Serpentine Draft

[scottandme]

As the person who said this to the OP, might as well add a few thoughts.

Firstly, the idea was more or less a joke - it's pretty obviously an untenable solution without making large and odd changes to the alliance selection process.

The thought was just borne out of the problem that this game dynamic highly disincentivizes picking from the #1 seed, at least at smaller district events. Obviously the game dynamic has been picked apart in many threads already, so no need to rehash it heavily. But having a relatively "flat" field of teams, where the scoring tasks are relatively simple - you're better off with 2 "average" teammates to make a run in elims. We seeded 1st at both events we attended, and that was the last place I wanted to pick from (ignoring the district points, etc).

The penalty of seeding high obviously varies based on the size and depth of the field, it was just especially pronounced this year - where many of the "scoring" robots are evenly matched, and there's a larger gap between the #16 and #9 picks than the #8 and #1 picks. Unless you're at an event with a small number of clear-cut powerhouses, or a really deep field of teams, it's a struggle.

So the thought was - if seeding #1 is a disadvantage, how could it be made back into an advantage? Short of going to the IRI style non-serpentine, that idea was about all I could come up with.

I think we'll see the same dynamic at MARCMP, the #2 and #3 seeds didn't advance out of the quarterfinals in 2012 or 2013, what chance do they have this year?

[c.shu]

Originally Posted by Christopher149

but isn't it a bit exciting to not always have #1 seed win?

Not if you are the #1 seed.

[MisterJ]

Winning percentages for each seed are below. The number outside the percentages is how often the given seed wins in that round (overall). The number inside the parentheses is how often the given seed wins in that round out of how many times they advance to that round (essentially winning percentage in that round).

Accurate for 2014 weeks 1-5.

Quarterfinal Winners
1-seed 91%
2-seed 79%
3-seed 71%
4-seed 45%
5-seed 55%
6-seed 29%
7-seed 21%
8-seed 9%

Semifinal Winners
1-seed 65% (72%)
2-seed 50% (63%)
3-seed 27% (38%)
4-seed 13% (29%)
5-seed 19% (35%)
6-seed 14% (48%)
7-seed 9% (44%)
8-seed 3% (29%)

Winners
1-seed 49% (75%)
2-seed 21% (41%)
3-seed 12% (43%)
4-seed 5% (40%)
5-seed 5% (27%)
6-seed 4% (27%)
7-seed 4% (43%)
8-seed 1% (50%)

[JosephC]

Originally Posted by Damiaen_Florian

Wait until district championships and world championships and I think you'll again see the higher seeds winning as often as they normally do.

I predict it to be the exact opposite at MSC this year. There's really no amazingly outstanding robot this year, or two, or three. There's around 20, just take a look at Waterford from this past weekend for a look. The blue alliance captains are going to be able to select an entire alliance of robots that are just as good as the 1st-4th seed robots, while your #1 and #2 seeds are going to get shafted come round the 3rd pick.

Disclaimer: There's more then 20 good teams in Michigan, there just happens to be around 20 teams this year that could all be #1 seed solely based off their robot performance.

[rlowe61]

If you want to through a wrench in the serpentine system, here's one someone could try in an off season event.
Let the current system of first round selections happen, 1 to 8, all the moving up, etc that currently happens. Once all 8 alliances have 2 teams Pause.
Alliance captains now draw numbers out of a hat (1-8 or 8-1 or a big bowl and everyone at one time(make it interesting put numbers 1-16 in there, you still go sequentially, but may skip the unselected numbers), these numbers now dictate the order of selection of the alliances' last member. This would totally randomize how the alliance second selection is made. Want to make it more interesting, as the teams draw their number, keep it secret until their turn to select. Emcee ask who has "1", no answer "2" and so on. This way it is totally a suprise to everyone, (if you use 16 numbers, number "7" may be the lowest number on the floor "SUPRISE").
As a good stratigist can predict what a team may need and look ahead, the suprise order can throw the prediction off by not knowing who's selecting next.
Just a thought.
These thoughts are mine, and do not reflect on any team or other individuals.

[PVCpirate]

Originally Posted by Damiaen_Florian

I think that as the fields of play get deeper, meaning more high level teams, the 1st seed will be much more likely to win, simply because the 3rd robot picked by the 1st seed will be closer to the skill level of the 3rd robot picked by the 8th seed. Wait until district championships and world championships and I think you'll again see the higher seeds winning as often as they normally do.

I've always seen it the opposite way. At a district or regional, the top tier of robots is usually about 2-4 robots, which usually end up on the top 1-3 alliances. In a championship division, that top tier is something like 20 teams or so. As a result, the pool of teams to pick from is much deeper, and the difference between the alliances is much smaller. So a 5 seed making Einstein(1241, 610, 1477 in 2013), is not very surprising.

[dag0620]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

Teams and the audience have a hard enough time deciphering the current drafting system. I don't think we should make it any more complex, or alliance selection along might run through the awards ceremony.

To add, in the district model how would teams be assigned picking points in a consistent and fair way, without making it over complicated?

I understand the issues with the serpentine draft, but beyond switching to 1-8 1-8, I don't think there's much that can be done.

Overall the serpentine draft keeps things as fair as we can get them. It's not perfect, but as of right now it seems to be the best solution.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by TheCascadeKid

To clarify, are you saying that because high-ranked alliances have to wait until the very end to choose a third robot, they end up losing because sometimes their pick isn't functional?

