Team Update: Drive Team Placement in Playoffs

[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.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Blue only can use the advantage if they have robots that are able to capitalize on it. They still have to be faster than the other team. All the placement advantages in the world, won't make the RCs come off the step any faster for you. By giving blue this advantage assuming both alliances has some sort of staggered RC grappling (some of them come off the step faster than others) we are likely allowing Blue to get some but not all the containers, if Red does have at least a faster initial pull of one or more RCs.

Basically what I'm saying is yes the GDC is giving blue an advantage but if Red is faster they still get some of the RCs and you probably have a more even distribution of RCs because of this. (2-2, or 3-1 instead of 4-0). Since Blue can put their faster puller against Red's slower puller (or later RCs if it's one robot doing all 4).

Man we really need to lock down a vocabulary for some of these things.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

Blue only can use the advantage if they have robots that are able to capitalize on it. They still have to be faster than the other team. All the placement advantages in the world, won't make the RCs come off the step any faster for you. By giving blue this advantage assuming both alliances has some sort of staggered RC grappling (some of them come off the step faster than others) we are likely allowing Blue to get some but not all the containers, if Red does have at least a faster initial pull of one or more RCs.

Basically what I'm saying is yes the GDC is giving blue an advantage but if Red is faster they still get some of the RCs and you probably have a more even distribution of RCs because of this. (2-2, or 3-1 instead of 4-0). Since Blue can put their faster puller against Red's slower puller (or later RCs if it's one robot doing all 4).

Man we really need to lock down a vocabulary for some of these things.

True Blue still needs to be faster however Red would seriously be re-evaluating if they want to risk getting entangled with Blue in an autonomous fight over the RCs and risk damaging their (and Blue's) robot.

If Red is a few seconds faster this could be a mute issue depending on how both Blue and Red collect their RCs but as the season progresses and teams get faster the GDC is giving favor to the Blue alliance.

IMHO have the head referee do a coin toss if an order needs to be determined. Blue alliances shouldn't be guaranteed the upper hand in autonomous.

[mmaunu]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

Blue only can use the advantage if they have robots that are able to capitalize on it. They still have to be faster than the other team. All the placement advantages in the world, won't make the RCs come off the step any faster for you. By giving blue this advantage assuming both alliances has some sort of staggered RC grappling (some of them come off the step faster than others) we are likely allowing Blue to get some but not all the containers, if Red does have at least a faster initial pull of one or more RCs.

Basically what I'm saying is yes the GDC is giving blue an advantage but if Red is faster they still get some of the RCs and you probably have a more even distribution of RCs because of this. (2-2, or 3-1 instead of 4-0). Since Blue can put their faster puller against Red's slower puller (or later RCs if it's one robot doing all 4).

Man we really need to lock down a vocabulary for some of these things.

Very true. This ruling also makes it nearly mandatory for a first seed robot to identify and pick the robot that can most quickly (and reliably, of course) grab containers (unless the first seed robot also happens to be the fastest container grabber). If they don't, they could face a blue alliance that prevents them from getting any containers off of the step. At the very least, it's going to be interesting seeing how this all plays out in the first couple of weeks.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by mmaunu

At the very least, it's going to be interesting seeing how this all plays out in the first couple of weeks.

My guess is this doesn't matter until Week 5+. I'm betting there are teams that will dominate the RCs early on and position and order won't matter. As the season progresses it will be like Minibots and teams will catch up.

[Alpha Beta]

According to 5.4.4 the seeding is redone after the quarters, and again after the semi's.

You may notice that the #1 seed gets to play last in QF4 and QF8. That gives them the opportunity to pre-calculate the score they need to come in 4th and sandbag the match a little (if ensuring the blue autonomous advantage was important to them).

Moving from the semi's to the finals is not as easy to control from that spot though since Q4 plays their last match against Q3 before Q1 and Q2 play theirs. (Side note: I could foresee a scenario where Q1 and Q2 both score enough to advance in the last semi-final, but battle each other for the right to be blue in the finals by scoring as close to the minimum number of points needed to edge out Q3 and Q4.)

Now what about Einstein... Will the positioning of the 8 subdivision winners be random or based on their Qualification Average in the subdivision finals? Section 5.6 is a little thin on this area.

Help me out if I overlooked something.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Alpha Beta

According to 5.4.4 the seeding is redone after the quarters, and again after the semi's.

You may notice that the #1 seed gets to play last in QF4 and QF8. That gives them the opportunity to pre-calculate the score they need to come in 4th and sandbag the match a little (if ensuring the blue autonomous advantage was important to them).

Moving from the semi's to the finals is not as easy to control from that spot though since Q4 plays their last match against Q3 before Q1 and Q2 play theirs. (Side note: I could foresee a scenario where Q1 and Q2 both score enough to advance in the last semi-final, but battle each other for the right to be blue in the finals by scoring as close to the minimum number of points needed to edge out Q3 and Q4.)

Now what about Einstein... Will the positioning of the 8 subdivision winners be random or based on their Qualification Average in the subdivision finals? Section 5.6 is a little thin on this area.

Help me out if I overlooked something.

Thats really interesting. Wow. This game is so weird.
But also interesting. What if you score the minimum number of points needed to advance, but then in the last few seconds an errant noodle or robot knocks over a stack. What is your course of action?
How important is that slight advantage to you?

[mmaunu]

Originally Posted by Alpha Beta

According to 5.4.4 the seeding is redone after the quarters, and again after the semi's.

You may notice that the #1 seed gets to play last in QF4 and QF8. That gives them the opportunity to pre-calculate the score they need to come in 4th and sandbag the match a little (if ensuring the blue autonomous advantage was important to them).

Moving from the semi's to the finals is not as easy to control from that spot though since Q4 plays their last match against Q3 before Q1 and Q2 play theirs. (Side note: I could foresee a scenario where Q1 and Q2 both score enough to advance in the last semi-final, but battle each other for the right to be blue in the finals by scoring as close to the minimum number of points needed to edge out Q3 and Q4.)

Now what about Einstein... Will the positioning of the 8 subdivision winners be random or based on their Qualification Average in the subdivision finals? Section 5.6 is a little thin on this area.

Help me out if I overlooked something.

I totally missed this and love the complexity that it adds! It also nullifies pretty much all of my worries. I love moments like this when I realize that a) the sky is not actually falling and b) I still haven't learned the lesson that the sky is rarely falling.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by mmaunu

I totally missed this and love the complexity that it adds! It also nullifies pretty much all of my worries. I love moments like this when I realize that a) the sky is not actually falling and b) I still haven't learned the lesson that the sky is rarely falling.

I'm thinking the reseeding is probably the most glossed over rule, I've seen in a long time. I've the read manual several times and didn't notice that until Alpha Beta posted it. Sandbagging for the Blue spot could be very interesting/strange on Einstein. Also I don't understand why the GDC didn't call this out in a more clear way in the manual. I'm not a fan of rules that encourage teams to score fewer points, as it stands now this rules does that in certain situations.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

I'm thinking the reseeding is probably the most glossed over rule, I've seen in a long time. I've the read manual several times and didn't notice that until Alpha Beta posted it. Sandbagging for the Blue spot could be very interesting/strange on Einstein. Also I don't understand why the GDC didn't call this out in a more clear way in the manual. I'm not a fan of rules that encourage teams to score fewer points, as it stands now this rules does that in certain situations.

I would almost assume that the GDC glossed over the rule as well, because if they're intentionally, passively incentivizing teams not going for the best possible score every time they go on the field (as is the case in the qualifications) then that's some 10/10 game design right there.