9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

[kirtar]

Originally Posted by leafy

Both alliances don't benefit in a high-scoring tie. Only one does. If an alliance score is n-u with p penalties on the team with n, with u<n, the n-alliance gains 2u + (n - p) seeding points, larger than n seeding points that the losing team gets.

If u is 0, then the winning alliance gets n-p seeding points, and the losing team gets n seeding points. I don't see how the losing team has any benefit to scoring higher in a tie; only the winning alliance does. You could say it increases their chance of winning, but that's not what we're talking about.

Please, please, please work out your math. No matter what, there is no configuration in which with the same total score that a win will give you more seeding points than a tie unless the losing team had penalties. Regardless of whether you win or lose, you automatically get points based on your own score after penalties, and then twice the opponent's score prior to penalties. Say for an example that n points are scored in a match (after penalties). In a tie, each team has score n/2 after any penalties. Then each team gets n/2+2n/2 in seeding points. If a team shuts out the other, it will simply get n-p. If the match has a winner (winning margin of even number x), you get (n/2)+x/2+2((n/2))-x/2+o) for the winning team, yielding 3n/2+o-x/2. Unless the losing team has penalties, given a certain total score you will always get more seeding points by tying. As a note, this function is actually applicable to many scenarios (including a shutout) Oh by the way, the losing team does benefit from the tie since it actually gets a coopertition bonus instead of not getting one.

Originally Posted by leafy

This is actually false. Even with the example you gave, it's false. If alliance W gets 8 points, and alliance L gets 8 points, then it's a tie. As per 9.3.4, they get seeding points (it says ranking points, but probably means seeding points) equal to their own alliance's score. In this case, each alliance gets 8 points, plus twice their alliance score (as per 9.3.5). This results in a net gain of 24 points.


Only in a tie, though. That's an edge case. And it still doesn't apply retroactively to this strategy.

If alliance L gets 0 points, then alliance W gets 8 points for their seeding score. Alliance L also gets 8 points. Primia facie, this seems to be a loss relative to other teams that are playing other matches. However, the previous case is only in the case of a tie. If the previous scenario had a much more likely difference in score, then the points become unbalanced:

Say alliance L gets 6 points, and alliance W gets 8 points. W wins, netting 11 seeding points. L gains 8 seeding points.

This is much more likely than 8-8; consider last year's game. FIRST data shows that at an average regional (picked one at random: New York City Regional 2009) there was only 1 tie. That's hardly enough to offset the median or mean ranking score with this new system. Even when counting for the fact that the range and standard deviation were both higher, the number of ties will still be significantly low enough.

Another important fact is being glossed over: the number of balls is doubled when one team is playing to score 0. If they are constantly fighting for each ball, then of course they'd only get 8. That means that 4 balls total were recycled. This number would be quite higher - perhaps 12 or more (speculative) - increasing the total ball count. This would, I think, overcome the incentive to work for a coopertition bonus.

Your entire argument falls apart given that both scenarios imply cooperation (in the context of this thread). If both alliances are aiming for a tie, there will still be an increased total score. My point is that given a certain total score that no matter what, both teams receive maximum points in a tie situation (barring more than 2 points in penalties as shown above).

If you even read the entire topic, you would see that I am arguing that if you are organizing with the other alliance to maximize your seeding points, that a tie requires far fewer points to be scored than a shutout. In a tie, you receive 50% more seeding points than if you were score all of them in one goal. In addition, 2/3 of these seeding points are in the coopertition bonus, which is the first tiebreaker (and the last before random as well).

I'm not even sure what you're even saying in your first paragraph because it is unclear. However, I am able to tell that you completely misinterpreted my entire statement. My statement is that in pure theory, if the alliances worked to score a tie (in which case scoring output would still be doubled) you will always receive 50% more than a shutout. I included a proof above to show why this is the case. As for why I put down 8-8, it is because it was an arbitrary value. I could have easily said that a score could be 12-12 or even 10000-10000 because it does not change the fundamental relationship