Team Update: Drive Team Placement in Playoffs

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by JB987

As Caleb"s post points out, it looks like highest seeded alliance (red) is no longer a desirable status?

"If order placement of ROBOTS matters to either or both ALLIANCES, the ALLIANCE must notify the Head REFEREE during setup for that MATCH. Upon notification, the Head REFEREE will require ALLIANCES to alternate placement of their ROBOTS, starting with the Red ALLIANCE."

Why would the GDC give such a potential advantage for auto set up to the Blue alliance? Or am I misinterpreting something?

Since it's part of an update, I imagine they intended to write it so the robot setup advantages favor the higher seeded alliance and they will fix it later. If it doesn't change before week 1, well, whatever.

The static placement of teams based on intra-alliance standing is a boon for logistics at the team, alliance, and field operation levels. Drive teams always know where they are setting up, alliance captains are always at the best station for coordinating, MC and GA always know which team will be the alliance captain by just looking at the field, as will spectators, etc.

Here is a thought: if you are an alliance captain, how much stock are you putting into HP placement? Do you want the 2 HP to be next to 2 station, 3 HP next to 3 station, and your HP running some tactical function like the 2011 HP not at the slots? You could even say there might be an opportunity if the 2 and 3 HPs are similar enough to the 1 HP that your 1 HP could be coached up on helping to coordinate 1 Drive Team while 1 Coach operates as a field marshal of sorts, understanding and accepting some obvious tradeoffs with this move.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Here is a thought: if you are an alliance captain, how much stock are you putting into HP placement? Do you want the 2 HP to be next to 2 station, 3 HP next to 3 station, and your HP running some tactical function like the 2011 HP not at the slots? You could even say there might be an opportunity if the 2 and 3 HPs are similar enough to the 1 HP that your 1 HP could be coached up on helping to coordinate 1 Drive Team while 1 Coach operates as a field marshal of sorts, understanding and accepting some obvious tradeoffs with this move.

It depends on the alliance captains robot. If they are a slot feeder, they will have their trained HP at the slot. It's like 2013, you don't want just anybody feeding your robot.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

It depends on the alliance captains robot. If they are a slot feeder, they will have their trained HP at the slot. It's like 2013, you don't want just anybody feeding your robot.

I mean, teams that made their robots almost idiot proof w/ regards to catching a pass from an HP (from literal targets to software compensation to "just throw it in this large hole, you can't miss it) in 2014 were fine. You want someone who can tell your robot is properly aligned or within an acceptable range of degrees of the slot before they start opening the chute door, but the chute this year is so much slower than the 2013 chutes having a fast HP is almost not even a real thing.

You are making a tradeoff if you pull a familiar HP for the purposes of better coordination between teams, and I don't even know if it could be worth it yet. It's just something I'm going to simmer over for a bit.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by JB987

As Caleb"s post points out, it looks like highest seeded alliance (red) is no longer a desirable status?

"If order placement of ROBOTS matters to either or both ALLIANCES, the ALLIANCE must notify the Head REFEREE during setup for that MATCH. Upon notification, the Head REFEREE will require ALLIANCES to alternate placement of their ROBOTS, starting with the Red ALLIANCE."

Why would the GDC give such a potential advantage for auto set up to the Blue alliance? Or am I misinterpreting something?

I hope this isn't an attempt to level the playing field by dragging the top down (like the serpentine draft).

[mmaunu]

This is something that I would like to ask in the Q&A but it also seems inappropriate for Q&A since the rule is incredibly clear. Is there a forum for asking "Why did this rule (about red placing robots on the field before blue) get made when it clearly gives a disadvantage to the higher seeded alliance even though they earned the right to have the advantage?"?

Did they, perhaps, give the advantage to the lower-seeded alliance in an attempt to balance the play? That seems particularly rough in the Finals matches and/or at high levels of play where both sides will be vying for the center containers.

[EdwardP]

Beyond the impact at regional events, the implications for Einstein are huge. At least in a subdivision or at a regional, you can plan and prepare for the situations you will be facing when making your selections.

On Einstein, where this rule will have the greatest impact, presumably, the "seeds" will be randomly set, and some divisions will have an inherent advantage, by no doing of their own.

I'm not committed to this idea, but one way to at least make it feel more fair would be with a ABBAAB format. It would also save time, since the current way presumably could take up to 6 minutes, since each team needs to set up their robot.

[Rachel Lim]

Originally Posted by mmaunu

This is something that I would like to ask in the Q&A but it also seems inappropriate for Q&A since the rule is incredibly clear. Is there a forum for asking "Why did this rule (about red placing robots on the field before blue) get made when it clearly gives a disadvantage to the higher seeded alliance even though they earned the right to have the advantage?"?

I'm guessing that Q316 and Q317 ask your question:

Originally Posted by Q317

Sec 5.1 states that "...require ALLIANCES to alternate placement of their ROBOTS, starting with the Red ALLIANCE.", implying that the order of ROBOT placement is Red, Blue, Red, Blue, Red, Blue. Sec 5.4.4 states that during Playoff MATCHES "The higher seeded ALLIANCE will always be assigned to the Red side of the FIELD" This implies that the lower seeded alliance (blue) is given the advantage of placing last and reacting to their higher seeded opponent (red). Is this the intent of the rule?

