Serpentine Draft Alliance Parings, Like/Dislike

[Bochek]

Has anyone ever toyed with the idea of doing a 8-1 1-8 pick?

[A_Reed]

The only way I see of changing the rankings to truly make it the best of the best and not based on the luck(and Un-Luck) of the Alliance pairings is to redo the entire ranking system and based it on a different criteria. like your match scores, take the average of your full match scores and add the average of your individual team's match scores as a ranking or some form of your contribution to the score as a statistic.

[Guy Davidson]

Originally Posted by martin417

The 8th seed didn't win at Atlanta, they were eliminated in the quarterfinals. The number one seeded alliance won. The main reason they won is that they had a good bot to start with, and were able to pick first. They picked an unseeded team that arguably had one of the best bots at the competition. This is my problem with the seeding. Why were some of the best teams not in the 8?

You my good friend are mistaken. There are four divisions in Atlanta. In Newton, the #8 alliance (190, 987, 177) beat the #1 alliance, then the #4 alliance, then the #3 alliance to win the division. In Arhci, the #8 fell to the #1. In Gallileo, the #8 beat the #1 and then the #5 (I believe) before falling in the division finals. In Curie, the #8 also fell to the #1.

So far, we have #8's going to the finals and winning their division. However, remember that #8 alliance who won Newton? They are also the reigning FIRST Robotics Competition world champions. So not only the #8 seed win at Atlanta, they won Atlanta

[Steve Kaneb]

Originally Posted by sumadin

You my good friend are mistaken. There are four divisions in Atlanta. In Newton, the #8 alliance (190, 987, 177) beat the #1 alliance, then the #4 alliance, then the #3 alliance to win the division. In Arhci, the #8 fell to the #1. In Gallileo, the #8 beat the #1 and then the #5 (I believe) before falling in the division finals. In Curie, the #8 also fell to the #1.

So far, we have #8's going to the finals and winning their division. However, remember that #8 alliance who won Newton? They are also the reigning FIRST Robotics Competition world champions. So not only the #8 seed win at Atlanta, they won Atlanta

I believe martin417 is referring to the Peachtree Regional this year, and not the Atlanta Championships last year.

EDIT: On the topic of serpentine drafting, I think very highly of it. At most regional level competitions, the first seed still has a large advantage, as there are not enough high-scoring teams to make it all the way around. At Championships, there is not much of a drop-off, so the #1 alliance can still get quite a good team, and the #8 alliance doesn't have the disadvantage of not being able to pick anyone they want.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Borromakkot

I believe martin417 is referring to the Peachtree Regional this year, and not the Atlanta Championships last year.

Indeed I was. Sorry I misunderstood the post. At the Peachtree regional, some very good teams ended up in the finals. Some very good teams were also eliminated. Some that I think deserved to go to the championships.

[Nawaid Ladak]

now it's time for my opinion

i believe that this system is REALLY BAD. and i believe every point about this system can be countered.

I know for a fact, it would be better to market yourself to the high ranked teams instead of being bit by the serpentine. im pretty sure teams that are ranked bewteen 17-20 would really dislike this system on this theory

more and more, the top teams are picking each other. (some teams try to stop it, never the less.)... and those 10...11...12th ranked teams don't have a clear idea of who they want, so usually they just copy down the rankings and pick from there. doing that would mean those teams get ripped off somewhat.

i wouldn't be surprised if we got some shocking results saying ... we were ranked 17th at the end of the day friday. but were 4-3 with 1 match left, and the 8th ranked team has 25 more ranking points than us and has 2 loses. what do you think this team would probally do.... drop that match and fall to 20something or would they win and risk themselves to either picking as a 8 seed or being picked by a 8 seed?

im pretty sure most of the top teams do their picking lists friday night, and make minor adjustments on saturday morning... so i wouldn't be surprised that a smart veteran team would tank their matches on Saturday for a chance to be with the #1 alliance.

You worked hard for that #1 seed. and you should be rewarded, not by just having 2 five-star robots and a average robot playing defense (semi-this year).. instead of having two five-star robots and a decent complement 3.5 star robot...

