Go to Post A mentor, by definition, provides a nuturing environment and, over time, makes themselves progressively unnecessary. - Rich Kressly [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
View Poll Results: How should alliance selection be altered?
Reverse the order so that 8th seed picks first and 1st seed picks last 6 4.38%
Make it so that any team in the top 8 cannot pick another team in the top 8 30 21.90%
Leave as it is 101 73.72%
Voters: 137. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-04-2005, 16:16
Alex Pelan's Avatar
Alex Pelan Alex Pelan is offline
GO IRISH
FRC #0177 (Bobcat Robotics)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: S-Dub
Posts: 476
Alex Pelan has a brilliant futureAlex Pelan has a brilliant futureAlex Pelan has a brilliant futureAlex Pelan has a brilliant futureAlex Pelan has a brilliant futureAlex Pelan has a brilliant futureAlex Pelan has a brilliant futureAlex Pelan has a brilliant futureAlex Pelan has a brilliant futureAlex Pelan has a brilliant futureAlex Pelan has a brilliant future
Send a message via AIM to Alex Pelan Send a message via Yahoo to Alex Pelan
Re: Alliance picking

The current was is fine. The professional sports drafts were designed that way for a reason, as were the Fantasy Sports drafts, and of course, the FIRST draft. Each of them serves a different purpose in attempting to create a fair environment. Professional sports drafts are designed so that the teams that are in last place get top prospects, in hopes that teams will not remain in the bottom of the league for forever. These teams are already at a disadvantage, because if they're in last place, they most likely have had talent/injury problems, so they are given the advantage of improving their team for next year, or at least for the near future. This doesn't work for FIRST because the draft is for this season, not next season, as well as the fact that FIRST's "regular season" does not produce nearly enough definitive results about a robot or a team as the professional sports system does.

The fantasy sports draft was designed to keep everything fair to everyone. As far as the system knows, everyone is equal in talent, so it picks randomly, and essentially everyone, in theory, is able to pick an equal amount of talent from their draft position. This doesn't work because it would render qualifying rounds moot.

The draft system we have right now is fine. FIRST is not professional sports. It was designed that way. We are trying to move away from the system of individual players being drafted and idolized. We are drafting teams here, not individual people.

-Alex Pelan
__________________
Team 177 - Bobcat Robotics (2004-2007)
University of Notre Dame Class of 2011
Reply With Quote
  #17   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-04-2005, 16:21
Rick TYler Rick TYler is offline
A VEX GUy WIth A STicky SHift KEy
VRC #0010 (Exothermic Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Redmond, Washington
Posts: 2,000
Rick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Alliance picking

This is a great topic.

Using a sports analogy, by the end of a 162-game baseball season, you have a pretty good idea of which teams are the best that year (the 3-division format with a wild card is Just Wrong, but we'll let that slide for now). Since the FRC competition starts with 8 or 10 matches with random alliances, I believe you really can't tell which are the best robots. I think, therefore, that the seeding is more than just a little arbitrary. The final alliance system needs to address this discrepancy.

The current method uses human evaluation through the scouting process to recognize outstanding robots that might have slipped in the seedings through no fault of their own. This method is still imperfect as we all know that teams with reputations, low numbers, uniforms, handouts, giant chicken suits and other "marketing" tools are sometimes chosen over quiet teams with great robots. Scouting is, in a lot of ways, not much different from the seeding system.

So, here is a modest proposal for some changes to the current system:

1. Qualification matches only last one day. For a 40-team regional, this would probably limit each team to 5-6 qualification matches.

2. At the end of Qualification Day on Friday, the teams would be seeded and the results posted. That evening, the teams can strategize for Eliminations.

3. First thing Saturday morning (like 8am), the alliances are chosen. Matches start at 9. The number of alliances would be the number of teams present rounded down to the nearest integer. For example, a regional with 40 teams would have 13 alliances.

4. Any "odd-man-out" teams would stand by to replace robots that aren't working during the Eliminations. I'm open to ideas here, by the way. Maybe it would be better to add them to the lowest- or highest-seeded alliances and have one or two 4-robot teams?

