Go to Post Note to self for next year, apply physics rather than "well, this SEEMS like it would work." - Karibou [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #76   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-01-2010, 00:06
abinkow abinkow is offline
Registered User
FRC #0247
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Berkley, MI
Posts: 4
abinkow is on a distinguished road
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

This actually means that the losing alliance can get higher seeding points than the winning alliance. As a simplified case, consider that the winning alliance scores 10 points and is penalized 8, but the losing alliance scores zero. The winning alliance gets two points, but the losing alliance gets 10!

This actually makes it unprofitable to play defense if you are winning. In fact, if you are winning by a lot, it makes it profitable to SCORE ON YOURSELF to drive up the losing alliance's score!

I don't like this change. It penalizes defensive bots, when defense is an integral part of the game itself.
  #77   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-01-2010, 16:23
Bill_B Bill_B is offline
You cannot not make a difference
FRC #2170
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 1,099
Bill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Quite a bit of interesting reading here guys. However, in and among all your talk of collusion, scoring for the other alliance, etc, etc, you need to consider what each of those behaviors will mean when it comes time to choose alliance partners. It is assumed that your team would prefer to be one of the top eight, right? Is there anything about the seeding situation that changes that? Now, if you don't make it to the elite 8, what about your behavior during the elimination rounds with respect to seeding maximization will make you stand out as a desirable partner for the elimination rounds?
  #78   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-01-2010, 16:54
SteveGPage's Avatar
SteveGPage SteveGPage is offline
Mentor - Scouting and Strategy
AKA: Steve
FRC #0836 (RoboBees)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Hollywood, MD
Posts: 523
SteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond reputeSteveGPage has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill_B View Post
Quite a bit of interesting reading here guys. However, in and among all your talk of collusion, scoring for the other alliance, etc, etc, you need to consider what each of those behaviors will mean when it comes time to choose alliance partners. It is assumed that your team would prefer to be one of the top eight, right? Is there anything about the seeding situation that changes that? Now, if you don't make it to the elite 8, what about your behavior during the elimination rounds with respect to seeding maximization will make you stand out as a desirable partner for the elimination rounds?
I think we will see two outcomes from this:
1. Teams who don't do any scouting, and end up in the top 8, will select alliance partners based on final seeding number (as often happens).
2. Teams who have an effective scouting team, will recognize what you can do, regardless of seeding points. I plan on scouting shots on goal vs number of goals, regardless of which goal it is. If we are an alliance captain, we will look for teams that have that kind of firepower.

... Now, here is the problem though, and I think the comment reflects this ... the strategy during the elimination rounds is different than the qualification rounds. In the quals, seeding points are the focus. In the elims, wins vs loses are the focus. So, things like defense, ability to score when being defended, etc... will be hard to judge if everyone is just scoring. Quals will be primarily offensive games, the elims will be defensive games.

Steve
__________________
FRC 836, The RoboBees www.robobees.org
growingSTEMS www.growingSTEMS.org
2017: Southwest VA, Northern MD, Chesapeake District Championships, Championships
  #79   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-01-2010, 17:09
Chris is me's Avatar
Chris is me Chris is me is offline
no bag, vex only, final destination
AKA: Pinecone
FRC #0228 (GUS Robotics); FRC #2170 (Titanium Tomahawks)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 7,797
Chris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Chris is me
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur View Post
Here, again, I beg to differ.

2 alliances decide to work together to attain higher seeding. Both are capable of 10 scores without defense:

In a '0 to x' game scenario -- each will score 10 points for a total of 20 to 0. each will get 20 {winners score (20) + 2x coopertition score(0)} seeding points and 0 coopertition points.

In the 'tie game' scenario -- each will score 10 points for a 10 to 10 tie. Each will get 30 {their own score (10) + 2x coopertition score (20)} seeding points and 10 coopertition points for the tiebreaker.

I see this happening early in the regionals as teams jocky for seeding points ann I see it breaking down as teams get closer to the elimination rounds and need to 'remove' potential opponents from the elimination rounds (at least as team captains).

Again, because of the changing structure of seeding, teams strategy will shift forcing each team to re-evaluate each strategy (and thus the Nash Equilibrium) before each match.
Any team that tries to collude for ties won't meet success this year.

