9.3.4 Match Seeding Points

[kirtar]

Originally Posted by StevenB

I agree with MathKing and Lil' Lavery that a 6-team cooperative effort could be very fruitful. Let's try some numbers, ignoring the tower bonuses for the moment.
1) Suppose that in a "normal" round, the Red Alliance can score 8 points against the Blue defense, while the Blue Alliance can only score 3. Red gets 8 + 2*3 = 14 seeding points; Blue gets 8 seeding points.

2) In a second scenario, Red scores 8 times, 6 for Red, and twice for Blue. Blue scores 3, making the final score 6 to 5. Red gets 6 + 2*5 = 16; Blue gets 6.

3) Now suppose the alliances cooperate - this makes both sides far more productive. I'll suggest that Red can now score 12 balls, while Blue scores 4 (in Red's goal). Red gets 16 + 2*0 = 16 seeding points; Blue also gets 16 points.

Here's another proposition with respect to your third one.
Say that that the score is 8-8
Each alliance gets 8+8*2=24, which is 50% more. In every scenario in which there is an even numbered total score, it is always more beneficial to both teams to split the score evenly.

[StephLee]

Originally Posted by kirtar

Here's another proposition with respect to your third one.
Say that that the score is 8-8
Each alliance gets 8+8*2=24, which is 50% more. In every scenario in which there is an even numbered total score, it is always more beneficial to both teams to split the score evenly.

I agree with this, with one corollary: I think most people are assuming that two teams, each playing defense on the other, will always score fewer points than two teams scoring in coopertition with no defense being played. I agree with this assumption for the most part.

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

However, I can guarantee you we will see it attempted at least once per regional event.

I think you will see it once or twice per regional, but probably only that. If there are 4 different basic scoring outcomes for an alliance {zero points, score points, score on both alliances and win, and tie} then there would be basically 5 different combinations {zero points v score points, zero points v score on both, score points v score points, score points v score on both, and tie v tie}. Let's say for the sake of argument, the Blue alliance is on the losing side of the match (except for a tie, of course). In that case, the Blue alliance will get the same number of seeding points as the winning alliance (not including penalties) - so therefore derives no advantage over the Red alliance in terms of moving up the ranking - in 2 cases. This also includes the tie situation. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the Red alliance to not only win, but insure that the Blue alliance also scores. This is true in 3 of the 5 combinations. So by a 3:2 ratio - it is in the best interest of an alliance to win and to have the losing alliance score as many points as possible. The best case is to win by as close a margin as possible, even if that means scoring for the opposing alliance.

Therefore, if the Blue Alliance recognizes that the Red Alliance's best strategy is to have a Med - High score for both alliances, and will score on the opposing alliances goal if necessary, and visa versa. You have the Nash Equilibrium as far as the game strategy is concerned. If you attempt to have collusion, and have a zero point v score high points scenario, and a team defects, by breaking this agreement (scoring on the opposing alliance to maximize their score, or by accident), then you will now have "Tit-for-Tat" and you could never have that agreement again, since everyone would assume you would cheat again, and would then defect from any agreement you would attempt to make – even if they initially agreed to it. (You might get forgiveness for the first time you “cheated”, but not twice!)

Best regards,

Steve

[kirtar]

Originally Posted by StephLee

I agree with this, with one corollary: I think most people are assuming that two teams, each playing defense on the other, will always score fewer points than two teams scoring in coopertition with no defense being played. I agree with this assumption for the most part.

Since right now we're purely theoretical. This setup could potentially generate higher scores (with respect to total points) than the shutout collusion.

Reasoning:
Given that the shutout collusion ideally has six robots scoring on one side, the bottleneck will likely be the return of balls to the field. If an arranged tie takes place, you can score in both sides and will therefore be able to generate higher output due to approximately double capacity to return balls to the field.

[StephLee]

Originally Posted by kirtar

Since right now we're purely theoretical. This setup could potentially generate higher scores (with respect to total points) than the shutout collusion.