5. Alliances would be chosen via draft as in the current system.

6. The First Round of the Eliminations would be for reducing the number of alliances to eight. For example, in a 39-team regional, there would be 13 alliances. To reduce the 13 alliances (for example) to eight alliances for the Final Round of the Eliminations, there would be a 2-out-of-3 match between the lower-ranked alliances.

7. OK, this is easier with a drawing than in words, but here's how the First Elimination round would work for regionals with up to 48 teams (I haven't thought about what to do with more than 16 alliances yet...):

a. If you have 16 alliances, #1 plays #16, #2 plays #15, etc. The eight winners go on to the Final Round.

b. If you have fewer than 16 alliances, use this formula to determine the number of matches:

(# of alliances) - 8 = # of single-elimination matches

For example, a 13-alliance field would have have five First Round elimination matches, which would be played between the 4th through 13th seeded alliances. The top three alliances would get a bye. The 4th seed would play the 13th, the 5th would play the 12th, etc. The winners of these matches would go through to play the Final Round with the top-seeded alliances that got a bye.

Things I like about this system:

1. Everyone gets to participate in the alliance selection. No one is left out.

2. Everyone has a shot at the finals. Admittedly, the 13th-ranked alliance won't have much chance, but miracles happen (Winter Olympics, 1980).

3. The Qualifications round is more about scouting and seeding than about eliminating teams (by not being picked).

Things I don't like about this system:

1. It's a little harder to explain than the current system.

2. I haven't done the work yet to see if this leaves enough matches on Saturday.


So, what do you think?
__________________
Exothermic Robotics Club, Venturing Crew 2036
VRC 10A, 10B, 10D, 10Q, 10V, 10X, 10Z, and 575
Reply With Quote
  #18   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-04-2005, 17:36
spears312's Avatar
spears312 spears312 is offline
El Capitan
AKA: Ryan
FRC #0312 (Heatwave)
Team Role: Leadership
 
Join Date: May 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: St. Pete, FL
Posts: 276
spears312 is just really nicespears312 is just really nicespears312 is just really nicespears312 is just really nicespears312 is just really nice
Send a message via AIM to spears312
Re: Alliance picking

Currently, the way it’s done now is fair and simple. If you seed in first place, you deserve first pick. And while the first seed certainly has the advantage, they won’t always win. In almost every case it seems that it's not the best team that makes up the alliance, but the best combination of teams. Disallowing the picking of teams with in the top eight would make an interesting rule change which would end any 1-2 seed alliances, but at the same time would make picking a lot harder because in most cases first seeds pick list's top eight are the rankings top eight.
__________________
HEATWAVE 312
2004 FL Regional Chairman's Award Winners
2005 UCF & Palmetto Team Spirit Award Winners
2005 Championship Curie Division Semi - Finnalists (thx to 118 and 229)
FIRST
Under Construction
Reply With Quote
  #19   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-04-2005, 17:44
The Lucas's Avatar
The Lucas The Lucas is offline
CaMOElot, it is a silly place
AKA: My First Name is really "The" (or Brian)
FRC #0365 (The Miracle Workerz); FRC#1495 (AGR); FRC#4342 (Demon)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Dela-Where?
Posts: 1,564
The Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond reputeThe Lucas has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to The Lucas
Re: Alliance picking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick TYler
Things I like about this system:

1. Everyone gets to participate in the alliance selection. No one is left out.

2. Everyone has a shot at the finals. Admittedly, the 13th-ranked alliance won't have much chance, but miracles happen (Winter Olympics, 1980).