[waialua359]

I'm not sure why these new rules came out in this update?
If anything, why not let teams decide which alliance station they want. Its been done before at offseason events and allows teams to comfortably choose where they want to be, optimizing vantage points for the entire alliance. To some extent it does matter. Some drivers are tall, some short and anyone that has ever coached behind the glass will tell you that the view is much different than for a spectator seeing the whole field.
The field isnt symmetrical with respect to each alliance.

The only reason I see that red places their bots first, is to level the playing field as others have suggested.

[Joseph1825]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I hope this isn't an attempt to level the playing field by dragging the top down (like the serpentine draft).

Wait, did I miss something? I always thought of the serpentine draft as one of the best things for FIRST competitiveness. If you check the numbers the first alliance (and thus the first seed), still win over 50% of all regionals. IMO the serpentine draft is one of the only things making the lowest five alliances competitive.
I don't think of it as pulling the top down, I think of it as pushing the top and the bottom closer together.
(sorry if this is derailing a thread, it's kind of a pet peeve of mine.)

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I hope this isn't an attempt to level the playing field by dragging the top down (like the serpentine draft).

Barring some sort of pre-recorded position cards you hand to the ref before a match, robot positioning is a zero-sum thing. One team will have to place their robot first. This is just as much of raising the floor as it is "dragging the top down."

Originally Posted by mmaunu

This is something that I would like to ask in the Q&A but it also seems inappropriate for Q&A since the rule is incredibly clear. Is there a forum for asking "Why did this rule (about red placing robots on the field before blue) get made when it clearly gives a disadvantage to the higher seeded alliance even though they earned the right to have the advantage?"?

Did they, perhaps, give the advantage to the lower-seeded alliance in an attempt to balance the play? That seems particularly rough in the Finals matches and/or at high levels of play where both sides will be vying for the center containers.

You think the rankings will be a perfect estimation of what was "earned" on the field? You don't think scheduling will still have a large impact on average scores? Do you think that being the higher seed automatically entitles you to all of the advantages?

[JB987]

So if one is uncomfortable with the higher seed "earning" an advantage then why not argue for alternating second placement status during auto set up with each match played?

[mmaunu]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

You think the rankings will be a perfect estimation of what was "earned" on the field? You don't think scheduling will still have a large impact on average scores? Do you think that being the higher seed automatically entitles you to all of the advantages?

1. I don't think that the rankings are a perfect estimation of what was "earned" on the field but the ranking system is what it is and it is used to determine relative ranks. These ranks typically come with perks for being higher ranked (so that there is a tournament-specific incentive to rank well).
   
2. I think that scheduling will have a large impact on average scores...just like it has these last many years.
   
3. I do think that being the higher seed entitles you to having advantages in general and having the advantage in this particular situation. This rule gives a very significant disadvantage to the higher-seeded team, a disadvantage that is not balanced by any other factor and one that might decide finals matches in many events.

[Josh Fritsch]

The Q&A was answered, and confirms this Blue alliance advantage:

Q317 Q. Sec 5.1 states that "...require ALLIANCES to alternate placement of their ROBOTS, starting with the Red ALLIANCE.", implying that the order of ROBOT placement is Red, Blue, Red, Blue, Red, Blue. Sec 5.4.4 states that during Playoff MATCHES "The higher seeded ALLIANCE will always be assigned to the Red side of the FIELD" This implies that the lower seeded alliance (blue) is given the advantage of placing last and reacting to their higher seeded opponent (red). Is this the intent of the rule?

A. Sections 5.1 and 5.4.4 are correct as written, and as you have described in your question.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by mmaunu

1. I don't think that the rankings are a perfect estimation of what was "earned" on the field but the ranking system is what it is and it is used to determine relative ranks. These ranks typically come with perks for being higher ranked (so that there is a tournament-specific incentive to rank well).
   
2. I think that scheduling will have a large impact on average scores...just like it has these last many years.
   
3. I do think that being the higher seed entitles you to having advantages in general and having the advantage in this particular situation. This rule gives a very significant disadvantage to the higher-seeded team, a disadvantage that is not balanced by any other factor and one that might decide finals matches in many events.

Not balanced by any other factor? Getting an earlier pick in alliance selection is certainly balancing it via another factor, I'd say.

[mmaunu]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Not balanced by any other factor? Getting an earlier pick in alliance selection is certainly balancing it via another factor, I'd say.

I do think that first seed getting an earlier alliance selection is an advantage, but I also think that the serpentine draft is a balancing factor for that. Since the rules have an existing balancing mechanism for getting to pick first, this new rule seems to come without a complementary balancing factor. In fact, I submit that, at some events, there might be a distinct advantage to being the second alliance captain. That design decision seems like a bad idea to me.

I don't think that the draft order completely balances the issue, by the way, but I also don't think that it should balance out perfectly. I believe that the tournament rules should provide incentive to be the first seed. This new rule provides a unique penalty to being first seed; they will never by anything but the red alliance and be at a significant disadvantage in all of the playoffs matches and in the actual finals for an event.

This will also play out very strangely on Einstein this year where teams come from different fields; will four alliances will win the lottery and be assigned the color blue? Actually, I am not sure that they have defined the process for picking alliance colors on Einstein...I can't find that information in the manual.

Edited to add: I do think that there are a variety of equalization strategies that could also be employed as well (as others have mentioned). Robot placement could alternate from game to game: Red-then-Blue in one game and then Blue-then-Red in the next game. You could also just flip a coin before each match to make the advantage less predetermined or less one-sided.