Do you like the seeding system?

[GGCO]

Originally Posted by keericks

Amen brother! My previous rant didn't quite get to that point - but I'm glad you had the courage to point it out. AGREED!

Thanks, last time I pointed this out (in 2009) my inbox was full of hate mail within a few days!

So to address some of my criticism on this forum, yes, I did think that last year's game also had elements of socialism in it.

To address other comments:

Rizner - I personally don't think the idea was to reward someone who doesn't produce very much, but instead rank teams in a way which takes into account how difficult their opponents are, which the previous ranking system didn't do.
Is this the right way to do that? Probably not, but I think that's what GDC's (or whoever made the final seeding decision's) goal was.

@Rizner - Once again, great intentions, but terrible implementation.

artdutra04 - So the scoring system is a nationalized institution owned by the government paid for by taxes on all citizens for the general public good (not unlike the police, firefighters, public libraries, public education, mass transit, Interstate highways and the military)?

I don't like the new scoring system, but socialism it is not.

@artdutra04 - I understand that this doesn't look exactly like socialism, but the philosophy/reason behind the rules has its roots in socialism.

My suggestion is that FRC teams should draft an open letter to FIRST outlining our concerns.

[Dkt01]

Is there a link to a site that explains the ranking system? If so, I'd very much like to know how it works so I may form an opinion.

[Rizner]

Originally Posted by GGCO

My suggestion is that FRC teams should draft an open letter to FIRST outlining our concerns.

I think if you do this, you will want to include a solution. One that does in fact take into account the difficulty of opponents because I believe that is an important thing FIRST is trying to do.

My suggestion would be to have winning alliances seeding score be what they scored + what their opponents scored, while the losing alliances seeding score be what they scored + what their opponents scored / 2.

[delsaner]

I am not a fan of the new seeding system. I somewhat understand the fact that FIRST is trying to incorporate coopertition into the field, and I respect that they are trying, but I feel that helping out teams in the pits in order to produce a fair game on the field was perfectly fine. I do not see this seeding system lasting very long within the future years of FIRST.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Dkt01

Is there a link to a site that explains the ranking system? If so, I'd very much like to know how it works so I may form an opinion.

Try the game manual. Section 9.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by GGCO

@artdutra04 - I understand that this doesn't look exactly like socialism, but the philosophy/reason behind the rules has its roots in socialism.

You still have it backwards. Both socialism and this ranking system (allegedly, I may add) have some fundamental philosophies that may have similar origins. The philosophies that govern this system did not originate with socialism, nor did any of the philosophies of socialism itself. The concepts behind it predate the system of government. Please stop trying to tack on terms that already get applied far too incorrectly as it is in order to bolster you point via shock value.

[Kims Robot]

So I gave myself some time to sit on this before even opening Chief Delphi...

We knew the seeding system well coming into competition. Im not certain all of our kids were convinced of it, but I ran all the numbers early in the season (like many teams did) and caught the whole "it doesnt pay to play defense" thing. I also noted how the bizzare 6vs0 could play out.

That said, I will admit we started the day with a less than optimal robot, but wanted to win...
First Match: Played to win, but it was the second match of the day, results 2:1, ehh...
Second Match: Played to win, but got completely annihilated, 9:0 after penalties!! This match vaulted us into somewhere around third place!! Half the team was dumbfounded, how could we lose, but go up in ranks!! They finally caught on...

Next two matches, played to win, won one, lost one... ugh heavy defense!

We looked at our next match and by all of our scouting data, there was no way for us to win. So we decided to give the "help your opponent" strategy a try. We intended to block our goals with 2 robots, and use our middle bot to feed the opponents. Unfortunately, they didnt catch on fast enough, and played enough defense to knock over one of the robots that was trying to feed balls to the middle, and the middle robot couldnt help get many balls over, but interestingly enough, it still sort of worked! Final score was 5:0, winners got 2 penalties, so we LOST and got 5 rank points, the other alliance WON and got 3 rank points... we vaulted back up in the rankings... Needless to say everyone watching was confused, they thought we were "stuck in the goal".

Next match, we played to win, opposing alliance had a lot of issues, and we won 9:0, would rather they have scored, but it was still good for our rank points (better than any of the 2:2 matches).

