New Aliance Selection?

[Cory]

The current system is already hurting the #1 seed enough as it is (compared to prior years). There's no reason to further handicap the top teams.

[Lil' Lavery]

NASA/VCU Regional:
#1 seeded 1731 picks #2 seeded 414, and loses in the semi-finals.

Arizona Regional:
#1 seeded 987 picks #6 seeded 1241 and loses in the finals.

Great Lakes Regional:
#1 seeded 469 picks #6 seeded 451 and loses in the finals.

3 more instances of when #1 seeds picked top 8 seeds and lost. The top alliances already have huge penelizations by the serpentine selection system, they deserve no more.

[MattB703]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

NASA/VCU Regional:
#1 seeded 1731 picks #2 seeded 414, and loses in the semi-finals.

Arizona Regional:
#1 seeded 987 picks #6 seeded 1241 and loses in the finals.

Great Lakes Regional:
#1 seeded 469 picks #6 seeded 451 and loses in the finals.

3 more instances of when #1 seeds picked top 8 seeds and lost. The top alliances already have huge penelizations by the serpentine selection system, they deserve no more.

Buckeye Regional:
#1 seeded 963 picks #2 seeded 123 and loses in the semi-finals.

[Alex Golec]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Great Lakes Regional:
#1 seeded 469 picks #6 seeded 451 and loses in the finals.

Just as a clarification, the standings on FIRST's website for the Great Lakes regional are incorrect. Jack Jones has listed the correct (to the best of my knowledge) standings here: http://www.grovesrobotics.org/GLR/
(We were the second seed)

On topic, I prefer the previous system used before this year. To me, I feel that if a team has worked their butts off to be the highest seed in the regional, they deserve their picks of alliance partners. This year's, while it does make the playing field more level in the eliminations, does handicap the higher seeds in a way, especially at the smaller regionals. Don't get me wrong, our third seeds were great defensive robots at both GLR and DET, but at Atlanta, I wouldn't be surprised if the lower seeded teams had three shooters whereas the higher seeds might not be able to get a third.

[PBurrell]

During the Peachtree regional, our decision to pick #2 was not solely that they were #2. The offered a complete complement to our strengths. We were good shooter with good movement. Team 1414 was a lower goal bot with great autonomous capability. Their size and power helped out quite a bit too. Our third pick (1057) was another shooter with strong power and great defense. All around, the complement was good. The one thing that I see was lacking was a robot that could shoot with a vision turret.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Alex469

at Atlanta, I wouldn't be surprised if the lower seeded teams had three shooters whereas the higher seeds might not be able to get a third.

I don't know if they'd want a third. I've noticed a lot of the best alliances had 2 shooters and 1 low goal/defensive robot. It keeps things from getting too crowded by the center goal, and also makes them much harder to defend against.

[AcesPease]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

I don't know if they'd want a third. I've noticed a lot of the best alliances had 2 shooters and 1 low goal/defensive robot. It keeps things from getting too crowded by the center goal, and also makes them much harder to defend against.

I think having three scoring robots is the way to go (although I agree with you that it is better if at least one of them can do it without being in front of the center goal). I also think all eight alliances have a chance.

Some bots that were unlucky in qualifications can shoot, score in the lower goal and play some decent defense (ours for example ). The 3 on 3 qualification rounds have really randomized the top seeding, we reportedly had the 4th highest scoring average at the NE Regional, but were only 22 seed.

We were picked by the 8 seed (177) after they had moved up three spots to 5th alliance. Then 177 picked 1124 the 34th seed (out of 40), based on scouting reports. All three robots could score. Maybe none of us could score as well as 20 or 126, but three robots are a lot harder to defend than 2. We defeated the #1 alliance that included 1 and 3 seeds 126 and 20 and #15 seed 571, and then went on to win the regional.

Scouting is very important in this format. In Atlanta, with over 80 teams in each division, I see some good but less capable robots getting high seeds because of the luck of the draw, while some good robots will not be highly ranked. Combine this with the reverse picking for the third robot and any alliance that is in the divisional quarter finals could make a run at the championship.

[Tytus Gerrish]

try to look at it from all sides of things if you are the #1 or #2 seed and agree to join up its an easy decision and all the work you've put in for the past 2 months has paid off already. driving as on of those teams in that situation is very calm and your not worried about anything because you know exactly whats going to happen. if your in that situation its great and in my opinion you deserve it, the only teams complaining about the #1 seed's ability to pick the most powerful robot are the teams who have to compete against it. the idea about changing the alliance picking from 1-8 then 8-1 is to make shure the highest seed alliance gets a good pick and a not so good pick. the system is not perfect but its all just rules in the game. if you can have a strategy to use the rules to your advantage you will come out on top.

[StephLee]

I personally like this year's change in picking order. Scouting becomes much more important to the number one seed. I'd know; our second round pick at Chesapeake, 1184, was seeded 39th (I think); as coach, I had never seen them play, but our scouts (as well as Buzz's once they spoke to our alliance captain) swore they were a good robot who had some bad luck. They were right. We (the number one seed) picked the 3rd seed, who declined, and then the 4th seed (Buzz), but then picked a lower seeded team. It worked out very well for us.