|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: New Aliance Selection?
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. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: New Aliance Selection?
Quote:
#1 seeded 963 picks #2 seeded 123 and loses in the semi-finals. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New Aliance Selection?
Quote:
(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. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New Aliance Selection?
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.
|
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: New Aliance Selection?
Quote:
|
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New Aliance Selection?
Quote:
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. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| New alliance selection method | Bharat Nain | Rules/Strategy | 5 | 08-01-2006 22:16 |
| [OCCRA]: CMP Alliance Selection | Alex Golec | OCCRA Q&A | 1 | 14-11-2005 18:20 |
| Alliance Selection 2005- Like it? | OneAngryDaisy | Rules/Strategy | 42 | 14-03-2005 14:59 |
| Team Selection Process??? | tribotec_ca88 | Team Organization | 18 | 14-10-2004 15:55 |
| need help double checking motor selection lecture notes | Ken Leung | Technical Discussion | 5 | 16-12-2002 00:05 |