We looked at our second to last match and said, well we are the much stronger scoring alliance by A LOT, and the other team had two bots that were playing Defense nearly all qualifiers. We got together with 229 and convinced all the teams to implement the 6v0 concept, with us feeding the opposing alliance. At the start of the match, our robot scored 3 balls for them... our parents and spectators were dumbfounded. They thought our drivers were confused. We then scooted to the middle and proceeded to feed them balls the whole time. Result was 11v0, a reasonably successful 6v0 score, and a much higher score than if we had let them play defense on us.

Our last match (despite what Jeff said), we actually intended to win. We had a strategy that we thought could beat the 217/1551/3044 alliance... but then our two partners died right at the start of the match (control issues - one accidentally hit the power on the classmate ugh). Our drivers quickly realized this and scooted themselves into our goal and just sat there, not intentionally playing 6v0, but realizing that we were up against a really tough alliance and there was no point in just boosting their rankings. They didnt walk away from the controls in protest, there was just nothing else they could do. And I will tell you it made for an even more dull match with 3 robots just sitting there. We made it to 3rd seed following that. It does seem very weird that a team that "gave up" because two alliance partners were dead gets rewarded for basically just not hindering our opponents.

We finished in 5th seed, not bad for a 5-5-0 record. I will be honest, it felt really weird, but we were playing to the rules.

Honestly, if all of the teams took on the same attitude and played to how FIRST was hoping this played out (which I think the intent was just to eliminate defense), then we would have much more epic offensive battles on the field. But with the near/mid/far zone starts, I think so many teams see the "far zone" as their defensive soccer player, there to mess up the other teams from scoring. While true in eliminations, it just hurts the entire field for qualifiers. I think if FIRST just made some "no defensive contact" rule it would have had a much better effect. Instead you end up with strategies where sometimes its better to "throw the match" if you think you are going to be defended.

However, I think if you look at FLR, the good teams that played to win the matches ended up at the top for the most part. 1551 definitely played every single match to win, and I think 217 and 145 did as well. It really just mattered if their opponents decided to play defense or not. I will be honest, we played to seed high, and I think there will be a lot more of that coming up. But if teams start to recognize how all of this works and stop playing defense (maybe until the last 30 seconds), we will see a lot more high scoring matches and a lot more high rank scores & coopertition points. But until teams lay off the defense, 6v0 and the "sit in your own goal" strategy are going to be played by teams aiming to select their own alliances. Its confusing as all heck for spectators, and its really hard to switch gears to strategize for finals, but its the rules we have. You figure it out.

[bobwrit]

I think that this system does, in fact, add to the strategy in this game.While this does( in a few cases) encourage a 6v0 match, for the alliance that has been predetermined to 'win' the match, It makes more sense for them to break the agreement, and start scoring for the opposing alliance. While this (will) confuse the audiance, it helps boost the winner's seeding score. I see this system in a similar light to the WLT system, in that in both systems, you're trying to maximize your ranking/seeding score. The difference is in how you do that. With the WLT system, you maximize your seeding score by beating the opposing alliance. In the current system: you do it through co-operating between alliances and breaking those agreements. It's similar to a Oliopoly/Cartel in economics. It pays to collude, but once you're in the collusion agreement, it pays to break the agreement. It is harder to win in this system, because if the opposing alliance is good, then they can cause the breaking of the collusion agreement to backfire, and benefit themselves even more. The plus side to this, is that you are rewarded more heavily for taking the risk. On top of that, there is the strategy of just wanting to win all of your matches. In that strategy, it pays to play defense, but you aren't rewarded as well. It makes this game even more about strategy, rather than having a good robot.


My 2 Cents...

[Creator Mat]

maybe this is a new coke vs. classic coke situation. the GDC implemented this system so people would hate it so much they would beg to go back to the old system. Then once the old system is reimplemented people would stop complaining about it and all in the world would be good. Food for thought

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Creator Mat

maybe this is a new coke vs. classic coke situation. the GDC implemented this system so people would hate it so much they would beg to go back to the old system. Then once the old system is reimplemented people would stop complaining about it and all in the world would be good. Food for thought

Nope, I liked the old system, it wasn't perfect but it was intuitive and didn't require me to do what-if analysis to figure out if I want to try to win a match!

