FRC Blogged - What Do You Think? The ‘Invite to Decline’ Strategy

[EricH]

Originally Posted by inkling16

I actually think that a 1-8, 1-8 selection would help to discourage scorched earth. 1-8, 1-8 helps captains 1-3, has no effect on captains 4-5, and hurts captains 6-8 when compared against the serpentine draft.

Speaking as someone whose team won a World Championship (from #2) during the last year 1-8, 1-8 was used, there is a definite downside. And that is this:

Blowout city. Think about it. 1st seed gets 1st and 9th picks; 2nd gets #2 and #10 picks; 8th seed gets what's left at the #8 and #16 pick slots, which can get pretty thin at smaller events, particularly the #16 pick (and the third robot can make or break an alliance). When divisional QFs set the world high score, and it's not close even with each alliance having its own set of game pieces...

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't necessarily like a blowout. I'd rather have both sides be able to get the win, just one plays a bit better and wins, like the Einstein semis/finals that year. With the serpentine, it's any alliance's game to win, at least in theory. With "straight", it's just a bit easier for the higher alliance to win.

[SoftwareBug2.0]

I think the people in this thread are generally on the right track: Nobody should be suprised when a team does what's in its best interest. In my mind, the most important condition for the alliance selection method is that teams are incentivized to perform well in the qualification rounds.

The current setup has worked pretty well, but there is at least one case I haven't seen mentioned yet where it would break down. With the recent games, getting to pick 1st and 16th has almost always been better than 2/15 which is better than 3/14 and so on down to picking 8th and 9th. That's true because the performance gap between the very best teams is higher than the performance gap between average teams.

Assume for a minute that teams score a constant number of points per round and do nothing but offense. The top 5 teams might score 70, 60, 52, 46 and 40 pts while the 20th through 24th teams might score 20, 19, 18, 17, and 16 points. In that case, you can see that having the 2nd best robot on your alliance is worth 60-52=8 points per round more than having the 3rd best robot on your alliance. Meanwhile, the choosing last vs. next to last is worth only 17-16=1 point per round. Since where you pick in the first round makes a bigger impact than where you pick in the second round, you want to be a higher alliance captain despite the serpentine.

However, if the top 16 teams had very similar scoring potential while there was a big drop off in performance between the 17th best robot and the 24th best then it would be better to have the 8th and 9th picks than to have the 1st and 16th because picks 1 and 8 are interchangable while pick 9 is much better than pick 16.

I think having a game where this happens isn't outside the realm of possibility. I would have to look at some historical data to know for sure, but I have an inkling that there might have been more differentiation in the second round than the first in 2005. Edit: Though at a quick glance it appears this was not the case

[GaryVoshol]

If this is a problem - and I'm not sure it is - what about this solution? If any team is declined X times (X = 2, 3, whatever) they lose their pick until the end of the round. Now the earth they are scorching may be their own!

I've seen two instances:

1. A team wasn't really thrilled with playing with a top seed, but agreed to accept if the seed would first pick others in the top 8 who presumably would decline. This is the true scorched-earth scenario Frank presents.

2. A team ranked #1 based on the strength of its schedule in quals. Other teams thought the #1 alliance had no chance, and so they were declined multiple times. I don't recall for sure, but I think they finally picked someone outside the top 8 who had to accept or risk not playing at all.

[Justin Montois]

I think that the alliance selection process is perfect.

"Scorched-Earth" strategies are just as beautiful to me as making a dark-horse pick that truly pays off or creating a powerhouse alliance.

We all play qualification matches to try and seed #1. The team that does deserves to pick their alliance however they see fit. Likewise, the teams below them have the same right.

Watching that dynamic play out is fascinating and addicting. I think it's the greatest 20 minutes of every event.

[Orion.DeYoe]

Okay so the first thing I would like to say is that the rankings DO NOT reflect how good teams are. At both of our regionals this year we ranked below the top 8 but were picked by #2. We also won one of our regionals undefeated in eliminations.
At buckeye #1 picked #21 and #2 picked #20 (us). Tell me that these rankings aren't messed up.

The alliance selection process is fine.
The rankings most certainly are not.

I have been team representative for the past two years. I was on the receiving end of this strategy in 2012 and I can tell you it felt terrible.
We were ranked 4th. #1 picked #2 as usual. #3 was a rookie team who got there as a result of coopertition points and good matches. The next best robot after us was ranked #8. We wanted to pick them, if we had been able to pair up we probably could have won the regional. #3 asked us if we would be interested in pairing up right before selections and we told them that we wanted to start our own alliance. They also asked #8 and they said that they would say no. They asked #8 during selections anyways and #8 declined.
This broke up our alliance with #8, and with the remaining teams there was no combination of robots that would be able to defeat alliance 1.

As I said, the selection process is fine, but the ranking system is WAY too dependent on schedule. This needs to be changed.

[Akash Rastogi]

Haha there's some awesome declining going on at TRR right now. The "oohhh"s and stuff are a bit hilarious to hear.

[nicholsjj]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Haha there's some awesome declining going on at TRR right now. The "oohhh"s and stuff are a bit hilarious to hear.

Yea and the mc explaining that everything is all right is a bit funny.

[DonRotolo]

I know Frank wanted folks to comment on the blog page, but I will trust he reads it here:

I like the process the way it is, and don't see a problem.

