Do you like the seeding system?

[Bjenks548]

After reading a lot of this thread, one word keeps coming up, “collusion” could someone either post a definition or a link to where I could find what this means?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Bjenks548

After reading a lot of this thread, one word keeps coming up, “collusion” could someone either post a definition or a link to where I could find what this means?

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

col·lu·sion   /kəˈluʒən/ [kuh-loo-zhuhn]
–noun
1.a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.
2.Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

Here you go.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Andrew Y.

- I think the bumper color change idea is horrible...

Not to side track the thread, but why?

I think this change was absolutely brilliant, from both a spectators and coaches point of view. It beats the hell out of every other method FIRST has used (flags, LEDs, trailers, and even the awesome rotating lights). It has never been more quick or intuitive to see what robots are on what alliance and what their team numbers are. Kudos to FIRST for the bumper color rules.

[A_Reed]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Not to side track the thread, but why?

I think this change was absolutely brilliant, from both a spectators and coaches point of view. It beats the hell out of every other method FIRST has used (flags, LEDs, trailers, and even the awesome rotating lights). It has never been more quick or intuitive to see what robots are on what alliance and what their team numbers are. Kudos to FIRST for the bumper color rules.

I do agree that it is very efficient at determining alliance colors, but with certain teams color schemes it causes an eyesore effect when your blue or red bumpers are a little skewed on the color wheel in contrast with the team graphics on the robot's guarding.

Back to the main topic. One thing I have noticed about the people who don't have a problem with this system keep coming up with different ways to say 'get over it and play the game'. My main problem with this idea is that you may learn to play the game in qualifications by manipulation of the scoring rules to your ranking advantage, but this system still hides the beneficial attributes necessary to play in the new scoring system that comes with the elimination rounds.

There has to be a better way of weighting your wins to make a more accurate seeding list. What if you take the same system as before, where you get two points for a win, one for a tie and zero for a loss and multiply this number by your strength of schedule. Just like the NFL your strength of schedule will be determined by your opponents W-L record, averaged out of course over each three team alliance you face in each match.

[Chris27]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Not to side track the thread, but why?

I think this change was absolutely brilliant, from both a spectators and coaches point of view. It beats the hell out of every other method FIRST has used (flags, LEDs, trailers, and even the awesome rotating lights). It has never been more quick or intuitive to see what robots are on what alliance

The average spectator doesn't care about the "blue alliance" or the "red alliance" rather they care about individual robots such as the one their son/daughter built (from the perspective of a parent) or perhaps the robot they built themselves (from the perspective of a student). Already design constraints of this year's game resulted in most robots looking very similar (short boxes). With homogeneous bumpers, it makes it even harder to tell the robots apart. Just having a different number marked on the bumper is not a good way to distinguish your robot. For one, they are unreadable on web casts. Also, from back in the stands, I bet many people may have trouble reading them.

This year, you can't just look for tiedye bumpers and say, hey, that's Wildstang.

[Ether]

Here's a seed point calculator for anyone interested:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=934119

enjoy.

~

[Herodotus]

Originally Posted by A_Reed

Back to the main topic. One thing I have noticed about the people who don't have a problem with this system keep coming up with different ways to say 'get over it and play the game'. My main problem with this idea is that you may learn to play the game in qualifications by manipulation of the scoring rules to your ranking advantage, but this system still hides the beneficial attributes necessary to play in the new scoring system that comes with the elimination rounds.

I guess I don't have a problem with the system because I felt like it worked at Kettering. No one made it into the top that made me think "Wow, how did they get there?" and I don't think I ever saw a 6v0 match(I might be wrong, which someone can correct me if I am). Everyone just played to win, and it worked out well.

The problem with it is primarily that it can be exploited to make for some weird situations, and every once in awhile a normally played match also ends up weird. It's not the best way to do seeding, not by a long shot, but I don't think it is a terrible system. On the plus side, it takes into account the power of your opponents, on the negative side in certain extreme situations it falls apart.

There has to be a better way of weighting your wins to make a more accurate seeding list. What if you take the same system as before, where you get two points for a win, one for a tie and zero for a loss and multiply this number by your strength of schedule. Just like the NFL your strength of schedule will be determined by your opponents W-L record, averaged out of course over each three team alliance you face in each match.

Something like that would work better. Another idea I've had and have seen others suggest was the winner receiving the total score for the game and the loser receiving their own score plus .25x the winner's score, or something to that effect.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Herodotus

I guess I don't have a problem with the system because I felt like it worked at Kettering. No one made it into the top that made me think "Wow, how did they get there?" and I don't think I ever saw a 6v0 match(I might be wrong, which someone can correct me if I am). Everyone just played to win, and it worked out well.