3. The Qualifications round is more about scouting and seeding than about eliminating teams (by not being picked).

Things I don't like about this system:

1. It's a little harder to explain than the current system.

2. I haven't done the work yet to see if this leaves enough matches on Saturday.


So, what do you think?
1. Hard to explain is not a big problem, hard to program is. The scoring software already has major problems with an 8 alliance tournament. At Pitt, it didn’t fill in the next highest ranked team as #8 when the top 8 picked among themselves. In the finals at Philly, the #2 alliance was red against the #4 alliance in blue. After the first match we had to switch sides (red to blue) because the program placed the #2 alliance in blue and the #4 alliance in red. I think the program must automatically put any alliance from the right half of the bracket (where #2 is) in the blue spot. I think it would take years to get the software for this tournament developed to a usable level. Meanwhile, it will probably break and we will have to use pencil and paper for a couple years.

2. At some Regionals, will be too many matches to play on Sat. At the Greater Toronto Regional this year, there were 66 teams. That would make 22 alliances. That would require: 6 play-in match-ups + 8 first round match-ups + 4 quarterfinal match-ups + 2 semi match-ups + 1 final match-up = 21 match-ups. Each match-up could last up to 3 matches for a maximum of 21*3=63 matches. That’s more than the number of qualifying matches some Regionals have. I guess the play-in games could be one match, but that would only eliminate 12 matches.

The idea is pretty cool. It has a feel of March Madness where you don’t really know who is going to win. It would be nice to include as many teams as possible in the tournament. Unfortunately, it’s just not practical.
__________________
Electrical & Programming Mentor ---Team #365 "The Miracle Workerz"
Programming Mentor ---Team #4342 "Demon Robotics"
Founding Mentor --- Team #1495 Avon Grove High School
2007 CMP Chairman's Award - Thanks to all MOE members (and others) past and present who made it a reality.
Robot Inspector
"I don't think I'm ever more ''aware'' than I am right after I burn my thumb with a soldering iron"
Reply With Quote
  #20   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-04-2005, 17:59
Wetzel's Avatar
Wetzel Wetzel is offline
DC Robotics
FRC #2914 (Tiger Pride)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: DC
Posts: 3,522
Wetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Wetzel
Re: Alliance picking

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lucas
1. Hard to explain is not a big problem, hard to program is. The scoring software already has major problems with an 8 alliance tournament. *snip Software problems snip*
It is not hard to program. This years software problems are not because of a complex ranking system, but because of poor development and testing procedures. It would be fairly easy for someone who is competent to write the program for Ricks system.

Wetzel
__________________
Viva Olancho!
Reply With Quote
  #21   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-04-2005, 21:35
JackN JackN is offline
Registered User
AKA: Jack Nowakowski
no team
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Lansing
Posts: 1,248
JackN has a reputation beyond reputeJackN has a reputation beyond reputeJackN has a reputation beyond reputeJackN has a reputation beyond reputeJackN has a reputation beyond reputeJackN has a reputation beyond reputeJackN has a reputation beyond reputeJackN has a reputation beyond reputeJackN has a reputation beyond reputeJackN has a reputation beyond reputeJackN has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Alliance picking

I like the way it is now. The one way it could be improved is if you added eight more possible alliances and picked friday night. There was talk that 1st always wins. At West Michigan number 5 or 4 won beating one and two with good strategy, good design and good driving.
__________________
2005-2007 Team 494 (Lead Scout and Strategist)
2008 Team 70 (Drive Coach)
2009-2011 Team 1504 (College Mentor)
Reply With Quote
  #22   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-04-2005, 23:02
Scott Chambliss's Avatar
Scott Chambliss Scott Chambliss is offline
jack-of-all-trades
FRC #1648 (Grady Gearbox Gangstaz)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 35
Scott Chambliss is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to Scott Chambliss
Re: Alliance picking

I think that the current system is good, although the serpentine system merits consideration. My team is a rookie team, and we did fairly good; #17 seed. To our complete suprise, we were the first choice of the #2 seed. While we didn't win, we won every qualifying match until finals, where we lost both to the #1 alliance (which teams it consisted of escape me for the moment). I guess that this goes to show that the current system works out pretty well. By the way, I think that there was a rookie team in the top 8 at Peachtree, but correct me if i'm wrong
__________________
Team 1648 - Grady Gearbox Gangstaz