Reasoning:
Given that the shutout collusion ideally has six robots scoring on one side, the bottleneck will likely be the return of balls to the field. If an arranged tie takes place, you can score in both sides and will therefore be able to generate higher output due to approximately double capacity to return balls to the field.

I definitely see your point. I do, however, see a higher incentive to "cheat" in this situation than in the collusion shutout, and a wider gap between the winner and loser if cheating does occur. Thus, I as a strategist would be less willing to try this strategy if I know or suspect that my opponent has the capability to outscore me.

[Matthew2c4u]

So basically, if you can trust your opponent enough and you have enough skill to go for the tie its the most benefical for both teams
If have very little chance against a team its better to help them score
and if your ahead by more than 15 points you should be helping other team score.
Sounds like a plan.(Sarcasm)
This system is definatly unique, but its feasibilty is in question in my mind.

[Stephen Kowski]

Originally Posted by Richard

This seeding system appears to be an embodiment of the invention protected under US Patent 7507169.

The inventor? Dean Kamen.

I believe this patent is from 2003 where there were significant complaints of 'collusion' between opposing teams during seeding at many regionals. It will be interesting to see if this makes a comeback.

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by StephLee

I definitely see your point. I do, however, see a higher incentive to "cheat" in this situation than in the collusion shutout, and a wider gap between the winner and loser if cheating does occur. Thus, I as a strategist would be less willing to try this strategy if I know or suspect that my opponent has the capability to outscore me.

Exactly. Zero Point v High Points OR Tie score collusions are extremely suspect in that the "cheater" has a strong motive to cheat and defect from the agreement. The upside is that they move up in the ranking on the 3 opposing teams, the downside is that they won't be trusted in one of these agreements again. Also - you would have to get all three members of the alliance to agree and not cheat individually, when all three of them may be thinking, those other three teams could be the difference between my team being in the top 8 or not.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Stephen Kowski

I believe this patent is from 2003 where there were significant complaints of 'collusion' between opposing teams during seeding at many regionals. It will be interesting to see if this makes a comeback.

The game described in the patent is indeed Stack Attack (FRC 2003). Dean filed the patent application in 2004 and it was issued in 2009.

[Koko Ed]

Does anyone else (who's been in FIRST long enough to remember) have a very uneasy presence of the ghost of 2003?
Do a search on the word "collusion" to see the very heated arguments over what people did back in the day to seed better. I can't believe FIRST would want to invite that kind of ugliness back again

[kirtar]

Originally Posted by StephLee

I definitely see your point. I do, however, see a higher incentive to "cheat" in this situation than in the collusion shutout, and a wider gap between the winner and loser if cheating does occur. Thus, I as a strategist would be less willing to try this strategy if I know or suspect that my opponent has the capability to outscore me.

That is very true. But then from an audience standpoint, a collusion shutout won't be very popular. It would be boring, and for those who don't know how seeding works (e.g. a spectator just walking in like somebody's parents), it will really confuse them. With respect to the audience, an intentional tie will be more entertaining, because you might not know if somebody made a mistake, cheated, or got a penalty, which would change the outcome of the match.

From a scouting perspective, that pretty much tells me almost nothing about the robost. Sure, I can see that it's scoring, but I can't see how well the driver reacts under the pressure of a defender. I can't see how well the bot in the middle of the field is at tracking down balls and avoiding the other or causing the other to lose a ball. I can't see if the defensive bot is good at its job. The only thing it really tells me is whether the human player with the trident is fast or not.

Sure, the intentional tie doesn't really either, but I think it'd be a lot less boring to watch. Not to mention then I can at least see both alliances' human players in action.

[StephLee]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Does anyone else (who's been in FIRST long enough to remember) have a very uneasy presence of the ghost of 2003?
Do a search on the word "collusion" to see the very heated arguments over what people did back in the day to seed better. I can't believe FIRST would want to invite that kind of ugliness back again

I wasn't around until two years after that, but I remember it being a topic of discussion even when I joined. I don't think I'd like to see it first hand.

