Ranking

[nikeairmancurry]

Yeah, but Michigan teams still need to win every match possible to quailfiy for states (State ranking points are based on wins/loses).. Kinda throws a monkey wrench into everything...

[Nawaid Ladak]

Originally Posted by Tarzan19

I understand the rules.
a day of competition made sure of that, it just baffled me that we were stomp and still shoot up 3 ranks, thats all.

the reason you shot up 3 spots was because nobody else played who was ranked above you, you pretty much gained nine points in the seeding match while everyone else didn't play.

I love this new rating system. I still do not comprehend why someone would want to play defense during qualifications, unless that's their outlet to get into the eliminations.

Speaking of that, im going to get a good laugh when those scores are much lower than what we're already seeing.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by nikeairmancurry

Yeah, but Michigan teams still need to win every match possible to quailfiy for states (State ranking points are based on wins/loses).. Kinda throws a monkey wrench into everything...

While Michigan teams definitely have an added wrinkle, don't forget that making the Top 8 is also worth points in the Michigan system.

Being the #8 seed is worth more than 4 wins, and being the number 1 seed is worth the same as 8 wins.

[Smoores]

Yeah it seems that after 5 solid hours of live streaming today. A significant amount of teams don"t realize how they should play the game. Blocking hurts everyone, and multiple times people tried bumping robots trying to elevate. But holy cow, THERE WERE SO MANY PENALTIES!!!

[davidfv]

Originally Posted by IndySam

Did you guys go into this without reading and understanding the seeding rules?

This leaves me completely baffled and befuddled.

IndySam... Sounds like many people did just that...

[TD912]

Originally Posted by Smoores

THERE WERE SO MANY PENALTIES!!!

Yeah, I can't count the number of penalties there were for robots that somehow managed to drive on top of the soccer balls...

[dtengineering]

Well, as was posted somewhere else earlier.... "FIRST finally gives us a game where human beings can understand the scoring system, and then goes and gives us a ranking system that requires a two hour seminar on co-opertition to comprehend."

I get what FIRST is trying to do with the ranking system. I get the fact that Dean Kamen managed to get a patent on it... I've even read the patent (and the many objections the USPTO raised to it)... AND I get the fact that it is the rules, and that FIRST can set whatever rules they want. Even if I think the rule happens to be needlessly confusing, it is still a rule.

But it would really help to get people (who don't geek out over the FRC rules book) interested and excited about FRC if the ranking system could be quickly and easily understood by a person off the street without a lengthy lecture on "changing culture".

Thank goodness the elimination rounds will make sense to people who come to watch them.

Jason


P.S. My sympathies to those who don't "get it". It will all make sense if you watch a four hour retrospective video on the collected speeches of Dean and Woodie. You might still not LIKE it, but at least you'll "get" it.

[Wei]

FIRST has made winning or losing a match this year unimportant (for qualification matches). Its how everyone does (including your opponents) that affects your seeding score; not winning or losing. FIRST seem to have set up a version of the prisoner dilemma (game theory). Almost everyone I have talked to at the DC regional (on Friday) is playing this year's game as a zero sum game(my gain is your lost).

Imagine the scoring potential if all SIX robots were working together to score all the points for blue or for red. According to this years seeding formula:
winner seeding points = (winning alliance score - Penalty) + 2*(losing alliance score)
loser seeding points = winning alliance score

If everyone works together and the losing alliance does not have any points, then the winner and the loser get the exact same seeding score.

Where this is not a zero sum game is the number of balls score will be much higher when all six robots are working together then working against each other or the alliance leaving each other alone. Its very easy to move all the balls from the middle to the offense zone if there are 3 to 4 robots in the middle zone. You're more likely to have a robot free to handle a returning ball if the other robots taking a little longer dealing with their current ball(s). With the remaining 2 to 3 robot in the scoring zone, you have a situation where 1 to 2 robots are scoring while the other robot is collect balls to be score. With 6 working robots, the limitation on points will be how fast the human players can get the balls back into play, so that there are no penalties.

Under this strategy, the robots that cooperate the best together get the best seeding scores.

[Koko Ed]

I avoided looking at the rankings most of the day because I didn't want to give myself a bigger headache than I already had from queing in week 1.
I had people coming up to me requesting tutorials about the ranking system.
How do you explain this to the average person off the street what's going on?
Whatever happened to making a game easy for the public to understand?

[Eugene Fang]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

I avoided looking at the rankings most of the day because I didn't want to give myself a bigger headache than I already had from queing in week 1.
I had people coming up to me requesting tutorials about the ranking system.
How do you explain this to the average person off the street what's going on?
Whatever happened to making a game easy for the public to understand?

Simple explaination: you want to beat your opponents, but only by a little.

Now the hard part -- explaining why FIRST wants us to do this to a non-FIRSTer.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by EugeneF

Now the hard part -- explaining why FIRST wants us to do this to a non-FIRSTer.

Because FIRST wants everyone to have a sense of accomplishment even if you didn't accomplish anything during the match.

[sanddrag]

It seems to me that if you know you are going to lose a match anyhow, you're better off to score for your opponents, and not at all for yourself. Does this make sense?

[sgreco]

I have declined to comment on the scoring system all year...

So all I have to say is: Any scoring system that ever gives people incentive to score on themselves at ANY point during ANY match needs to be re-evaluated.

What was wrong with the old days when the teams that won got the best seeds? What part of earning your seeding position isn't fair?

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by sgreco

I have declined to comment on the scoring system all year...

So all I have to say is: Any scoring system that ever gives people incentive to score on themselves at ANY point during ANY match needs to be re-evaluated.

What was wrong with the old days when the teams that won got the best seeds? What part of earning your seeding position isn't fair?

Unless, as posted above, FIRST's intent was to make a game where you aren't true opponents. Before the alliance era, there were games where (as I understand it) you had to work together with the others in the match to maximize your score in that match. If you look at backwards scoring less as "scoring on yourself" and more as "scoring for the greater good of both alliances", then the difference becomes clearer. This game and seeding system can be interpreted as not a strictly 3v3 game, it can also be seen at 6v0.

The highest possible QP comes from a tightly-fought match, but the most reliable QP comes if both teams agree to co-operate and only score on one side.

[JB987]

Originally Posted by Bongle

Unless, as posted above, FIRST's intent was to make a game where you aren't true opponents. Before the alliance era, there were games where (as I understand it) you had to work together with the others in the match to maximize your score in that match. If you look at backwards scoring less as "scoring on yourself" and more as "scoring for the greater good of both alliances", then the difference becomes clearer. This game and seeding system can be interpreted as not a strictly 3v3 game, it can also be seen at 6v0.

The highest possible QP comes from a tightly-fought match, but the most reliable QP comes if both teams agree to co-operate and only score on one side.

True if you could avoid penalties, which teams obviously are not doing