First, the kind of teams that game Ranking Points by intentionally going "Hey, let's make a match 10-10, then BOTH STOP" aren't the most honest teams around. I'm unfortunately willing to bet at least one team will set something like that up, then backstab the alliance they colluded with.

Secondly, both alliances need to keep track of every penalty and counteract them. These penalties then need to not be overturned after the match. Both the number of penalties and the chance for review make forcing ties unreliable.

These two together makes me think predetermined matches won't be a feasible strategy this year.
__________________
Mentor / Drive Coach: 228 (2016-?)
--2016 Waterbury SFs (with 3314, 3719), RIDE #2 Seed / Winners (with 1058, 6153), Carver QFs (with 503, 359, 4607)
Mentor / Consultant Person: 2170 (2017-?)
.
College Mentor: 2791 (2010-2015)
-- 2015 TVR Motorola Quality, FLR GM Industrial Design -- 2014 FLR Motorola Quality / SFs (with 341, 4930)
-- 2013 BAE Motorola Quality, WPI Regional #1 Seed / Delphi Excellence in Engineering / Finalists (with 20, 3182)
-- 2012 BAE Imagery / Finalists (with 1519, 885), CT Xerox Creativity / SFs (with 2168, 118)
Student: 1714 (2009) - 2009 MN 10K Lakes Regional Winners (with 2826, 2470)
2791 Build Season Photo Gallery - Look here for mechanism photos My Robotics Blog (Updated April 11 2014)
  #80   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-01-2010, 22:52
abinkow abinkow is offline
Registered User
FRC #0247
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Berkley, MI
Posts: 4
abinkow is on a distinguished road
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Yes, you have a point about "making friends". But that's not the point of the discussion.

FIRST wants to promote coopertition. I get that. I even support it. But this scoring system is not well thought out, and will actually DETRACT from coopertition. Consider a few cases:

1) The score is a blowout; let's say the score is 30 to 8, with 45 seconds to go. I'm on the alliance which is going to win. What is my best strategy? To turn around and score goals in the other team's goal (what is called in soccer an "own goal". Why? Because goals scored for me give me one point for seedings; goals scored for the other team give me two points in coopertition bonus.

2) Same scenario, but I'm on the losing alliance. What is my best strategy? Again, to turn around and score goals for the other team. Because goals scored for me are worth nothing to me and my teammates, whereas goals scored for the other alliance give us one point.

3) I'm on a losing alliance, and I have balls coming into the corral with about 30 seconds to go. What is my best strategy? I HOLD THE BALLS and take intentional penalties. I'm going to lose anyway, and this improves my proportional score vs. the opposite team.

4) Whether I'm on the winning or losing alliance, do I go after the bonus points? Absolutely not. No matter which alliance I am on, those points benefit my opponents more than they do me.

Yes, they are trying to promote coopertition. And yes, that is a composite containing "cooperation". But it's also a composite containing "competition". This scoring system is just not well thought out.

And no, I don't think that pursuing these strategies would hurt us unduly in the selection process. Everyone knows what the point structure is. Everyone also knows that seeding points no longer matter in the elimination rounds, so the strategy changes then.
  #81   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-01-2010, 23:55
Alan Anderson's Avatar
Alan Anderson Alan Anderson is offline
Software Architect
FRC #0045 (TechnoKats)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Kokomo, Indiana
Posts: 9,113
Alan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinkow View Post
FIRST wants to promote coopertition. I get that. I even support it. But this scoring system is not well thought out,...
This scoring system is an embodiment of the Coopertition patent granted to FIRST last year. That patent has been in the works for years. I think it's been adequately thought out.

All your points make good sense, except where you say the strategy changes between qualification and elimination rounds. That assumes that the strategy in qualification rounds is merely to get more seeding points than your opponents. I believe that the primary strategy is to get more seeding points than all the other teams, and the way to do that is to win matches (preferably close ones). The secondary strategy is to make yourself likely to be chosen as an alliance partner by high-seeding teams, and the way to do that is also to win matches.
  #82   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-01-2010, 00:57
abinkow abinkow is offline
Registered User
FRC #0247
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Berkley, MI
Posts: 4
abinkow is on a distinguished road
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

I disagree that this system promotes coopertition. Yes, that is the GOAL -- but it encourages the teams to look for what their own long-term best interest is. Whether they pursue that or not, for the rules to ENCOURAGE it is just wrong.

