Do you like the seeding system?

[Jonathan Norris]

No.

[IndySam]

Not to put to fine a point on it but:


This system sucks more than our ball possession system.

[Wildcat]

flat out terrible...

[Bruneau1727]

At first I did not like the seeding system at all, but I am now coming around! The system rewards a high scoring robot. At DC there were 9 qualification matches and the for the most part the best scoring robots were seeded highly. Yes you can force the seeding higher through agreeing to score all the balls in one goal and all get the winnig alliance score but the best way to get a high seeding is to play the game. Scoring a lot and winning against a tough alliance will get you far more seeding points. And yes it does discourage defense during qualification rounds.

I am really curious about one thing though! Are there teams that start the build season with a wholly defensive strategy in mind?

[HashemReza]

*sigh*

The system makes my job as a strategy guy very difficult, because as much as I want to tell my coach and drivers to score score score with the robot that we spent SO MUCH TIME trying to make into something which could SCORE A LOT (generally the point of a game), I cannot. I understood g-14 last year, to an extent. I think this system is this year's g-14, as it is counter-intuitive, but worse in the sense that it is also easily manipulated. I've seen teams with losing records in picking positions this year, is that alright? Is that acceptable? Should alliances be chosen by those whose robot is less effective? If you would like a perfect, specific example: team 1717 D'Penguineers have designed an amazing robot this year. It hangs quickly, effectively, and they can score a goal from any zone at a whim. They were 41st going into friday, and after 1 match, jumped to around 12th. Something about that doesn't seem right. They shouldn't have been that low, as they did amazing during the matches, but even so they were able to jump 29 places in one round...

Something seems off. I, personally, don't enjoy it. I like the idea of a ranking system as opposed to wins and losses, but it requires some major tweaking to meet it's original goals of rewarding tough competition.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by IndySam

Not to put to fine a point on it but:


This system sucks more than our ball possession system.

Brilliantly stated.

[Kimmeh]

In addition, Michigan teams have their own state ranking to keep in mind where a win is two points and a tie is one. Then there are various points for being chosen for eliminations and awards. For the teams that didn't win an event or one of three awards, they need these points to qualify for the State Championship. IMO teams need high scoring, penalty-free matches that are only a point or two apart.* After watching Kettering, I didn't see too many of those. Hopefully we'll see more matches like this as competitions progress.

*I think this is where the coopertition comes in. If this were to happen, it should balance out the ranking system as well.

FiM update #3 Page 7 has the section on point values for Michigan ranking.

I like the general concept as it encourages close matches, but over all, I don't like the new system.

Originally Posted by Bruneau1727

I am really curious about one thing though! Are there teams that start the build season with a wholly defensive strategy in mind?

Yes. One of the rookie teams we mentor this year did. They were formed right before kickoff, and were still recruiting students during the first week of build! They went to their first competition with two students, the only two they have. Due to lack of time and students, they build a purely defensive robot.

[LeelandS]

I gotta say no, but I like the idea. I understand what FIRST is trying to do, to make it so that teams who want to be succesful have to work with their opposing alliances, but it kinda screws things up. Teams that go undefeated can end up being ranked lower than a team that lost half of their matches by getting their opponents scores. So, the concept is good, the implementation is bad. For now, I'd say the win-loss system is better.

Another problem with it is the fans in attendance. A parent may see their child's team to exceptionally well, but be ranked 20th or lower, and have no idea why. Only someone who has actually studied the seeding formula can really get it, and even then it's a little confusing.

So FIRST, you hit the ball, made it all the way to third, but got out before getting home.

[jimwick]

No, we didn't like it. We were on the winning side in about half our matches and still ended up far down in the rankings.

If they don't want to award "blowouts" they could find a better way of doing it, I'm sure.

Still, we're not going away mad. FIRST is wonderful. We had a good time and learned a lot. We'll be back next year with enthusiasm.

jw

[Andrew Y.]

NO. I agree with matt. In the 7 years iv participated as both student and mentor, i do not like the current direction of FIRST.

in 2006 i really thought the games were going in the right direction. 2008 had me SHOCKED and this year has me down right concerned. I think how FIRST handles next years game is going to be pivotal.

Im all down for GP and coopatition, but if FIRST keeps pulling the competitive side out, we might as well show up, get our awards and leave. I believe GP shown in a non competitive environment is called being a good person. We should teach how to show GP in a HIGHLY COMPETITIVE environment. Now thats something to be proud of...

My thoughts after week 1.
- robots all look the same...
- I think the bumper color change idea is horrible...
- scoring system is confusing and crazy...
- The laptop things? i wanna kick it...
- These penalties and rules are silly too
rant done

[Bruceb]

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

[Mageofdancingdr]

I'm gonna take a shot at this and propose what I think may be a better system. Borrowed nearly directly from the swiss rounds of a Magic: the Gathering tournament:
Rank is based on match points. you get 3 points for winning, 1 point for tying, and 0 points for losing.
The first tiebreaker is your opponent's match points. this summed amongst all opponents in alliances against you (counting teams once for each time they faced against you).
The second tiebreaker is your allies' match points (low being better than high. once again, counting teams once for each time you allied with them).
Third tiebreakers would be whatever endgame score is appropriate for the game, and fourth is random.

By tie-breaking off of record instead of points teams no longer have any reason to score for others, but still rewards teams for fighting against harder opponents.

I believe the scoring system is not the place to discourage defense, however I would consider a tiebreaker based on a highest average points scored, but throwing out the top and bottom scores as outliers.

[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.

[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.