Week 1

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim

I know this is an incomplete set of week 1 regionals, but I'm heading to bed, and wish I had the time to crunch them all =).

I'll do the rest of them and add them to this post when I'm done

SDC
Average Team#: 1656
Average SeedPts per Match: 5.30

GA
Average Team#: 2029
Average SeedPts per Match: 4.23

Bayou
Average Team#: 2096
Average SeedPts per Match: 4.76

OR
Average Team#: 2129
Average SeedPts per Match: 5.65

GG
Average Team#: 1215
Average SeedPts per Match: 6.85

GT
Average Team#: 1783
Average SeedPts per Match: 5.24

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim

Since we're throwing out interesting numbers, I haven't had time to do this for all regionals, but here are the average seeding points per team per match and average team numbers for a few regionals:

WAS
Average Team#: 1908
Average SeedPts per Match: 4.06

It doesn't surprise me that DC is so low. Most of the teams in DC were severely impacted by the multiple snow storms during the build season. I would expect similar numbers at Chesapeake, Philly, and maybe even in NJ. Many teams in the Mid-Atlantic shipped incomplete and non-functional robots.

Thanks for doing all these stats, it will be interesting to see if the averages go up today - and if averages start to go up in week 2.

Steve

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by funggiss

1. it's the only way to win regardless of how mean it is

Winning doesn't matter until the final eliminations.

[Chuck Glick]

Originally Posted by IndySam

Winning doesn't matter until the final eliminations.

This baffles and quite frankly upsets me. After reading the rules over and over I have come to see that it is more beneficial to just sit still on the field and purposely lose every match in order to be ranked higher. Where is the "spark" to make winning the match worth it now? Why are we rewarding mediocre play and condemning teams who perform well match after match. The GDC should have a serious re-look at this rule as I believe that it is completely backwards. Teams should be rewarded for performing well. The system should be based off of wins and losses, THEN match points, not match points alone.


Here's what I've taken from this. Want to be ranked #1 at the end of quals? Go out every match and fill your opponents goal. Lose by a HUGE margin AND take as many penalties as you can. Guarantee that you get the max seed points. If your opponents can't move, pick a goal and keep filling it. The larger the margin the better, it doesn't matter as long as there is a big deficit. This ranking system is promoting poor play.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Chuck Glick

This baffles and quite frankly upsets me. After reading the rules over and over I have come to see that it is more beneficial to just sit still on the field and purposely lose every match in order to be ranked higher. Where is the "spark" to make winning the match worth it now? Why are we rewarding mediocre play and condemning teams who perform well match after match. The GDC should have a serious re-look at this rule as I believe that it is completely backwards. Teams should be rewarded for performing well. The system should be based off of wins and losses, THEN match points, not match points alone.

But what about the teams who don't score at all?- (The GDC's opinion based on the rules and what they have said)

[Timz3082]

Originally Posted by Chuck Glick

This baffles and quite frankly upsets me. After reading the rules over and over I have come to see that it is more beneficial to just sit still on the field and purposely lose every match in order to be ranked higher. Where is the "spark" to make winning the match worth it now? Why are we rewarding mediocre play and condemning teams who perform well match after match. The GDC should have a serious re-look at this rule as I believe that it is completely backwards. Teams should be rewarded for performing well. The system should be based off of wins and losses, THEN match points, not match points alone.

It does not however help the winning seed higher by the opposing alliance scoring zero. It is in the best interest for both teams to have high scores in order to seed highly. ( if an alliance is winning and the other has zero it would be best to score on the opposing alliance to get more seeding points) The gdc does not reward mediocrity as much as you think but you do have a point that they should still count win/loss into the seeding score (even if it was +5pts per win).

[IndySam]

I agree totally Chuck. I was pissed the second I read the ranking rules.

Dean's original intent was to create a sports like atmosphere and these rules have created something like a preschool soccer match where they don't keep score.

Winning isn't the most important thing but it does need to have meaning.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by IndySam

I agree totally Chuck. I was pissed the second I read the ranking rules.

Dean's original intent was to create a sports like atmosphere and these rules have created something like a preschool soccer match where they don't keep score.

Winning isn't the most important thing but it does need to have meaning.

Unfortunately after nearly 20 years of FIRST being a competitive outlet for those interested in engineering they are trying to change that... BAD IDEA. My grandfather plans to write Dean Kamen about how those who build good robots should not be hurt because other teams don't do well.

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Unfortunately after nearly 20 years of FIRST being a competitive outlet for those interested in engineering they are trying to change that... BAD IDEA. My grandfather plans to write Dean Kamen about how those who build good robots should not be hurt because other teams don't do well.

I would say this year's qualification seeding is consistent with the much of FIRST's history (at least since I joined in 2000). Last year's Win-Loss-Tie seeding is a relatively new concept (introduced in 2004 making its run for 5 years, RIP). Before that (if you think back) we had a system of Qualification Points that were determined by an annually changing formulas of the winners and losers score. I guess it is true that "you don't know what you got till it's gone". The only thing I believe to be a new concept is that the loser gets the winner's unpenalized score (correct me if I'm wrong). This allows for a losing alliance to get more seeding points than the winning alliance if the has more than twice as many penalties as the loser has unpenalized points. I'm sure this has happened several times already with all the blowout wins and penalties. This concept still baffles me

Originally Posted by iCurtis

It's designed to make both alliances play all out offense. Don't bug them, they don't bug you, it's as close to 2001 (4v0) as you can get and still have two opposing alliances on the field.

