 alliances on out way to the finals. When we got there though, we had 1023 and 469 waiting for us and there was no way we were winning. We pretty much knew that before the finals even started. But we got to have our fun on the way there anyways, and as a developing team, that's really all we wanted; to give the kids hope of future success so they keep trying. I guess the point of the story is that the current system allows for underdogs to be competitive if they use good strategy while still allowing the dominate teams to be successful. Adding any restrictions to draft selections would be ridiculous and a hassle. |
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Alliance Selection System
Quote:
To add to EricH's question, what do we really want for a system in eliminations? Do we want the "best" robots to win the regional? The 1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3... system provides this. Do we want eliminations to be more competitive, to be everyone's game? The "no picks from the top 8" rule or some sort of randomized selection would provide this. Or do we want to provide inexperienced or under preforming teams with a chance to attend championships? The current system seems to allow for that. Finally, is it possible to formulate a compromise that retains the benefits and few of the drawbacks of proposed systems? |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|