I think what needs to be done, is that the 1-8 1-8 needs to be used at REGIONAL EVENTS ONLY.... because every regional has their drop off, if you want to send the best alliance posable, you would use this technique. I think for championships, the serpentine is fine because the drop off is further down the rankings to the point where it shouldn't be a factor.

another note: a 1v8 alliance is more of a 3v6 match up in the previous system

[waialua359]

With the current draft system, one flaw I see is that the 24th pick is, often enough, a team that "rides the alliance" to victory, especially during regional competitions.. Did some of these teams truly contribute as a major factor in their alliance?
The solution is perhaps in the game design where you are forced to have all 3 teammates to be major contributors.

Some interesting changes scenario for this year's game to force 3 robots to successfully win games:

1.What if this year's game had 3 track balls?
2. What if bonus points were worth more and it had to be from a teammate that isn't allowed to hurdle? i.e. designate the 3rd role robot who can only do laps and is only allowed to place on the rack. Hurdlers aren't allowed to place at the end.
3. You cannot do hybrid if you plan on hurdling.

If the goal is to even out the playing field matchups, the suggestions would help. However, I know that it wouldnt be as fun to watch and teams would have to be able to do everything, depending on what their role will be on the alliance for a particular match.

Since regionals are much less deep than CMP, the #1 seeded team would have a tough #2 pick at 24, creating more even matchups. The key is game design.

[Dominicano0519]

Originally Posted by waialua359

With the current draft system, one flaw I see is that the 24th pick is, often enough, a team that "rides the alliance" to victory, especially during regional competitions.. Did some of these teams truly contribute as a major factor in their alliance?
The solution is perhaps in the game design where you are forced to have all 3 teammates to be major contributors.

Some interesting changes scenario for this year's game to force 3 robots to successfully win games:

1.What if this year's game had 3 track balls?
2. What if bonus points were worth more and it had to be from a teammate that isn't allowed to hurdle? i.e. designate the 3rd role robot who can only do laps and is only allowed to place on the rack. Hurdlers aren't allowed to place at the end.
3. You cannot do hybrid if you plan on hurdling.

If the goal is to even out the playing field matchups, the suggestions would help. However, I know that it wouldnt be as fun to watch and teams would have to be able to do everything, depending on what their role will be on the alliance for a particular match.

Since regionals are much less deep than CMP, the #1 seeded team would have a tough #2 pick at 24, creating more even matchups. The key is game design.

well as one example of a team who carried their own weight in the finals look at this years nj regional, everyone wanted three hurdlers except for the 1st and i think the 5th alliances who went each went with a lapbot.

[Uberbots]

Originally Posted by waialua359

With the current draft system, one flaw I see is that the 24th pick is, often enough, a team that "rides the alliance" to victory, especially during regional competitions.. Did some of these teams truly contribute as a major factor in their alliance?

Yes, every robot makes a contribution in an alliance, and without the '24th' seed it is a broken alliance. That comment is unbelievably demeaning towards the many '24th seed' teams that competed during the regionals this year. I know we wouldn't have won CT without 716's help.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Uberbots

Yes, every robot makes a contribution in an alliance, and without the '24th' seed it is a broken alliance. That comment is unbelievably demeaning towards the many '24th seed' teams that competed during the regionals this year. I know we wouldn't have won CT without 716's help.

I still agree with you. We wouldnt have beaten a tough 968/25/2459 matchup in the semis without our 3rd partner 2437, most definitely. In fact, I still cant believe it. I haven't even watched vids yet, since I was focused only on our team.
My point was that there are some situations, "often enough," to have made the comment. It doesnt always happen. I was trying to allude to where each and every teammate be a major contributor evenly spread in order to be successful at winning, such as having in this year's game 3 trackballs, per alliance.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by waialua359

I was trying to allude to where each and every teammate be a major contributor evenly spread in order to be successful at winning, such as having in this year's game 3 trackballs, per alliance.

