Do you like the seeding system?

[Thomas_S]

I hated this system. It seems like it is slighting good robots from being seeded where they actually deserve. Blowouts? Bring them on! If the other team didn't have the right strategy, or just had robots that didn't work well together, then if they get blown out, they should be seeded lower.

[Martinez]

No. If FIRST wanted a 6v0 game they should have invented a 6v0 game. There are serious reasons why the 2001, 2002, and 2003 seeding systems are no longer being used.

[Martinez]

Originally Posted by johnr

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

1511 did this in their final qualifiaction match against 217 by walking away from their controllers and I highly commend them for it. Kodos for the Graciousness and the Professionalism to form a Union by means of a silent protest.

[Mike Martus]

My answer is NO!

It messes with my mind...

We win 3 matches in a row we drop 15 spots....... we lose 1 match and we jump up..... hmmmmm it is better to lose then to win in many cases.

Something is just not right here..... Cooperatition leads to a boring set of qualifying matches....... some teams are starting to see.... if you are loosing the match then score for the winner you are points ahead for your team overall.

[MadeAtMidnight]

I think as the season goes on, it will become all 6-team alliances. The only thing to discuss will be which side is going to "win" that time. I find it frustrating.

[johnr]

Scene set-dark alley-atlanta- friday
" You help us win and maybe we put you on pick list."

[rwood359]

Originally Posted by johnr

Scene set-dark alley-atlanta- friday
" You help us win and maybe we put you on pick list."

"Win" would have worked under the old system - strategic losses are now more important.

[Mrs.Drake343]

So Mr. Drake and I have been fussing about this for a little while now. Let's look at this scoring system from a real life situation: We are at war and we are killing lots of their people...OH Wait!! We need to make this a "close game", so we kill some of our people.

[ideasrule]

Originally Posted by johnr

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

I know what you mean, but it's not like that. If two very powerful alliances go full-out on each other, they don't get annihilated; they both get a lot of seeding points.

[Herodotus]

I think the system works almost perfectly if everyone just plays their hardest. It can severely fall apart if people exploit it for seeding points, however.

[jspatz1]

Regardless of whether you like it or hate it, or whether it was planned or unintended consequences, the mere fact that we are having this discussion and that there is so much turmoil within FRC is evidence enough that it was a bad idea. Having games or rules that many do not like is one thing, but when a new system causes teams to give up on playing the game, and a large contingent of the FRC community feels the "C" is gone form FRC, then we have a serious problem, and damage is being done to FRC.

[lightsandmusik]

I think that in a different game this seeding system would work. But in breakaway, with penalties playing a large part in the scoring, messes things up.

[sparrowkc]

Originally Posted by Martinez

If FIRST wanted a 6v0 game they should have invented a 6v0 game.

My thoughts exactly. I'm forced to think that they did not at all intend for the game to be played that way. I also find it impossible that we could go from Lunacy (a game in which points were scored on and against our opponents) to a game where we are supposed to score for and with them. I assume that the GDC's intentions remain basically the same from year to year, and those two games just don't reconcile.

Also I have invented a new word: Collusitition.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Herodotus

I think the system works almost perfectly if everyone just plays their hardest. It can severely fall apart if people exploit it for seeding points, however.

David, a lot of people have made comments similar to yours. The rules of a game are, in my opinion, a perfect representation of the goals of the game designers. Teams are HUGELY rewarded for being seeded highly -- why would you expect them to ignore seeding-improvement strategies? There is a classic management essay entitled "On the Folly of Rewarding A While Hoping for B." That's what the FRC GDC is doing here -- hoping for a good, tough competition while rewarding bizarre behavior that makes no sense to the audience. I feel sorry for the FRC students that have to explain this to "civilians" in the stands. Makes you yearn for 2006 when the game was simple to understand (robot basketball) and the winners were the ones who won the most matches.

[Herodotus]

Which is why I selected mixed feelings. The rules should be designed more appropriately, but it also reveals a nasty tendency that many people have to try to exploit any system they are in for their own good. That's not always a problem, but it certainly can be.

I know as a former driver that if my coach had ever asked me to throw a match for qualifying points, he would have been looking for a new driver and I would have been done with FIRST.