I agree that it can be difficult (if not impossible) to win this year with a broken alliance member. However, it's a very game-specific problem: while last year it certainly wasn't fun to have a broken 3rd robot, it wasn't necessarily something that could sink an alliance with two solid robots.

That being said, it's week 6. We only have one week of regionals left before higher-level competition (district and world championships), and at those levels functionality is more or less guaranteed for all robots there. While I'm not stupid enough to suggest that no robot ever breaks in St. Louis, there are enough teams there at a high enough level so that this just won't be a problem.

I hear what you're saying, but at this point in the season I don't think it's possible to make a real difference. It's an interesting concept, though.

Note also that the alliances will have 4 robots in St. Louis. I haven't looked at the draft order, but I assume it snakes back so the 1st alliance gets two straight picks.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

Note also that the alliances will have 4 robots in St. Louis. I haven't looked at the draft order, but I assume it snakes back so the 1st alliance gets two straight picks.

This is correct. 1-8, 8-1, 1-8.

[Paul Copioli]

Originally Posted by MisterJ

I'd also be interested in seeing the winning percentage of each seed in each round this year. I bet this year's percentages are very much different from the past two, with lower seeds winning much more often.

Here is the problem with that statistic and the way the ranking is done: a top 3 team at a regional or division may be sitting at 7 or 8. I argue in deep fields like championship divisions you may be better served, if you are a top 3 robot in your division, to pick from 7 or 8. In many cases, you may be considered the favorite even though you are at 7.

[waialua359]

The #1 seed in Dallas won this year. I didnt see it on the list.

Also, no offense to any of the teams we played, but IMO, I found the #8 alliance much tougher to play against in all 3 regionals we played then the semifinals matchup. We were #1 seed 3 times last year and #1 seed 2 times the year before that. The 1 vs 8 matchups the previous 2 years were not as difficult vs. the next round.
What would be interesting to see instead of who just won an event, is to see the record of each of the seeds in eliminations. I'd bet a lot of the lower seeds have won more matches vs. the previous 2 years, based on the nature of the game.

[Adam Freeman]

Originally Posted by JosephC

There's really no amazingly outstanding robot this year, or two, or three....

Disclaimer: There's more then 20 good teams in Michigan, there just happens to be around 20 teams this year that could all be #1 seed solely based off their robot performance.

I disagree with both of these statements. There are definately certain robots that standout above the rest. The top 20 in the World might be close...maybe. I would guess more like the top 5-10. The top 20 in MI are not all equal.

But, even given that... NO robot this year will be able to seed #1 SOLEY based on their robot performance. Any team that seeds #1 needs to have some scheduling luck (there own or others) on their side.

Serpentine or not... I'll take the #1 seed, with an opportunity to select the next best machine available any time! The top 2 machines at a competition and some good strategy should atleast make it to the finals of 95% of competitions.

[IbleedPink233]

How have teams been killed by the Serpentine draft? How is 1st pick a severe penalty?
If you are referring to the 1st seed teams that end up with a dead 2nd pick, that is what happens when either the regional is very small or the due diligence of scouting wasn't done.
From my experience, allowing the pick order to be determined by the 1st seed makes no sense at all. First of all, there are a lot of teams that are already overwhelmed by the selection process. It's a continual agony for spectators to keep up with what is going on, let alone for the students on the field under pressure.
Also, why would the 1st seed ever not want to go first? They give away the main advantage of being 1st seed: 1st shot at the best robots. All it does is give the new 1st pick a chance to block any robot that the 1st seed wants.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by scottandme

The thought was just borne out of the problem that this game dynamic highly disincentivizes picking from the #1 seed, at least at smaller district events. Obviously the game dynamic has been picked apart in many threads already, so no need to rehash it heavily. But having a relatively "flat" field of teams, where the scoring tasks are relatively simple - you're better off with 2 "average" teammates to make a run in elims. We seeded 1st at both events we attended, and that was the last place I wanted to pick from (ignoring the district points, etc).

I can certainly see the situation where someone wouldn't want to be picking first, and this is an intriguing idea.

However, I think this part of the post is particularly interesting. For years, the idea of the "Super Alliance" in the first seed has been pretty well set - most of the time, you expect the #1 seed to win, and often they do. This year, that doesn't seem to be the case. At least at the events here in Minnesota, the elims have really been anyone's game, and anyone could come out on top, the alliances were that evenly matched. Part of that might have something to do with the alliance selection order as this thread is indicating, and part of it probably has to do with seeding - a lot of the top scoring robots at an event are not seeding in the top 8 due to the cooperative nature of the game and the random alliances in quals.

IMO, this is a good thing. I like seeing elims that are evenly matched. I like seeing close matches where the outcome doesn't feel predetermined. I think it adds energy to the event and makes it more exciting for everyone present (including those teams not playing). I don't joke when I say the Lake Superior elims were the most exciting elims I've ever witnessed, and that includes the two competitions my team has won and the elims I've seen at Champs.

[cstelter]

Originally Posted by Chief Hedgehog

Outcome of Minnesnowta Regionals

2012
#2 Alliance wins at 10,000 Lakes
#2 Alliance wins at North Star
#1 Alliance Wins at Lake Superior
#3 Alliance wins at Northern Lights

?? I thought 2013 was the first year for Northern Lights.