2005
Peachtree Regional - Rookie All-Star Award
Peachtree Regional - Finalist (832, 1102!)
Championships - Galileo Quarter-Finalists
Reply With Quote
  #23   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-04-2005, 00:21
dlavery's Avatar
dlavery dlavery is offline
Curmudgeon
FRC #0116 (Epsilon Delta)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 3,176
dlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Alliance picking

The so-called "serpentine" system was one that Andy Baker and I discussed while standing around the sidelines at the Las Vegas Regional. It is interesting, but there are some definite pros and cons to the idea. But it was much better than one of the other ideas we discussed, that would never be implemented (let's just say that Andy promised if it ever was implemented, he wsa gonna get Midieval on my poor little, non-pig-wrestling, computer-geek behind; he said something about making his "sumo wrestling match with Jason Morrella look like a walk in the park" - and we all know how that ended... ).

-dave
__________________
"I know what you're thinking, punk," hissed Wordy Harry to his new editor, "you're thinking, 'Did he use six superfluous adjectives or only five?' - and to tell the truth, I forgot myself in all this excitement; but being as this is English, the most powerful language in the world, whose subtle nuances will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' - well do you, punk?"
- Stuart Vasepuru, 2006 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest



My OTHER CAR is still on Mars!!!
Reply With Quote
  #24   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-04-2005, 01:19
Kevin Kolodziej's Avatar
Kevin Kolodziej Kevin Kolodziej is offline
Operator in 100+ matches
AKA: Yngwie Kamen's roadie
FRC #1675 (Ultimate Protection Squad)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 631
Kevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Kevin Kolodziej
Thumbs up Re: Alliance picking

I really like the idea of the serpentine draft. I think that would definitely "balance" the competition a bit.

But the way it is, you almost always end up with the two best alliances in the finals, which makes for a very exciting set of matches.

Who's to say that FIRST couldn't give it a try for one year? It's not like that hasn't been done before (2001). Speaking of which, that auto-seed system was a very unique idea. For those that are unfamiliar with it, the #1 seed was automatically paired with the #5 seed, #2 with #6, etc. It worked well because you had to draft 3 additional teams and there were no quarter finals. There may have been teams that would throw a match so that they could drop down into an auto-seed position, but I'm not sure how frequently it happened (if at all).

The only complaint (not really) with the current system I have is that I think the #1 vs. #8 match should not be the first match (I think it should be the last quarterfinal match). I say this because the #8 teams tend to be inexperienced (in terms of the finals) and may not have even been prepared to be a picker (no excuse if you're in the top 15). In the frantic hour between picking and playing, repairs and reinspection must happen, and things get overlooked. Maybe I'm just bitter because we swapped in a good battery and then swapped the battery we just took out back IN just before the match (d'oh!). . Rest assured, that WILL NOT happen again!

Kev
__________________
Team 71: 1999, 2000 (Driver), 2001-2002 (Driver, Animator) // Team 1064: 2003 (Co-founder, Coach), 2004 (Coach) // Team 1714: 2006-2007 (Mentor, Coach)
Team 1675: 2005-2007 (Mentor, Coach), 2008 (Mentor), 2009-2017 (Mentor, Coach)
FLL: '04 (Judge), '05 (Ref), '06 (Ref), '07 (Ref), '08 (Judge, Ref), '09 (Judge), '10 (Ref), '16 (Judge Advisor) // Ref: '05 (IN, IRI), '06 (IN, IRI), '07 (IN, IRI), '08 (WMR, Curie)
WI RPC: 2006 - 2016 // FRC Inspector: '07 (WI), '08 (WI, IL), '09 (WI, IL), '10 (WI, CMP), '11 (WI, IL, CMP), '12 (WI), '13 (Northern Lights)
2007 WI Woodie Flowers Award Finalist // 2011 Wisconsin Regional Outstanding Volunteer // 2011/2013 Midwest Regional Chairman's Award
Reply With Quote
  #25   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-04-2005, 01:22
Rick TYler Rick TYler is offline
A VEX GUy WIth A STicky SHift KEy
VRC #0010 (Exothermic Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Redmond, Washington
Posts: 2,000
Rick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond reputeRick TYler has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Alliance picking