I think I understand your point. Last year, the 3rd alliance partner was very helpful. They would be another scorer (ususally fairly effective because they would face little to no defense), play defense on the other alliance's top scorers and climb ramps at the end. This year, however, thier role isn't as big. Most of the time, the third alliance partner is a lap bot (due to the fact they would be the 3rd hurdler or the regional isn't as deep). The points earned by a lap bot is usually around 20 (or 6 laps and 2 lines in hybrid). Last year, however, a 3rd alliance partner could score/play defense and then climb on ramps for 30 points.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak

i wouldn't be surprised if we got some shocking results saying ... we were ranked 17th at the end of the day friday. but were 4-3 with 1 match left, and the 8th ranked team has 25 more ranking points than us and has 2 loses. what do you think this team would probally do.... drop that match and fall to 20something or would they win and risk themselves to either picking as a 8 seed or being picked by a 8 seed?

im pretty sure most of the top teams do their picking lists friday night, and make minor adjustments on saturday morning... so i wouldn't be surprised that a smart veteran team would tank their matches on Saturday for a chance to be with the #1 alliance.

I'm confused with this part. Is this under the current system? If so, then what difference does it make if a team is in ranked 22 or 8? If they are good enough, they will be picked by the top alliance 1st. If you are assuming this team will get picked 24th (and not 1st) I don't think any team will take that gamble. I don't see any advantage to dropping a last match so you fall out of the top 8. (at GLR, if 2137 won thier last match, they would have been the 2nd seed, but they lost, fell out of the top 8 and did not get selected)

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I'm confused with this part. Is this under the current system? If so, then what difference does it make if a team is in ranked 22 or 8? If they are good enough, they will be picked by the top alliance 1st. If you are assuming this team will get picked 24th (and not 1st) I don't think any team will take that gamble. I don't see any advantage to dropping a last match so you fall out of the top 8. (at GLR, if 2137 won thier last match, they would have been the 2nd seed, but they lost, fell out of the top 8 and did not get selected)

Its funny you say this, because in Hawaii this past weekend, team 597 was out of the top 8 and wanted to be selected in the second round by a higher seeded alliance. When they moved up to 8th, they have no choice already and have to select their own alliance.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Its funny you say this, because in Hawaii this past weekend, team 597 was out of the top 8 and wanted to be selected in the second round by a higher seeded alliance. When they moved up to 8th, they have no choice already and have to select their own alliance.

That is slightly different because they were already in that position. It is not like they intentally dropped thier last match (maybe they did...I don't know). If I was given the opportunity of being in the top 8 and ensured to play in the eliminations and be outside the top 8 and hope someone will pick us in the second round, I would choose to be in the top 8 every time.

I also think intentially losing matches is very wrong to your alliance partners and the integrety of the game.

EDIT: If you don't allow teams to pick team from within the top 8, then you would defently have more reason to intentially lose. At MARC last year, the alliance captians couldn't pick from within the top 4 (there were only four alliances). 1732 was the top seed. 910, who we thought was the best team there, lost thier last match and dropped out of the top four, allowing us to pick them. I don't think 910 intentially threw thier last match so they could be picked for the top alliance and eventual winners, but they would have had the motivation and reason to do so.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

That is slightly different because they were already in that position. It is not like they intentally dropped thier last match (maybe they did...I don't know). If I was given the opportunity of being in the top 8 and ensured to play in the eliminations and be outside the top 8 and hope someone will pick us in the second round, I would choose to be in the top 8 every time.

I also think intentially losing matches is very wrong to your alliance partners and the integrety of the game.

EDIT: If you don't allow teams to pick team from within the top 8, then you would defently have more reason to intentially lose. At MARC last year, the alliance captians couldn't pick from within the top 4 (there were only four alliances). 1732 was the top seed. 910, who we thought was the best team there, lost thier last match and dropped out of the top four, allowing us to pick them. I don't think 910 intentially threw thier last match so they could be picked for the top alliance and eventual winners, but they would have had the motivation and reason to do so.

My comment wasn't about dropping matches. We had talked to 597 prior to the end of matches and liked them a lot and wanted to pick them on the go around.
They were seeded 15th. As stated in another thread, they were shocked/surprised to have made the top 8. Dropping matches to fall out of the top 8 is ungracious professionalism and should not be condoned.