The Update, it fixes nothing! (AKA: why is everyone so excited about Update #16?)

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by gblake

Maximizing your wins will certainly help you comply with the introduction. Maximizing your seeding points will help earn a trophy from the folks who run the event.

I'd like to know how you're going to earn a trophy without a focus on winning your matches. Maximizing your seeding points will help you to find yourself in the elimination rounds, but unless you've been playing to win you likely won't find yourself staying there very long.

That's how I see it, anyway.

[Rizner]

I have a few things to add in here.

1) With penalties and the possibility to win a match, would it not be worth scoring as much as possible? You may seem to be down 10. In my opinion you still score in the case the other alliance gets 10 penalties -- I understand it is less frequent in the game now, but it is possible (I was in a week 2 regional and still saw a 6 point penalty alliance).

2) In a qualification match against (as the MC announced during the elimination matches) possibly the best scoring robot at the regional we played defense. If we would win we could get 5 points plus 2x what they score and then what we score and our alliance believed that would bring us above 8 points. They could have scored 8 easily if we weren't there, but we limited them to 3 -- unfortunately we still lost 3-0. Both alliances suffered from the match and at the time some teams may have thought it was a bad move on our part.
The alliance we defended against then chose us for eliminations because we showed them our defensive capabilities. Something to remember is you need to prove you're able to handle eliminations against some good teams in case your 6-0 matches (the ones you can get your alliance partners to agree with) may not be enough to get you in the top 8. If you haven't played and shown off what you can do against a defense or as a defense, what would alliance captains see in your team?

3) I would urge teams to really go over the situations and look to see how well they could do if they played 6vs0 in, lets say 3/4 of their matches (saying 1/4 the alliances had a team unwilling to cooperate). Look at how they would fair if winning 3-0 in matches vs losing 8-0. Sure you get the same amount of coopertition points but then your opponents get more -- something to take into account if your goal in qualifications is to end up top seeded.

[Tknee]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I'd like to know how you're going to earn a trophy without a focus on winning your matches. Maximizing your seeding points will help you to find yourself in the elimination rounds, but unless you've been playing to win you likely won't find yourself staying there very long.

That's how I see it, anyway.

That's a bit of a false dichotomy. A focus on maximizing seeding points does not preclude a focus on winning matches. In fact, the two are pretty highly correlated. The argument is that there exist (likely rare) situations in which conceding a match is more beneficial than attempting to win because of the seeding points. I suppose I'm just irked by blanket statements that say scoring on oneself is never the right thing to do. As an aside, I don't believe the converse statement that a team should always give up/switch sides when losing badly is true either, but I don't think anyone is interested in having that argument.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by gblake

PS: Is this a case of evolve or die?

I hope your not referring to us as unevolved for simply disagreeing. That is a really big step to make. As a fellow mentor, I'd hope you'd try to set an example for your students as being able to discuss such disagreements civilly while avoiding sarcasm, name-calling, and general hostility. If I were your student, this thread would make me seriously doubt my faith in you as the cool-headed adult. I'm done debating with you Blake. It's clear that your not open to discussion, I will continue to discuss this thread openly with anyone that is interested.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Molten

I hope your not referring to us as unevolved for simply disagreeing. That is a really big step to make. As a fellow mentor, I'd hope you'd try to set an example for your students as being able to discuss such disagreements civilly while avoiding sarcasm, name-calling, and general hostility. If I were your student, this thread would make me seriously doubt my faith in you as the cool-headed adult. I'm done debating with you Blake. It's clear that your not open to discussion, I will continue to discuss this thread openly with anyone that is interested.

Oh please.

It would seem that inserting a winking smiley and/or the "Ahh!" smiley into a message isn't enough to convey a tone of serious, but good-natured, mental arm-wrestling.

Take a look at what Jane wrote and combine it with this.

If you have ever played a game with rules like this one's before now; I'll be surprised. My comment was intended to summarize the following:

When presented with novel rules, previously successful strategies are likely to need to evolve. Habits that served us well in past competitions/environments might need to change a little or a lot.

What is rewarded by the complete set of Breakaway rules might not be what was rewarded in any other situation we ever faced in our entire lives. If that is the case, doing what we do/did in the rest of our lives might not serve us well.

Teams that experiment with new strategies (on paper or on the field) mgiht find a new strategy that allows them to thrive in the Breakaway environment. Teams that approach Breakaway specifically, or FIRST events in general, as if the game's/event's rules were like those of most other competitions/programs, might find that they are less successful than they hoped.

This sort of environmental pressure (novel rules and rewards) and the resulting unusual behavior was/is already present in FIRST competitions (look at pfreivald's post about sharing a transmission with an opponent). If instilling that attitude isn't an example of evolving how students think about competition (turning it into coopertition), I don't know what is. That mental evolution is encouraged by the environmental pressure of constant positive reinforcement from leaders and by the criteria used to determine who earns the off-the-field awards.

