Do you like the seeding system?

[Fe_Will]

After getting back from the Autodesk Oregon Regional I can say whole heartedly that this new system is a complete and utter failure. I can't tell you how many people I talked to that were in agreement that it makes no logical or practical sense what so ever. If FIRST hopes to increase Public viewership with the current system then they should hope that no one ask about how teams are seeded and keep them away from the ranking monitor. Most of the public who only visit the stands don't know what a team is ranked, only the results for each individual match.

For all you strategists: After having a conversation with a mentor from the #1 seed at Oregon I learned how to play the system.

• If you are loosing, score on yourself.
• If you are winning, score on yourself.
• Only score on your opponent if you are unsure who is going to win.

[ebarker]

No I do not. It is damaging to FIRST. You explain it to the public and they look at you like you are crazy.

FIRST wants to avoid the negative things that happen in sports. Everything in sports is not negative. We threw the "baby out with the bath water". The system is a little too PC.

It takes the 'C' out of FRC and makes it the FRPCC. Worse than restrictor plate racing in NASCAR.

We need to provide incentive for teams to help other teams get ready for the competition.

But when it is "time to compete" it is "time to compete"...... boogity boogity !

while I'm here:

it would have been nice to have a ball score = 3 points, a penalty = 1 point, and hanging around 6 points or autonomous score 6 points.

[LeelandS]

I gotta say no, but I like the idea. I understand what FIRST is trying to do, to make it so that teams who want to be succesful have to work with their opposing alliances, but it kinda screws things up. Teams that go undefeated can end up being ranked lower than a team that lost half of their matches by getting their opponents scores. So, the concept is good, the implementation is bad. For now, I'd say the win-loss system is better.

Another problem with it is the fans in attendance. A parent may see their child's team to exceptionally well, but be ranked 20th or lower, and have no idea why. Only someone who has actually studied the seeding formula can really get it, and even then it's a little confusing.

So FIRST, you hit the ball, made it all the way to third, but got out before getting home.

[artdutra04]

At least we know exactly what every every off-season event will change.

[jimwick]

No, we didn't like it. We were on the winning side in about half our matches and still ended up far down in the rankings.

If they don't want to award "blowouts" they could find a better way of doing it, I'm sure.

Still, we're not going away mad. FIRST is wonderful. We had a good time and learned a lot. We'll be back next year with enthusiasm.

jw

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

At least we know exactly what every every off-season event will change.

We hope.
I'm fearful that there may be some who are so fiercely loyal to the home office vision that they will sacrifice their competition to prove that they were right.

[thefro526]

As of right now I'm going to say no. I'll wait until after the Championship to vote for real though.

I don't like the seeding system because it's encouraging some teams to lose. When a team comes to me and asks wholeheartedly "Will you throw this match with us? We'll make out better in seeding points" I feel like something is wrong. While winning isn't the most important thing out there, Doing your best is. If a team can sandbag and be rewarded with a higher seed there's something wrong.

Personally, My Driveteam and I didn't concern ourselves with seeding points in NJ. We had no desire to seed, nor were will running well enough to attempt it.

I'm still looking forward to events further out though. Once teams are aware of how the system works and that both alliances should concern themselves with scoring and not playing defense in qualifications (I see this happening in week 4/5 Events and The Championship) the system may grow on me.

IMO, G14 (2009) is back, it's just transformed.

[rwood359]

Now imagine it carried over to the elimination round.
Finals on Einstein - a hard fought third game.
Blue scores 2
Red scores 0
Blue has 1 penalty.
IT'S A WIN FOR RED!!!!!

[JABot67]

I like the system. I know it's "Really Really Bad" to cross post, but I long-windedly voiced my opinion in another thread.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...0&postcount=45

[Madison]

I dislike that, unless everyone on my team becomes a strategy-shark, very frequently they have NO idea what their teammates on the field are doing.

It's disappointing to win a match, but walk away unhappy because the number of points scored was low enough to actually hurt your ranking.

A significant number of teams at the Oregon regional did not understand the system and played inappropriately as a result.

I am not a fan.

[anyheck]

Talk about a 'race to the bottom' for FIRST.

Here at the Bayou Regional a team that never fielded a working robot was in the top 8. Of course being picked by them for elimination made for an automatic FAIL.

Frak Coopertition™. What does the C mean in FRC anyway?

[ebarker]

It is really wierd for rookies. They are expecting a competition, plain and simple.

The help they get from everyone in the pits is great and appreciated. But they expect a competition. Getting less than that has the potential to be a little insulting to a persons fair sense of play.

[Kage]

I (and most of the rest of my team) forgot about this new system, and were playing like every other scoring system...
we blew out the first 4 matches on friday at GSR, like, completely ahnialated them (like 5-0), and then went to go look at the rankings... we were in 14th...
what a surprise that was :|

I see what they are trying to do with this system, but it is not being achieved in the right way...

[johnr]

Older movie called Wargames. Computer talking.
" Interesting game. Only logical move is not to play"
Something like that.

[rick.oliver]

Yes, I like the seeding system.

I appreciate that the seeding system encourages scoring in the qualification rounds. I understand that the seeding system discourages the use of defense throughout an entire qualification round; however, strategic defense could still be valuable in a close match. I also like that the strategy can be much different in the elimination rounds.

I remember a regional where a team that had not shown (except for their human player) for their first several matches was ranked higher than us. That was on the previous W-L-T system and when we were still going two on two. So the arguments about how this particular system distorts the rankings rings hollow to me.

I am concerned about the amount of penalties and the potential for incurring incursion penalties while crossing bumps; however, that is a separate issue from the seeding system.

Based upon what I'm reading here and in other threads, this year's version of heavy defense is to block your own goals, score for your opponents and hope that they incur penalties. At least there may be less damage to the robots during qualification rounds.

Net, I don't think that the problem is with the seeding system. It seems to me that if each alliance did their best to score as much as possible for themselves that the best teams would be rewarded and end up as the highest ranked. If an alliance wants to take the risk and score to increase their coopertition bonus, good for them.