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery
(...)it was much better than one of the other ideas we discussed, that would never be implemented (let's just say that Andy promised if it ever was implemented, he was gonna get Midieval on my poor little, non-pig-wrestling, computer-geek behind; he said something about making his "sumo wrestling match with Jason Morrella look like a walk in the park" - and we all know how that ended... ).
Heh. I understand the Page Playoff system, and I'm not afraid to use it. You don't want me to do that, do you?
__________________
Exothermic Robotics Club, Venturing Crew 2036
VRC 10A, 10B, 10D, 10Q, 10V, 10X, 10Z, and 575
Reply With Quote
  #26   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-04-2005, 07:44
Kit Gerhart's Avatar
Kit Gerhart Kit Gerhart is offline
Mentor, coach, whatever--
FRC #0233 ("The Pink Team")
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL USA
Posts: 559
Kit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Kit Gerhart
Re: Alliance picking

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanddrag
I think one thing that may be a problem is who plays who. I know there is not time for everyone to play everyone but to me it seems unfair for the strongest alliance (#1) to play the weakest alliance (#8) for their first match in the quarterfinals and then alliances 4 and 5 play each other (pretty equal matched). Usually, it is two wins right up front by alliance #1 and alliance #8 is hugely defeated right from the start and it is over for them.
The "top seed plays bottom seed in the first round" is standard procedure for nearly all tournaments, and to me, it makes sense. Usually the #1 alliance beats #8 in FIRST events, but not always. Two examples where that didn't happen are quite memorable to me from last year's Championship. In our division, Currie, #8 beat #1, and #7 beat #2. We were #2, one of the "underachiever" alliances. Oh well.
__________________
Team 45, TechnoKats, 1996-2002
Team 1062, The Storm, 2003
Team 233, "The Pink Team," 2004-present

The views I express here are mine, and mine alone, not those of my team, FIRST, or my previous teams.
Reply With Quote
  #27   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-04-2005, 08:01
kjohnson's Avatar
kjohnson kjohnson is offline
Insert Clever Title Here
AKA: Kyle J.
FRC #1610 (BOT)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 575
kjohnson has a reputation beyond reputekjohnson has a reputation beyond reputekjohnson has a reputation beyond reputekjohnson has a reputation beyond reputekjohnson has a reputation beyond reputekjohnson has a reputation beyond reputekjohnson has a reputation beyond reputekjohnson has a reputation beyond reputekjohnson has a reputation beyond reputekjohnson has a reputation beyond reputekjohnson has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Alliance picking

The 8th seeded alliance at VCU beat the 1st seeded alliance in the quarterfinals.

Then they beat the 5th seeded alliance in the semi-finals.

They lost 2-0 in the finals to the 3rd seeded alliance - but they still made it to the finals with supposedly the lowest ranked teams and got plenty of recognition (good and bad). They used a very defensive strategy - sacrificing one robot that could not cap reliably (about 50%) to play very hard defense.
Reply With Quote
  #28   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-04-2005, 08:04
Kit Gerhart's Avatar
Kit Gerhart Kit Gerhart is offline
Mentor, coach, whatever--
FRC #0233 ("The Pink Team")
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL USA
Posts: 559
Kit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond reputeKit Gerhart has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Kit Gerhart
Re: Alliance picking

Quote:
Originally Posted by spears312
Currently, the way it’s done now is fair and simple. If you seed in first place, you deserve first pick. And while the first seed certainly has the advantage, they won’t always win. In almost every case it seems that it's not the best team that makes up the alliance, but the best combination of teams. Disallowing the picking of teams with in the top eight would make an interesting rule change which would end any 1-2 seed alliances, but at the same time would make picking a lot harder because in most cases first seeds pick list's top eight are the rankings top eight.
While I like the current system, I sometimes think it gives the top seed too much advantage over the other seeds. When number one can pick from any other team in the event, including #'s 2-8, if they have good scouting, they have are going to have two very good teams on their alliance. We have been in the enviable position of being top qualifier in two regionals this year, and both times we picked number 2, and won the regional. It turned out that our most difficult elimination round was at the Florida regional against the number 8 alliance, though a mechanical problem with one of our robots made that round difficult.