Legal != Right in every case, but in this case it is just fine. Strategy is strategy, and eliminating this possibility may degrade the game somewhat. An efficient (meaning 'effective and accurate') ranking system helps reduce the negative effects of such a strategy, so the ranking system needs to be designed carefully. Trying to "cure" this non-problem may have unintended effects worse than the (non-) problem.

[Nemo]

Like the others above, I don't have any problems with the existing alliance selection process. I think the rules are the best option available. If it switched to 1-8,1-8 instead of 1-8,8-1, I could live with it but I prefer the system we have.

Maybe it could be 1-8,1-8 for regional/world championship events and serpentine for regional and district events.

I'd also like to add that I really like the 3rd round of selections that IRI has. I think it would be cool of FIRST added that, at least at the Championship level. Teams draft their own backup robots and can start any three robots they want. I'll point out that if this turned into a rule where you were forced to play the backup bot in at least one match (like in FTC), I would no longer favor drafting a 3rd partner.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Nemo

Like the others above, I don't have any problems with the existing alliance selection process. I think the rules are the best option available. If it switched to 1-8,1-8 instead of 1-8,8-1, I could live with it but I prefer the system we have.

Maybe it could be 1-8,1-8 for regional/world championship events and serpentine for regional and district events.

I'd also like to add that I really like the 3rd round of selections that IRI has. I think it would be cool of FIRST added that, at least at the Championship level. Teams draft their own backup robots and can start any three robots they want. I'll point out that if this turned into a rule where you were forced to play the backup bot in at least one match (like in FTC), I would no longer favor drafting a 3rd partner.

As your rookie year was 2009, I don't think you're aware of the pre-2006 drafting (and certainly not the pre-2005). Here is your update on what you missed.

2005: 1-8, 1-8, no backups (other than the top 8 seeded teams still standing). Besides the odd blowout, er, common blowout, there were no downsides.

Before 2005, however, the sequence was 1-8, 1-8, second round is your backup (matches were 2v2). Backups HAD to be played once per round. I kind of liked that... but it could get clunky. And blowouts were still relatively common.


I'd go with an IRI (1-8, 1-8, 8-1) or full serpentine (1-8, 8-1, 1-8) where yet another set of backup rules were adopted. I forget the offseason event, but their rule is that the backup robot must play at least ONCE in the eliminations. If you're 1 match from elimination and your backup hasn't played, you have to play them; otherwise, whoever you want to goes out there.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

If this is a problem - and I'm not sure it is - what about this solution? If any team is declined X times (X = 2, 3, whatever) they lose their pick until the end of the round. Now the earth they are scorching may be their own!

I've seen two instances:

1. A team wasn't really thrilled with playing with a top seed, but agreed to accept if the seed would first pick others in the top 8 who presumably would decline. This is the true scorched-earth scenario Frank presents.

2. A team ranked #1 based on the strength of its schedule in quals. Other teams thought the #1 alliance had no chance, and so they were declined multiple times. I don't recall for sure, but I think they finally picked someone outside the top 8 who had to accept or risk not playing at all.

I would presume the 2nd scenario is more prevalent, but I don't know that. Does anyone know what the ratio is? I also think Pinecone's suggestion that teams decline to play for a wildcard is an interesting development. It makes perfectly good sense against an overpowered #1 alliance to opt for the other side of bracket, its just another weird strategic twist in how FRC tournaments play out.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by EricH

As your rookie year was 2009, I don't think you're aware of the pre-2006 drafting (and certainly not the pre-2005). Here is your update on what you missed.

Thanks for the context. I agree that blowouts are an issue with 1-8,1-8, so that's why I'm generally in favor of serpentine drafting. That said, it's pretty rare that an 8 seed beats a 1 seed. I might be convinced that in some events (with 40 teams or less, for example) it might make more sense to draft 6 alliances and give a bye to #1 and #2.

I can understand why some people would like 1-8,1-8 drafting for deeper events, so I can see some advantages either way. Another advantage of 1-8,1-8 is that the second pick (who will qualify for Champs) is going to be a better team in most cases.

Like I said, I think things are good the way they are. I don't think "scorched earth" is a problem, and any rule change to prevent that would cause more harm than good.

[zachmartin1806]

Originally Posted by EricH

I'd go with an IRI (1-8, 1-8, 8-1) or full serpentine (1-8, 8-1, 1-8) where yet another set of backup rules were adopted. I forget the offseason event, but their rule is that the backup robot must play at least ONCE in the eliminations. If you're 1 match from elimination and your backup hasn't played, you have to play them; otherwise, whoever you want to goes out there.

The only problem i could see with a system like this is that you would then have 7 robots qualifying at each event, which wouldn't be an issue if champs weren't already cramped as it is

[Chris is me]

As much as it bugs me, I really don't mind the presence of the serpentine anywhere but IRI. It gives the low seeds a fighting chance at regionals, and honestly at lower levels of play the captain and first pick usually are the teams with the biggest impact on the final score anyway. Yes, teams might decline because of it, but why have we decided that's a bad thing?

Pick your own backup would be kinda cool, but especially at smaller events teams have trouble making a list of 24 pickable robots as it is. Upping that to 32 is asking a lot of teams and scouts, plus it adds more "weak" robots to the Championship roster, which I don't think anyone wants.

[Kyler Hagler]

Yeah, the declining at TRR was a bit shocking to the audience. We as a team kinda expected to be declined because we aren't that well known. But hey, it ended up in our favor anyways.