[texarkana]

This is doing real damage to FRC. I feel my respect for FIRST and enthusiasm for the activity diminished, and I sense the same in others. I have always strived to have my students embrace every lesson that FIRST teaches, but not this lesson. That winners are really losers, that it is just as good to be lucky or sneaky as it is to be excellent, that the system will hand you reward even if you don't earn it. Trying to force more equal outcome for everyone does not work in FRC any more than it does in real life, and it discourages excellence just like it does in real life. I cannot explain to my students why their ingenious robot is very good at winning the game, but not at winning the tournament, because I do not understand it myself. Whatever abstract goals were envisioned with this system, they are lost in the real application of it. If implementing the ideas in the "coopertition" patent was needed just to legitimatize the patent, then I wish it could have been experimented with somewhere else. FRC was thriving and was not broken, but was "fixed" anyway.

[PAR_WIG1350]

I understand GP and all of that , but This has turned FIRST into one of those fake soccer little leagues (the ones where they don't try to win) or little league tee ball It makes me question why I didn't sleep for six weeks.

PS- this comment only applies to a small number of soccer organizations, I didn't mean to offend anyone who has played,or is involved in, little league soccer.

[metaltech]

Color me an idiot. I read the rules, viewed our regional this past weekend, and still am not confident that I understand the seeding concept.

Our first year, we finished next to last in the standings. Last year, we were even worse. I would have been happy this year with being a third of the field from the bottom, and thinking we made good progress. We built a much better bot that never had a failure. At one point, we were 29th of 60, downright outstanding! In the end, we were 3W-5L-2T. I figured, yup, we could make 40th or so and feel good. Nope, ended up 53rd. It is so counter-intuitive to win a match and lose rank. And, what's with being penalized for playing defense? The game is patterned after soccer, where the most valuable player might just be an outstanding goalkeeper. I have a hard time encouraging our students to do their best, while wondering if they will go backward if they do so. Frankly, with the cost and the huge investment of time to build the 'bot, I'm starting to wonder if it's worth it for 20 minutes of playing time. Sorry to sound so down, but my expectations of reaching mediocrity this year were blown way out of the water.

[Matt Howard]

I've been involved with FIRST for 6 years now, and in those 6 seasons I've seen a lot of changes. I remember the pre-bumper days, plastic tetras, the IFI feud, and the static blasted CRIO's of last season.

However, I've never seen something comparable to what I have seen this season.

I've never seen a season where teams have actively considered going onto the field and doing their worst, because scoring 0 wouldn't allow the other alliance to travel as far in the rankings.

I've never seen a season where a legitimate strategy for gaining position in the rankings, was to score for the other team.

I've never seen a season where nearly every match was decided by how many penalties were accumulated by the competing alliances. (although 2008 was arguably this way as well)

I've never seen a season where nearly every team brought to the event, a functionally identical machine.

Call me old fashioned, crude, or whatever you like. I am not a fan of this game, these rules, the ranking system, and the overall direction FIRST seems to be heading.

Just my .2

[Johnny]

Originally Posted by Matt Howard

I've been involved with FIRST for 6 years now, and in those 6 seasons I've seen a lot of changes. I remember the pre-bumper days, plastic tetras, the IFI feud, and the static blasted CRIO's of last season.

However, I've never seen something comparable to what I have seen this season.

I've never seen a season where teams have actively considered going onto the field and doing their worst, because scoring 0 wouldn't allow the other alliance to travel as far in the rankings.

I've never seen a season where a legitimate strategy for gaining position in the rankings, was to score for the other team.

I've never seen a season where nearly every match was decided by how many penalties were accumulated by the competing alliances. (although 2008 was arguably this way as well)

I've never seen a season where nearly every team brought to the event, a functionally identical machine.

Call me old fashioned, crude, or whatever you like. I am not a fan of this game, these rules, the ranking system, and the overall direction FIRST seems to be heading.

Just my .2

I remember those days...but unfortunetely things change and we just gotta change with them. There's always going to be things we like/dislike about each years game, but we just have to play the game and adjust. It's still very fun though