Weird Qualifying Rules

[2522Royals]

Am I the only one that thinks that the way the seeding points are added up is a little strange? If you can make more seeding points by scoring for the other team then by scoring on your old goal then I think that that screws up the game.

Example
During one of our teams matches today we scored 4 goals,just our team (something I have seen very few other teams do today). The final score in the match was 4 to 6 and there were no peneltys. After this match we went down 10 slots in the seed. If we had lost 0 to 6 we would have gone up in the seed.

Am I missing something?
Does the way the seeding is set up make sence to anyone else?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by 2522Royals

Am I the only one that thinks that the way the seeding points are added up is a little strange? If you can make more seeding points by scoring for the other team then by scoring on your old goal then I think that that screws up the game.

Example
During one of our teams matches today we scored 4 goals,just our team (something I have seen very few other teams do today). The final score in the match was 4 to 6 and there were no peneltys. After this match we went down 10 slots in the seed. If we had lost 0 to 6 we would have gone up in the seed.

Am I missing something?
Does the way the seeding is set up make sence to anyone else?

Am I the only one who thinks that too many teams didn't bother looking at the seeding rules?

[JamesCH95]

When it gets to the point of dropping in rank after winning a good match (6-4 is a good win, not a blow-out) then there's something screwed up with the ranking system. You shouldn't have to throw a match in order to move up in rank, it simply doesn't make sense.

[Bill_B]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Am I the only one who thinks that too many teams didn't bother looking at the seeding rules?

I am certain there are many who haven't bothered to understand the rules for seeding this year. As far as the rules making sense goes, a new game and its rules define the sense to be had. I always think of Bill Cosby's bit about the Naismith basketball game introduction in this context. The game was originally intended as a fitness pastime for football players. It's tough to imagine some of today's football players on the court.

[Bongle]

After a day of watching the rankings and thinking about it some more, I think I kind of like it.

It means that if you have an unlucky match where bad stuff out of your control happens, you can still actually claw back those lost points and end up #1 seed with a few good matches. In past years a single loss often put you out of the running.

It means that it isn't unthinkable to have a meeting with your opponents before a match to figure out how each alliance can facilitate a high score for both. After all, an 11-9 result is still better for the losing side than a 0-3 win for them. That's cool, because your opponent now becomes your teammate with slightly different incentives.

The rules disincentive playing heavy defense, and encourage maximum scoring by each side (once you get past the first point on both alliances and the n-0 case is gone). If you plan on winning simply by defending your opponents, you're both going to get very few QPs, which makes me happy*.

*I have an axiom that defense as a primary strategy is not a desirable aspect of games. It is possible and acceptable that you don't share this axiom.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Am I the only one who thinks that too many teams didn't bother looking at the seeding rules?

No, and it would have been beneficial for teams to have had these discussions a while back rather than waiting until the competition season.

Jane

[skimoose]

Originally Posted by Bongle

After a day of watching the rankings and thinking about it some more, I think I kind of like it.

It means that it isn't unthinkable to have a meeting with your opponents before a match to figure out how each alliance can facilitate a high score for both. After all, an 11-9 result is still better for the losing side than a 0-3 win for them. That's cool, because your opponent now becomes your teammate with slightly different incentives.

So... instead of a Coopertition Bonus it should be called a Collusion Bonus.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by skimoose

So... instead of a Coopertition Bonus it should be called a Collusion Bonus.

Collusion is only bad if it harms others. If both alliances benefit from working as a 6-robot team, then they should.

Collusion to fix prices: bad

Collusion to maximize points: good.

[Vikesrock]

I'm just going to ignore the collusion thing for now and comment on the original post.

The largest possible difference in movement between a 0-6 loss and a 4-6 loss is 3 spots. Either way you are getting 6 Seeding points, in the 4-6 loss your opponents get many more seeding points so they may move past you.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

I'm just going to ignore the collusion thing for now and comment on the original post.

The largest possible difference in movement between a 0-6 loss and a 4-6 loss is 3 spots. Either way you are getting 6 Seeding points, in the 4-6 loss your opponents get many more seeding points so they may move past you.

You haven't explored all the options, though:

Let's say in this scenario that your alliance's scoring capability is 4 points, and your opponent's is 6.

We can derive some facts:
1) If you defend so that you win 4-3, you get 10 QPs, assuming your defending bot wasn't necessary for any of your points and you actually manage to win.
2) If you go for maximum scoring, you lose 6-4 and get 6 QPs.
3) If you go for maximum scoring for your opponent, you "lose" 10-0 and get 10 QPs
4) If you go for minimum scoring, you lose 6-0 and get 6 QPs.

So the two best options are:
A competitive 4-3 match where you hope very strongly the outcome is in your favour, but it might not be.
A "collusive" 10-0 match where you know the outcome is in your favour.

Given a scenario like this, your opponents might agree to the 10-0 option, assuming they aren't trying to overtake you in the standings since it is the "certain" option. If they choose to play a competitive match, then they risk either losing or not getting as many points as they would if they played cooperatively. If either alliance has a robot that is trying to overtake other robots for a better picking position, then other considerations may prevail.

This ranking system makes a team's motivations very complex, which will be hard to decode from the stands, but will make for some good pre-match deliberations.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Bongle

You haven't explored all the options, though:

All I explored was the comment in the Original Post about having it be better to lose 0-6 then 4-6.

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by Bongle

After a day of watching the rankings and thinking about it some more, I think I kind of like it.

I was just coming to the same conclusion. Glad I'm not the only one!

[dude__hi]

I really hope the AZ Regional will have teams that play smarter than a lot of the teams attending the Week 1 Regionals have been playing.

[Salbert]

This is why scouting is much more important this year. If the seeding rules make it so some of the best robots are low in the rankings, then teams will have to do more than see who is the top-ranking team when picking alliance partners. Regardless of rankings, just find a team whose partnership creates positive synergies.

[dmlawrence]

Defense could be a tremendous part of the finals.

We'll have to see what happens later today.