Nor is it right or true to the spirit of coopertition for the two alliances (all six teams) to pursue something that is beneficial to all six. That would be cooperation. Coopertition includes competition, and a fair and honest competition is part of what we should be encouraging. These rules detract from that.
  #83   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-01-2010, 01:24
Michael Corsetto's Avatar
Michael Corsetto Michael Corsetto is offline
Breathe in... Breathe out...
FRC #1678 (Citrus Circuits)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Davis, CA
Posts: 1,144
Michael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

If I am about to play a match vs. an alliance I know I have little or no chance of beating in head to head competition, I see no reason to try and score for yourself. I have every reason to have the two weakest robots on my alliance blocking my goals, with the 3rd bot scoring for the opponents. The opponent now has no choice but to boost their score as much as possible, giving more points to us, the "losers" of the match, as well. "Collusion" isn't the issue, it's the fact that not colluding can still result in a boring, onesided match, where the weaker alliance can strong-arm the stronger one into scoring for them. In another game (09 for instance) this seeding system might have worked. But not for a game where an alliance can easily lock up their score at 0 or close to it. Please change if you can, I still can't believe FIRST actually thought this was a good idea. Great game GDC, just go back to 09's competition section of the manual please.
__________________
Team 1678: Citrus Circuits - Lead Technical Mentor, Drive Coach **Like Us On Facebook!**
  #84   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-01-2010, 13:58
Jimmy K's Avatar
Jimmy K Jimmy K is offline
Registered User
FRC #1002 (Circuit Runners)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 52
Jimmy K is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinkow View Post
3) I'm on a losing alliance, and I have balls coming into the corral with about 30 seconds to go. What is my best strategy? I HOLD THE BALLS and take intentional penalties. I'm going to lose anyway, and this improves my proportional score vs. the opposite team.
Breakaway Rules Section 9.3.5:
Quote:
All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a coopertition bonus: a number of seeding points equal to twice the un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE.
So earning penalties would not affect the winning alliance's seeding score for the game.

If you are losing, then scoring a goal for the other alliance gives all six teams on both alliances 1 more seeding point, which improves their seeding scores over the teams that are not in that match. So, this strategy of hoarding balls in your alliance station is not necessarily a good idea. (Unless you think that there is no chance for a goal to be scored for the other alliance.)
__________________

  #85   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-01-2010, 17:34
Daniel_LaFleur's Avatar
Daniel_LaFleur Daniel_LaFleur is offline
Mad Scientist
AKA: Me
FRC #2040 (DERT)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Peoria, IL
Posts: 1,984
Daniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via MSN to Daniel_LaFleur
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me View Post
Any team that tries to collude for ties won't meet success this year.

First, the kind of teams that game Ranking Points by intentionally going "Hey, let's make a match 10-10, then BOTH STOP" aren't the most honest teams around. I'm unfortunately willing to bet at least one team will set something like that up, then backstab the alliance they colluded with.

Secondly, both alliances need to keep track of every penalty and counteract them. These penalties then need to not be overturned after the match. Both the number of penalties and the chance for review make forcing ties unreliable.

These two together makes me think predetermined matches won't be a feasible strategy this year.
First off, where did I say STOP? I said shoot for a tie.

Next, Even if a tie doesn't happen, high scoreing close matches will yield the highest number of seeding points ... and thus help each team accordingly.

If you read the last line of my post, the Nash Equilibrium will force a team that is 'on the bubble' to change it's strategy and want to win for the bonus coopertition seeding points.

