Do you like the seeding system?

[ebarker]

These rules are offensive to a persons intrinsic sense of fair play.

We should help each other get to competition, through inspection, and get through the whole year.

But once the robots are on the field of play it should be a 'gladiatorial spectacle' !

[Bruceb]

O.K. Some of you are saying we should quit bashing the new seeding system and just work within it to the benefit of our team so try out this scenario. Let's say my team is on the red alliance and we get together with the members of the blue alliance and get them to agree to score all points for the red alliance so we both get a high number of seeding points. Cool. So our alliance gets ready to play but we discuss the finale period amongst ourselves and hatch a plan to get even more points just for ourselves. We decide that we are going to score as many points as possible for the blue alliance during the finale period without giving them enough to win. That way both alliances get a high number of seeding points but the red alliance also gets a bunch of coopertition bonus points. We win the match and win the higher number of seeding points. Is this what Dean wants? No. Is it fostering GP? No. Is it understanding the new rules and using them to our advantage? Heck yes. So, for those of you that say we should just learn how to use the new system and quit bashing it, be careful what you wish for.
For me, I think Dean has outthought himself and did not for see these types of consequences. I hope I don't see this type of thing happening. It is not what FIRST is about but the new rules are fostering this type of activity. I hope they learn by next year that if they want teams to help each other then the game had better be designed to foster that type of activity rather than some ridiculous seeding point scheme that the audience we are supposed to be gathering cannot possibly understand.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Bruceb

O.K. Some of you are saying we should quit bashing the new seeding system and just work within it to the benefit of our team so try out this scenario. Let's say my team is on the red alliance and we get together with the members of the blue alliance and get them to agree to score all points for the red alliance so we both get a high number of seeding points. Cool. So our alliance gets ready to play but we discuss the finale period amongst ourselves and hatch a plan to get even more points just for ourselves. We decide that we are going to score as many points as possible for the blue alliance during the finale period without giving them enough to win. That way both alliances get a high number of seeding points but the red alliance also gets a bunch of coopertition bonus points. We win the match and win the higher number of seeding points. Is this what Dean wants? No. Is it fostering GP? No. Is it understanding the new rules and using them to our advantage? Heck yes. So, for those of you that say we should just learn how to use the new system and quit bashing it, be careful what you wish for.
For me, I think Dean has outthought himself and did not for see these types of consequences. I hope I don't see this type of thing happening. It is not what FIRST is about but the new rules are fostering this type of activity. I hope they learn by next year that if they want teams to help each other then the game had better be designed to foster that type of activity rather than some ridiculous seeding point scheme that the audience we are supposed to be gathering cannot possibly understand.

If you do this, do you believe that any alliance would believe you from that time forward?

I know that my scouting has a column for trust. Basically we ask a few questions that we already know the answer to, but to which many would not want to announce to a scout team. We also watch the matches for 'cooperation' and 'quick strat changes'.

I know that if we saw that happen, we'd not pick you. I could even see teams that decline your invite to an alliance because they don't trust you.

I'm one that says learn the system and use it, yet I would not use your 'tactic'. There are far better ways of using the system as it's designed. If this is the only strategy you can see within the rulesset, then (I believe) you have missed the point of how the seeding system was designed.

You will ultimately be known for what you do, not what you say. Consider this when you make these decisions.

[Dkt01]

Is there a link to a site that explains the ranking system? If so, I'd very much like to know how it works so I may form an opinion.

[Ether]

Here's a seed point calculator for anyone interested:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=934119

enjoy.

~

[hektormagee]

My gripe with the scoring system is how a team could score on themselves, score none for themselves, and with a score of 12-0 get just as many qualification points as the team that got the 12. I am happy about, however, that the winning team gets an immediate 5 points added to their score.

[Tom Line]

I have a gripe about the system too.

In one case, we watched a robot on an alliance "turn" on their alliance partners. They intentionally started feeding balls to the other team. They did this because they were very close to moving up in the standings and one good seedings score would get it for them.

Through the whole thing, I watched the two somewhat functional bots do the best the could for their team, while the one really good bot proceeded to literally hand the game to other guys, just to up their ranking.

It made me very upset and pretty much highlighted what is wrong with this whole system. There should never, EVER be a reason that you're helping the OTHER team win. Period. I don't care if you call it strategy, or smart play. It destroys the spirit of the game.

(Not to mention hurting the two semi-functional bots hopes to make it to the State Championship, which is based on win/loss).

[metaltech]

Hmmmmmm. A rules change in the middle of the stream. Well, that will be good for all teams except those who could only afford to attend a Week 1 regional. Makes me wonder how much better we would have done under the updated rules. Sorry, I'm not feeling a lot of GP at the moment...

[Rick Wagner]

Originally Posted by metaltech

Hmmmmmm. A rules change in the middle of the stream. Well, that will be good for all teams except those who could only afford to attend a Week 1 regional. Makes me wonder how much better we would have done under the updated rules. Sorry, I'm not feeling a lot of GP at the moment...

If you have a good robot and drive team, you don't need to be seeded to win. You just need to have smart scouts on the seeded teams.

[metaltech]

Originally Posted by Rick Wagner

If you have a good robot and drive team, you don't need to be seeded to win. You just need to have smart scouts on the seeded teams.

Quite true. But, I wouldn't hang my hopes of making finals on assuming a top-8 seed would do their homework well enough to be aware of ALL the other teams. IOW, if you finish quals in the top 24 seeds, I think you have a WAY bigger chance of being on one of the 8 final alliances, than if you were 37th out of 60, for example. I don't think there is enough time to be intimately familiar with the entire field, so the top 8 seeds are likely to first look at the other top 15-20 to form their alliance, and perhaps wouldn't even consider a team in the bottom half of the standings, even if they do have a god bot and driver.

(I'm coming from a point of view that surely won't apply to all teams. We have only 10 students, so we just don't have many bodies to scout very well. It's challenge enough to check the machine after each match, work on improvements or repairs, revise software, etc. to be ready for the next match.)