Not Showing Up To A Match - Seeding Points?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim

1) NEVER no-show... send someone/ANYONE. The seeding point penalty for no-showing REALLY hurts this year.

Though to be completely fair, this has mattered every year. You wouldn't get a win if your alliance did pull off a 2v3 victory if you were a no show.

[Mr. Lim]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Though to be completely fair, this has mattered every year. You wouldn't get a win if your alliance did pull off a 2v3 victory if you were a no show.

I suppose my point is that this year in a 2vs3 there are strategies you can use to still guarantee pretty good seeding points in a loss - in fact you CAN guarantee as many seeding points as the winning alliance.

In past years there was less incentive to play a 2vs3 because it typically meant a loss.

This year, although 2vs3 still aren't great, if played right, you will still earn very significant seeding points even if you lose - so long as you play it right.

To no-show isn't just walking away from a probable loss, but you're now walking away from very significant seeding points - possibly the same had you won.

To me, that makes the penalty for no-showing much higher this year.

[GaryVoshol]

Another reason for less matches is DQ's / red cards. They're relatively easy to get this year. 14 of them in 74 matches at Kettering, none were because of no-shows.

[Grim Tuesday]

Hey, I am here from 639, and the reason we only "played" 8 was because of 2 DQ's (ikr?). The first red card was due to while we were hanging, and touching the tower, another robot bumped us right while our arm was going down, and we hit the two bars under the ball return. Our drive team decided to go for it anyways, and pulled up. Due to this, the ref thought it was intentional, and gave us a red card. The second one was due to our driver raising our arm before finale. He saw another robot doing it (he was touching the tower) and assumed that we were in finale. Sadly, it cost us a yellow, and then a red card due to the first one. Anyways, we were seeded at 27 due to no few losses after the DQs. They also give you NO seeding score, so it killed our qual rank.

Anyways, we were very successful in elimination, scoring five points while the rest of our team lost connection to the field.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

The first red card was due to while we were hanging, and touching the tower, another robot bumped us right while our arm was going down, and we hit the two bars under the ball return. Our drive team decided to go for it anyways, and pulled up. Due to this, the ref thought it was intentional, and gave us a red card.

It's a red card to hang from the "normal" bars on that side of the field, ever.

[Grim Tuesday]

Looks like your right; I am not the team expert on rules, but neither was our former driver. I wish that our driver hadn't started our winch

In fact, I dont think that we even knew that that was illegal, lol, although we are usually pretty good with rules (no G46 violations!)

[Alex Cormier]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Another reason for less matches is DQ's / red cards. They're relatively easy to get this year. 14 of them in 74 matches at Kettering, none were because of no-shows.

That is the reason why many of the teams at FLR only played "9 matches".

[Molten]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Though to be completely fair, this has mattered every year. You wouldn't get a win if your alliance did pull off a 2v3 victory if you were a no show.

I disagree somewhat. In previous years missing a match didn't mean too much for ranks. I remember a match 1766 couldn't make due to robot fixes. After that round of matches, we went up in ranks. I studied the ranks and noticed something. A team that wins 2 and loses 3 is ranked lower then a team that wins 2 loses 2. This means that missing a match you lose would raise your rank even though you'd lose rank points. I realize this doesn't work for this years game...and am disappointed that it was true for previous years. However, it is true. I've yet to hear of a team that has actually used such a strategy due to the ethics of doing it on purpose.

[Eugene Fang]

Originally Posted by Molten

A team that wins 2 and loses 3 is ranked lower then a team that wins 2 loses 2.

Actually this was only true in some instances. Wins were 2 points, ties were 1, and losses were 0. Therefore 2-3-0 and 2-2-0 would both be equal to 4 qualification points. What caused the team with 3 losses to be ranked below the one with 2 losses would be the ranking points (score of losing alliance).

EDIT: Just for clarification, this is about last year, not this year.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Molten

A team that wins 2 and loses 3 is ranked lower then a team that wins 2 loses 2.

This wasn't true. You got 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss. Additional losses took nothing from you.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

This wasn't true. You got 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss. Additional losses took nothing from you.

I guess I stand corrected. I just remember looking at the rankings and we somehow were above everyone else with the same number of wins. I must have come to the wrong conclusion. Well, though I show my ignorance...I'm glad I posted this to learn. That always kind of bothered me a bit. Now I know. Thanks CD.