While I voted to keep the present system in the poll, it might be interesting to not allow teams to pick each other withing the top 8. That should equalize alliances somewhat and increase the chance for good teams that did not make the top 8 due to bad luck, etc., to end up in one of the top alliances. As it is now, teams who did not make the top 8 might be hoping to be picked in the second round by one of the top alliances, rather than in the first round by number 7 or 8. Not allowing teams to pick within the top 8 would "mix things up" in the first round picks like is now the case in the second round picks. I did not like the "auto matching" used in 2001 where 1-5, 2-6 etc. were automatically paired into alliances.
__________________
Team 45, TechnoKats, 1996-2002
Team 1062, The Storm, 2003
Team 233, "The Pink Team," 2004-present

The views I express here are mine, and mine alone, not those of my team, FIRST, or my previous teams.

Last edited by Kit Gerhart : 11-04-2005 at 08:08.
Reply With Quote
  #29   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-04-2005, 08:55
Raul's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Raul Raul is offline
Somewhat Useful Person
no team (Formerly - Wildstang)
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Greenville, TX
Posts: 599
Raul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Alliance picking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kit Gerhart

While I voted to keep the present system in the poll, it might be interesting to not allow teams to pick each other withing the top 8. That should equalize alliances somewhat and increase the chance for good teams that did not make the top 8 due to bad luck, etc., to end up in one of the top alliances. As it is now, teams who did not make the top 8 might be hoping to be picked in the second round by one of the top alliances, rather than in the first round by number 7 or 8. Not allowing teams to pick within the top 8 would "mix things up" in the first round picks like is now the case in the second round picks. I did not like the "auto matching" used in 2001 where 1-5, 2-6 etc. were automatically paired into alliances.
KEEP IT AS-IS. Allowing the top seeds to pick each other completely removes the idea of teams losing on purpose for a chance to be picked.

For example: If you are #4 and hope to be picked by #1, under the current system you do not have to worry about where you stand - just continue to win. But, if you do not allow #1 to pick other seeded teams, #4 would consider negotiating with #1 and then losing on purpose to make themselves eligible to be picked by #1.
__________________
Warning: this reply is just an approximation of what I meant to convey - engineers cannot possibly use just written words to express what they are thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #30   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-04-2005, 09:18
petek's Avatar
petek petek is offline
What would Dave do?
AKA: Peter Kieselbach
FRC #3654 (Tech Tigers)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Middletown, CT
Posts: 923
petek has a reputation beyond reputepetek has a reputation beyond reputepetek has a reputation beyond reputepetek has a reputation beyond reputepetek has a reputation beyond reputepetek has a reputation beyond reputepetek has a reputation beyond reputepetek has a reputation beyond reputepetek has a reputation beyond reputepetek has a reputation beyond reputepetek has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to petek
Re: Alliance picking

Adding one more vote for keep it as-is, I'll add that in my experience, FRC qualification seeding rewards consistency and luck as much as game-dominating performance. Also, we've all seen many cases where very strong robots have seeded outside the top 8 because of weak alliance partners in qualification. Team 237 at NJ this year was a good example already raised in this thread.
__________________
Pete Kieselbach
#4

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2005 Palmetto Regional Billfred Regional Competitions 115 15-04-2005 00:19
Las Vegas Update SteveO Regional Competitions 31 09-04-2005 16:08
2005 West Michigan pathew100 Regional Competitions 59 09-04-2005 12:56
Alliance Picking Rules Change?! Mr. Lim Regional Competitions 40 09-03-2005 12:17
about picking up your alliance partner archiver 2000 1 23-06-2002 22:34


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:03.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi