Am I the only one who LOVED the seeding system this year?

[Chris is me]

(after week 1)

So I've been thinking since week 5 about this new seeding system that no one seems to like all that much. I think I break from popular opinion when I say that this system does an awesome job of what qualification systems are supposed to do: rank teams. The system made the highest scoring robots seed 1st, regardless of schedule. At least, on paper it did. Strong schedules where a team won every match, weak schedules against multiple powerhouses, and mixes between the two were all good things, and teams that earned it could become top 8 robots with a little ingenuity.

If people throw out their preconceived notions of "winning" matches, and are more willing to consider the tradeoffs of playing matches 6v0 or 4v2, then the system is really great. Unfortunately, far too many teams decided that these strategies were "unfair", "cheating", etc. which really ruined the experience for those who understood the ranking system and wanted to take the challenge. The way the system forced you to honestly evaluate your chances of winning a match while calculating the gain in seeding 6v0 versus 3v3 was in my mind very smart, and I really didn't like how this year there was so much negativity against outside the box thinking.

I especially liked how losing several matches on Friday did not count your team out of the top 8 like last year. A lot more teams had the potential to put on a really great show for a match or two and rocket back up to the Top 8.

I think if the GDC spells out at the beginning of the year in big letters "PLAYING TO WIN MAY NOT BE THE BEST MOVE" to generally quell the downers and teams that decide because you're playing to win the regional and not the match you should go on their DNP list. Because other than that, I loved how this seeding system worked to put the top at the top.

Does anyone else agree? Am I missing something?

[jblay]

Personally I loved the seeding system from the beginning. The only situation I was afraid of was the 6v0 but the GDC quickly took care of that. This system puts the best scorers at the top of the rankings almost always. In the past, so many times I found that the best teams were rarely ranked first and lots of teams that weren't great were ranked first based on luck of schedule.

[dag0620]

Chris,

I am with you 100% when I say I love the seeding system also. The systems makes teams think creatively when playing the games, and makes the, have strategy instead of just win, win, wind no matter what it takes (as long as it is in the spirit of FIRST).

As you know one of the big factors of my team being a QuarterFinalist at CT is because of the seeding system. We came out of that even 5-6-1, which wouldn't get us into the Elims without being picked.

I hope that as we enter the Off-Season and we start competing at some of very favorite Invitationals, that they decided to stick with the seeding system, instead of W-L-T.

[Alpha Beta]

I loved the seeding system too once we added the 5 point bonus. Hopefully the bonus for winning will stay proportional to the number of points expected in a match. In Lunacy a 25 point bonus for winning might have been necessary.

[Jared Russell]

After the 5 point fix, I agree that this system generally did a great job of ranking teams according to my own subjective take on their abilities. Sure, there were still some flukes, but in general far fewer than in years past. Under this system, a great robot that has bad luck in one match (a dud battery, a one in a million flip) can still seed high even with a loss or DQ.

[efoote868]

I dislike the outliers this system generated.
During match 87, the field was comprised almost solely of elimination caliber teams. The score was 20-16.

57 of team 67's 276 qualifying points came out of that match. I think before that match they were ranked around 30th, and after that match they were ranked 1st or 2nd.

I also didn't like the way the seeding updated throughout the day, an average would've been better than a cumulative.

As far as separating out the teams, I agree this system did a better job. Its imperfect, but better.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by efoote868

I also didn't like the way the seeding updated throughout the day, an average would've been better than a cumulative.

I echo this (and as a minor addendum, DQs need to be made more obvious when looking at the rankings).

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by efoote868

I dislike the outliers this system generated.
During match 87, the field was comprised almost solely of elimination caliber teams. The score was 20-16.

57 of team 67's 276 qualifying points came out of that match. I think before that match they were ranked around 30th, and after that match they were ranked 1st or 2nd.

I interpret that as proof that it works. If only one team on each alliance were elims caliber and that match happened, I would be very dissapointed, but as you said, every team in that match was very good.

[EricH]

I liked it, with the 5-point addition.

Now, add in a DQ display, and we're all set.

[IKE]

There is still a mathematical and motivational disconnect with the seeding system.

Your seeding score must be based on your alliances score in order to have you motivated to do well.

Case in point: Archimedes. Going into the match Team 33 had the #1 seeding score (the eventual event #2) going against team #254 the eventual event #1. The only team that could contest this position lost a match before us. We could have done a 6v0 or even sandbagged the match in order to ensure we kept the lead (anything less than us scoring 13 pts. and loosing). This match had a great set of teams and had the potential of being spectacular. We knew this, and our opponents knew this. We made a conscious decision that rather than throw the match, we would go for it. then end result was a spectacular 20 to 18 defeat that catapulted 254 into the lead. This set the new seeding record of 61 points. For us, a 22 to 0 defeat would have been much better with us blocking shots on our goal likely playing against the entire other alliance and one of our partners that had a vested interest in our opponents doing well. That's what I don't like about this seeding system.


In order to get the same benefits, they could have done:

Winners Seeding= Winners points + 2* loosers points + C
Losers Seeding= 2*loosers points.

This would have had all the benefits and not given the incentive to do a 6v0.

Do we regret Qualifier Match 119? Heck no. We had spent two days getting one of our alliance partners ready for the Battle Royal, and it was arguably the greatest match of the year. 20 to 18 with 4 bots off the floor and the last 2 points scored in the final 10 seconds! It was spectacular. Great job 254, 330, and 45 and thanks to our partners 233, and 1111 for helping put on a great show!

And that is one of the reasons I am not in love with this seeding system.

[JABot67]

Originally Posted by efoote868

I dislike the outliers this system generated.
During match 87, the field was comprised almost solely of elimination caliber teams. The score was 20-16.

57 of team 67's 276 qualifying points came out of that match. I think before that match they were ranked around 30th, and after that match they were ranked 1st or 2nd.

That match was awesome! I don't see why winning a high scoring, tight, tough, exciting match like that shouldn't count more than a match like the debut of HOT's Breakaway robot in Qualifications 1 at Kettering, where the final score was 3-2.

The scoring system does what it was designed to do: provide an incentive for teams to score big, and make sure only teams that can consistently put up high scores, and beat other good teams, make it to the top 8 and become alliance captains.

I wrote a long post very early in the season about my high opinion of the seeding system, when everyone else was vehemently opposed to it. And I haven't changed my mind since then. I am in full support of the new seeding system and even think it should be used at offseason events.

[FRC4ME]

You can add me to that list. When I first read about the seeding system on paper I was very skeptical and thought it was going to suck. But having seen a season of regionals play out with the system in place (and the GDC's quick-thinking modifications), I think it worked amazingly well.

The big thing for me is how the new system allows you to play the game and not worry so much about winning. In previous years, at Virginia at least, losing two matches was reason to discontinue your scouting efforts. All of the teams in the top eight were usually 7-0-0 or 6-1-0. After the almost-inevitable loss due to unlucky alliance pairing on Friday, the rest of the regional was very tense. Waiting for a final score at the end of each match was very stressful for me, as I listened for that single penalty that would make or break my team's chances at the top eight.

Now, with robots ranked on performance rather than W-L-T record, I found the regional to be much more enjoyable for myself and my team. You can just relax, play the game, and let your robot do what it's designed to do, knowing that you will be ranked accordingly. Losing one match by one point isn't such a big deal anymore, and you know that so long as it was a tough loss and your alliance performed well, you will be still be ranked accordingly.

By the same token, I believe this system has done a much better job than that of previous years in correctly ranking the top eight. I didn't see nearly as many complaints about unfair ranking this year. In previous years, on my high school team we always had something to complain about with regards to our schedule, and we never really felt like our ranking was fair. I didn't see any of that this year.

[DarkFlame145]

More or less this new system shows which teams are the best. But like the old WLT system an team can still get lucky and get really good alliance partners and even up in the top 8, when really they are not a top 8 team. It's not perfect, but I think it's better then the old one.

[Zach O]

I see your arguments in where the seeding system was good thing to rank teams, and I agree that it did a great job of ranking good teams (post 5 point addition). However, for one aspect in the game it was not good. The GDC worked hard this year to make sure that spectators could show up and watch, and automatically "get it". But when I had family that came out and watched, and didn't know the game until they showed up and watched a few matches, and when all 6 robots began to score in one side, they didn't understand why. So obviously, 6v0 and 3v3 was something teams had to decide strategy wise, and teams that did it properly succeeded. But is there a way to keep a system where teams are ranked well, and make sure that spectators are not confused (short of them learning all the benefits of how to maximize seeding? )

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by IKE

There is still a mathematical and motivational disconnect with the seeding system.

Your seeding score must be based on your alliances score in order to have you motivated to do well.

Case in point: Archimedes. Going into the match Team 33 had the #1 seeding score (the eventual event #2) going against team #254 the eventual event #1. The only team that could contest this position lost a match before us. We could have done a 6v0 or even sandbagged the match in order to ensure we kept the lead (anything less than us scoring 13 pts. and loosing). This match had a great set of teams and had the potential of being spectacular. We knew this, and our opponents knew this. We made a conscious decision that rather than throw the match, we would go for it. then end result was a spectacular 20 to 18 defeat that catapulted 254 into the lead. This set the new seeding record of 61 points. For us, a 22 to 0 defeat would have been much better with us blocking shots on our goal likely playing against the entire other alliance and one of our partners that had a vested interest in our opponents doing well. That's what I don't like about this seeding system.


In order to get the same benefits, they could have done:

Winners Seeding= Winners points + 2* loosers points + C
Losers Seeding= 2*loosers points.

This would have had all the benefits and not given the incentive to do a 6v0.

Do we regret Qualifier Match 119? Heck no. We had spent two days getting one of our alliance partners ready for the Battle Royal, and it was arguably the greatest match of the year. 20 to 18 with 4 bots off the floor and the last 2 points scored in the final 10 seconds! It was spectacular. Great job 254, 330, and 45 and thanks to our partners 233, and 1111 for helping put on a great show!

And that is one of the reasons I am not in love with this seeding system.

I agree. Winning big matches puts too much of a skew on the rankings because the LOSING alliance doesn't really get enough credit for the fight they put up. Losing a match 20-2 is much easier to do than losing a match 20-19, and yet, they're worth the same to the LOSING alliance. The WINNING alliance gets far more benefit from the close match. Why shouldn't the LOSING alliance get a proportional benefit to the closeness of the match?