Seems to me like the closer we get to the elimination rounds, the less we'll see any collusion ... Hmmm, didn't I say that before
__________________
___________________
"We are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. "
- Tennyson, Ulysses
  #86   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-01-2010, 18:17
Refresh's Avatar
Refresh Refresh is offline
Registered User
AKA: Chris
FRC #0074 (Holland C.H.A.O.S.)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Holland, MI
Posts: 135
Refresh has a spectacular aura aboutRefresh has a spectacular aura about
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

ugh. FIRST wasn't kidding when they said that this year our brains will hurt. I'm So confused at the moment. So W/L/T's aren't going to matter at all? Could a Powerful team end up lower than a weaker team because they have more points?
__________________

  #87   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-01-2010, 22:33
Daniel_LaFleur's Avatar
Daniel_LaFleur Daniel_LaFleur is offline
Mad Scientist
AKA: Me
FRC #2040 (DERT)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Peoria, IL
Posts: 1,984
Daniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via MSN to Daniel_LaFleur
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by Refresh View Post
ugh. FIRST wasn't kidding when they said that this year our brains will hurt. I'm So confused at the moment.So W/L/T's aren't going to matter at all?
Correct
Quote:
Originally Posted by Refresh View Post
Could a Powerful team end up lower than a weaker team because they have more points?
This has happened in the past and will happen again.
__________________
___________________
"We are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. "
- Tennyson, Ulysses
  #88   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 19-01-2010, 13:26
Bill_B Bill_B is offline
You cannot not make a difference
FRC #2170
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 1,099
Bill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by Refresh View Post
ugh. ... Could a Powerful team end up lower than a weaker team because they have more points?
Depends on your definition of a powerful team. Do you have another scale for power other than the seeding ranking scale as defined in this year's rules?
  #89   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 19-01-2010, 15:21
Jimmy K's Avatar
Jimmy K Jimmy K is offline
Registered User
FRC #1002 (Circuit Runners)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 52
Jimmy K is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

@Refresh:
Yes. Here is an example of what you might be talking about:

Team A wins all 10 of their matches with a score of 5-0.
Team A has 50 seeding points.

Team B's robot breaks down in the first match and they lose 0-51. They go back to the pits in an attempt to fix their robot, and don't show up in any of their remaining 9 matches.
Team B has 51 seeding points.

So Team B is seeded higher than Team A.

Obviously this is an extreme example, but it is possible.
__________________

  #90   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 22-01-2010, 18:47
leafy leafy is offline
Registered User
AKA: Jacob Greenleaf
FRC #0166 (Chop Shop 166)
Team Role: Programmer
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Merrimack, NH
Posts: 11
leafy is on a distinguished road
Re: 9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirtar View Post
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.
I don't understand. Who do you think is getting the seeding points? Only the winning alliance gets the coopertition bonus. How about one alliance gets 12 and the other gets 11. Losing alliance gets 12 seeding points, winning alliance gets 34. No matter what the losing alliance does, if they lose, then it doesn't matter how much they lose by, except for a tie. In fact, they have an incentive to score, if they know they are going to lose, as little as possible in order to minimize the effects of increasing the opposing alliance's coopertition bonus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirtar View Post
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.
No, read 9.3.4 and 9.3.5 again, noting the bolded phrases. Losing alliance does not get points based on the losing alliance's score:
Quote:
9.3.4 [...] All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to un- penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE.
Quote:
.3.5 CoopertitionTM Bonus
All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a coopertition bonus: a number of seeding points equal to twice the un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE.
In the case of a tie, all participating teams will receive a coopertition bonus of a number of seeding points equal to twice their ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties).
The scenario you mention only occurs in the case of a tie. How many ties were there in a random regional? I found one in that regional I linked; ties are infrequent and shouldn't be expected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirtar View Post
Oh by the way, the losing team does benefit from the tie since it actually gets a coopertition bonus instead of not getting one.
No, it doesn't. See above. Coopertition bonus is only awarded to the winning alliance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirtar View Post
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.
Again, please read the rules. The losing alliance does not get the Coopertition bonus.

You also failed to address my point that in a shutout, the number of potential maximum points is increased, possibly doubling or more.
Closed Thread


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
Match Ranking Points Daniel Bathgate Rules/Strategy 3 06-01-2008 00:25
pic: QF match that set new record score = 220 points CD47-Bot Extra Discussion 3 29-03-2004 15:34
Seeding System Koci Rules/Strategy 23 25-03-2004 15:27
pic: YMTC: 150 points or 100 points? CD47-Bot Extra Discussion 4 25-03-2004 01:53
Seeding Calculations archiver 2000 50 23-06-2002 21:57


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 14:17.

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