All of Michigan has incentive to win matches with the MI State Ranking system, so that largely "fixes" the system over there.

[Bharat Nain]

I think more people may have liked the seeding system if most of the penalties were eliminated. It hurts to win matches by a large margin, when your opponents score is 0 and you have penalties.

[Doug G]

Most teams don't follow threads like this on CD. After this past weekends regional, many teams don't even read all the rules (even the coaches). This past Saturday (yes, Day 2), I found myself explaining to a 10 year veteran team how the ranking system works this year. ARRGGHHH!!

So while all of you will know how to adapt to this year's ranking system, most teams won't - which really hurts all of us.

When we started our 6th match in DC, the other alliance wanted us to do a 6v0 match, which we considered and then they said something to make us change our mind. While I knew the concept of collusion would happen during season, I honestly didn't think it be on the first day of Week 1. Sad.

GDC: The public won't understand the scoring system let alone this game, if teams are scoring on themselves or simply not playing. It's just ridiculus. Plain and simple. I spent a good portion of the day last Friday explaining the ranking and penalties to spectators, parents, and other teams. Why do you do this to us? If you want more folks to participate in FRC, YOU MUST KEEP IT SIMPLE and straightforward. I hate to use this as an example, but BattleBots was entertaining and popular because it's so simple.. go destroy the other robot! (Disclaimer: I'm not a fan of Battlebots) Keep the game and scoring system simple next year!! Let the robots be complex, unique, and well engineered!! I think this system may have worked out better if it didn't have the bumps, or get rid of the 3" incursion penalty, something to increase the odds of scoring and/or decrease the penalties.

[Martinez]

Originally Posted by Bruceb

Sure wish the GDC and Dean would read this and comment.

QFT. The President of FIRST was at FLR and I'm still waiting for an official comment. Sadly, I don't think we will be getting one.

[goldenglove002]

No, I do not like the seeding system. Nor do I think the public does. When I asked what he thought of FIRST, one of the kids on our guest program told me that he liked the idea but the competition was no fun (he specifically referenced the seeding system). Same thing from my parents who were at the event and saw the rankings.

FIRST is a competition, and we can't leave that out when we talk about all of FIRST's many elements. Of course we have gracious proffesionalism and coopertition that seperate from many competitive events. But you can keep all that and still make it competitive out on the field, which this seeding system doesn't.

[Doug G]

Originally Posted by Martinez

QFT. The President of FIRST was at FLR and I'm still waiting for an official comment. Sadly, I don't think we will be getting one.

I wouldn't expect much of a comment or change at this point, but perhaps at least an acknowledgement in Atlanta. I imagine many teams will work the new system to our advantage for the rest of this season. I know our team is already making a "Top Ten" list for teams that haven't competed yet when we go to our next competition. Here's a start...

1. Don't play defense in qualification matches.
2. Don't let a ball get under your robot.
3. Don't mess around the bump if there is a ball there.
4. In qualification matches, moving two robots into your offensive zone is a good thing.
5-10. ???

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Chris27

The average spectator doesn't care about the "blue alliance" or the "red alliance" rather they care about individual robots such as the one their son/daughter built (from the perspective of a parent) or perhaps the robot they built themselves (from the perspective of a student). Already design constraints of this year's game resulted in most robots looking very similar (short boxes). With homogeneous bumpers, it makes it even harder to tell the robots apart. Just having a different number marked on the bumper is not a good way to distinguish your robot. For one, they are unreadable on web casts. Also, from back in the stands, I bet many people may have trouble reading them.

This year, you can't just look for tiedye bumpers and say, hey, that's Wildstang.

I still think it's rather easy, even from the stands (though I haven't watched a webcast) to identify which robot is which. And I've never met a spectator who didn't understand the concept of the 3v3 match, and why they should cheer for their robots' partners as well. Especially for those not concerned with an individual team (such as VIPs, visiting area school field trips, and event sponsors), it makes it even better.

I remember plenty of years when I'd be trying to explain what is happening to people in the stands (or scouting a match) and even having myself getting confused as to who is on which alliance.

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by Doug G

1. Don't play defense in qualification matches.
2. Don't let a ball get under your robot.
3. Don't mess around the bump if there is a ball there.
4. In qualification matches, moving two robots into your offensive zone is a good thing.

5. HP must remain focused on returning balls - Don't watch the game!
6. During the Finale, stay away from the opposing alliance's tower and hanging bots
7. If you are going to hang, only extend during the finale (too tricky for many to stay in contact with tower prior to finale - although some can)
8. Don't play defense
9. Don't play defense
10. Don't play defense