Originally Posted by kirtar

That is very true. But then from an audience standpoint, a collusion shutout won't be very popular. It would be boring, and for those who don't know how seeding works (e.g. a spectator just walking in like somebody's parents), it will really confuse them. With respect to the audience, an intentional tie will be more entertaining, because you might not know if somebody made a mistake, cheated, or got a penalty, which would change the outcome of the match.

From a scouting perspective, that pretty much tells me almost nothing about the robost. Sure, I can see that it's scoring, but I can't see how well the driver reacts under the pressure of a defender. I can't see how well the bot in the middle of the field is at tracking down balls and avoiding the other or causing the other to lose a ball. I can't see if the defensive bot is good at its job. The only thing it really tells me is whether the human player with the trident is fast or not.

Sure, the intentional tie doesn't really either, but I think it'd be a lot less boring to watch. Not to mention then I can at least see both alliances' human players in action.

I am hesitant to agree that an intentional tie would be likely to entertain the audience either, especially if the audience is expecting competition and realizes halfway through a match that the teams are simply scoring in their own goals with no real intention to actually compete against one another.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by SteveGPage

In that case, the Blue alliance will get the same number of seeding points as the winning alliance (not including penalties) - so therefore derives no advantage over the Red alliance in terms of moving up the ranking - in 2 cases.

I agree with some of the concepts in your post, but you're missing an important point. In this case it does indeed not result in any notable advantage for the red alliance to gain points in the standings over the blue alliance, but if they end up getting more seeding points than a "standard match," they get a net bonus when compared to the other teams in the field (not playing on either alliance).

Say team X is on the red alliance and team Y isn't playing. Team Y is done playing matches and has 100 seeding points. Team X has one match remaining and has 80 seeding points. In a competitive match, the red alliance might win 6-5 and get 16 seeding points (not enough for Team X to catch Team Y). In a colluded match, the red alliance might win 21-0, and Team X could pass Team Y. Or they could attempt to tie 7-7 and earn 21 seeding points for both alliances, in which case Team X passes Team Y as well.

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by kirtar

Sure, the intentional tie doesn't really either, but I think it'd be a lot less boring to watch. Not to mention then I can at least see both alliances' human players in action.

The big risk however to an "intentional" tie agreement (and I still see that there is a lot of risk that someone would also cheat) is that due to the shear magnitude of penalties that are possible, you would have to have an intentional tie, with absolutely no penalties. How many times have we seen matches that appeared to go one way, to only after the penalties were assessed, the match went to the other alliance. Many of the penalties - case in point "Overdrive" - were not obvious to the team/alliance at the time because they couldn't tell that had even violated a rule due to limited vision what the robot was doing on the far side of the track.

[kirtar]

Originally Posted by StephLee

I am hesitant to agree that an intentional tie would be likely to entertain the audience either, especially if the audience is expecting competition and realizes halfway through a match that the teams are simply scoring in their own goals with no real intention to actually compete against one another.

Note that I said more entertaining than a colluded shutout, which is a valid point. The reason for this is because you still don't know if one team will cheat at the end or of somebody will make a mistake or get a penalty be accident.

Originally Posted by SteveGPage

The big risk however to an "intentional" tie agreement (and I still see that there is a lot of risk that someone would also cheat) is that due to the shear magnitude of penalties that are possible, you would have to have an intentional tie, with absolutely no penalties. How many times have we seen matches that appeared to go one way, to only after the penalties were assessed, the match went to the other alliance. Many of the penalties - case in point "Overdrive" - were not obvious to the team/alliance at the time because they couldn't tell that had even violated a rule due to limited vision what the robot was doing on the far side of the track.

I'm well aware of this. However, I don't see many of the penalties this year being like <G22> and maybe <G35> from 2008. I'm fairly certain that the only one that might be like this not crossing the center line in autonomous.