I dont know about "closest to 2001". The years immediately following 2001 and before 2004 it were pretty close.

2002: Zone Zeal. Winner got none of their score and 3X the loser's score in QP which lead to interesting strategies like this . Highest QP was #1 seed. Everyone remembers Beatty's BEAST (Team 71) that year as one of the most dominate bots ever. Few remember that this domination caused them to seed near the bottom before being picked 1st overall on route to a National Championship. Since the nature of the game was to battle over a finite number of points (the 3 goals) that is significantly different than 2001

2003 Stack Attack. Winner got their score plus 2X losers score in QP. This lead to some collusion and debates about its role in the game. Even in the Elims wins didn't really matter all that much. Each round, two matches (no more no less) were played between opposing alliances and whoever compiles more Elimination Point (scored exactly like QP expect renamed EP) advances. Often the winner of Match 1 would purposely score very low in Match 2 to assure victory. I think this makes it the closest game to 4v0 and 2001. (Note: I don't like to make that comparison because 2003 is infamous and I personally loved my first full year in 2001. At least 2001 was advertised as 4v0 point scoring competition instead of sometimes being a defacto 4v0 like 2003)

Even before 2001 in 2000, Team 25's National Championship bot was able to descore and score balls between alliances to ensure a close victory and tons of QP in the Quals. With the W-L-T seeding, some teams still scored on themselves to improve their ranking. FIRST Rules always encourage high-scoring, close matches and lead to strategies to accomplish that (and perhaps debate about those strategies). The new qualification seeding is not unprecedented, but it is perhaps a step backward.

[commodoredl]

It is still very difficult to break the mentality of "must win" in a match. The idea that you can lose 9-0 and suddenly be 5 places higher in the standings is completely backwards, in my opinion, and having to explain to your teammates that it was "good" to have been blown out just causes confusion.
There is at least one team in the top 10 in our regional that has no place being there.
Seeding complaints aside, the strategy evolution is interesting, to say the least.
Like I said, it's difficult to break the mentality of needing to win in the match. In our second match, we were behind 2-1, and I originally told our robot to play defense on the other robot so that we could pull ahead. The defense isn't really the issue here, it's more that many teams are playing ineffectively. If your midfielders/defenders aren't able to cross zones and can't effectively pass balls forward, you will be dead in the water not getting any balls. Our team has had to transition zones much more than we anticipated during matches, just because we had to accommodate our alliance's needs.

[funggiss]

going over the bump is really a must have good thing we can do it well

[XaulZan11]

Before we bring the torches to FIRST's headcourters, let's remember that the previous system was not perfect either. You could have a team that didn't make it on the field earn 2 ranking points if they had good partners. There were always teams in the top 8 that were not one of the best 8 teams. Also, there are still 3 or 4 more matches tommorrow that will help reduce some of the variability and improve the rankings.

I do think this system isn't the best, but the last system wasn't perfect either. The only thing we can do now is just work within the system. Next week when my team plays, you can bet we will only be focused on scoring; no defense (until the elmination rounds...).

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Chuck Glick

This baffles and quite frankly upsets me. After reading the rules over and over I have come to see that it is more beneficial to just sit still on the field and purposely lose every match in order to be ranked higher. Where is the "spark" to make winning the match worth it now? Why are we rewarding mediocre play and condemning teams who perform well match after match. The GDC should have a serious re-look at this rule as I believe that it is completely backwards. Teams should be rewarded for performing well. The system should be based off of wins and losses, THEN match points, not match points alone.

If both alliances did this, you'd be in a pretty bad place with both of you ending up with a seeding score of 0.

It's designed to make both alliances play all out offense. Don't bug them, they don't bug you, it's as close to 2001 (4v0) as you can get and still have two opposing alliances on the field.

Art is right, playing defense is just silly. It's not in your interest as an alliance, win or lose! You'll get fewer points if you win (lower coopertition bonus) and fewer points if you lose (you get the winner's score). It matters in a close match, but IMHO that's a very hard line to drive along. It'd be safer to just go all out offense (again, my opinion).

[Chuck Glick]

Originally Posted by iCurtis

It's designed to make both alliances play all out offense. Don't bug them, they don't bug you, it's as close to 2001 (4v0) as you can get and still have two opposing alliances on the field.

This is fine in theory, except for the fact that only few people actually READ and UNDERSTAND the manual. There are several posts now from people who don't understand why they moved up in rankings even though they got blown out in their last match. This is inexcusable. The GDC doesn't want people to "lawyer" the rules, but things like this are what make us have to.

[Doc Wu]

Originally Posted by Chuck Glick

This is fine in theory, except for the fact that only few people actually READ and UNDERSTAND the manual. There are several posts now from people who don't understand why they moved up in rankings even though they got blown out in their last match. This is inexcusable. The GDC doesn't want people to "lawyer" the rules, but things like this are what make us have to.

We're seeing a number of teams that haven't even got a fully functioning robot yet. They're struggling to make that work, not understand some esoteric rules that make no sense.

Even teams that are fully functioning and understand the "coopertition" and excessive penalties, want to win. It's human nature to want to win. Try telling your teenage drivers to stop scoring and let the other alliance catch up.

Plus, it's confusing to spectators who are struggling to understand the game that we've had seven weeks to figure out. How do we sell a game to the public where winning is a secondary goal?

I liked the mechanics of this years game, but the rules have spoiled it for me. It may get corrected somewhat after the first week, but how fair is that to those who play in the first week of regionals?