The "Is this a case of evolve or die? " comment/question wasn't intended to declare you or any other person unevolved. It was intended to encourage everyone to see the Breakaway seeding system as a new environment that appears to reward new approaches to coopertition.

Blake
PS: The students I work with weekly, and their parents, seem to be doing fine. If you ever get a chance to meet them, form an opinion then.

[JaneYoung]

And as it continues to evolve, there is opportunity for continual improvement and challenge, making our grandmothers proud.

[Mrs.Drake343]

If you are happy to let the chips fall where they may and just accept what place you land in, then there is no strategy involved. If you would like to try and control your own destiny then different thinking will be required.

It is just simple math (even I can figure it out and I'm just a musician). Yes if you win all of your matches you will probably be near the top. But if you are just winning with low scores you may find yourself watching after lunch on Saturday. The only way to ensure with winning all the matches is to crush your competition.

At Florida 1 seed was 8-2, 2 seed 9-1, 3 seed 7-3, 4 seed 9-1, 5 seed 8-2, 6 seed 8-2, 7 seed 7-3, 8 seed 6-4, 9 seed 7-3. (All before finals)

As you can see from the records from Florida, just winning is not going to work, unless you crush your competition. But remember, when you crush your competition, you are giving them your score (hence the 6 vs 0).

[JackG]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I'd like to know how you're going to earn a trophy without a focus on winning your matches. Maximizing your seeding points will help you to find yourself in the elimination rounds, but unless you've been playing to win you likely won't find yourself staying there very long.

The judicious use of self-scoring seems to me to be the one way that improves your chances of playing in the afternoon without making your team more valuable. Nonetheless, if we consider a higher seed to be more valuable, self-scoring may be able to help your team by allowing your team a better pick of partners. While you may not be helping your elimination alliance by bettering yourself, you are helping your alliance by acquiring better partners.

This is one of the few ways that teams cannot help themselves besides improving their robot/driving. Unless you're a dynasty team (and the Technokats are, so it may be harder to relate), you're running a rat race of teams of closely matched abilities. Every edge you can gain is valuable.

[gblake]

Folks,

To keep from driving the thread into the ditch (or to try to drive it back out); I went back to the original post and reminded myself of Leav's initial question.

He asked the CD world if folks like us think that even after Update 16 there is still a problem in the seeding system; and thereby hangs a tale.

My opinion would be that:

a) Some of us think Update 16 was an improvement; but that regardless of the update, the unusual seeding system is just one more puzzle to be solved, and is not an encouragment to violate deeply held ethical principles.

b) Some of us think that update 16 is an improvement; but that regardless of the update, the specifics of the seeding system rules are substantially inconsistent with the thoughts (winning matches is the goal) expressed in the introduction to the game rules, and the seeding system is perhaps tempting mentors/students to practice behaviors that will serve them poorly in other contexts.

Would this opinion be pretty accurate? In either case Leav's thread title seems pretty good. The update is an improvment, but didn't remove the root cause(s) of the debate.

Blake

[TubaMorg]

In my opinion, I would have to say you summarized the arguments very well!

[gblake]

Originally Posted by JackG

The judicious use of self-scoring seems to me to be the one way that improves your chances of playing in the afternoon without making your team more valuable...

No argument.

If you can become a high enough seed you can become an alliance captain - That certainly puts you in a driver's seat; but it doesn't necessarily indicate that your bot has more than a snowball's chance during the Elims.

If you can win matches like crazy, regardless of your seeding, you are likely to be drafted (by someone). That makes afternoon play likely; but adds a lot of risk because you aren't sure who will pick you first (see previous paragraph)

If you can become highly seeded, but not high enough to become a captain, then you might be picked solely on your seeding position. That is a very risky plan; but it does have some chance of succeeding.

If you have put together a good enough machine and team, and can shift from a high-seed strategy in the Quals, to a win matches like crazy strategy in the Elims; then you probably have the best of both worlds going for you.

Blake

[Jimmy Cao]

(Sorry for getting to the party so late, it's taken quite a while for me to really formulate a healthy respect for both the good and bad parts of this system).

First off, I agree that TU16 didn't fix the underlying "issue". In my opinion, the losing alliance getting the winning alliance's score is inherently flawed. However, I think this system deserves more credit than we give it.

I won't even bother discussing the issues I find with the pre-TU16 implementation of the ranking system, as I think most of us can agree that is is deeply flawed.

My most direct exposure to the TU16 defined seeding rules was at Cass Tech. Before we continue, we need to agree on the purpose of seeding matches. In my opinion, seeding matches exist to sift through the pack, putting the BEST machines on top (and most especially the best 15, as that's the maximum # of teams who might ever get the chance to decline a selection and still play). If you disagree on this point, then I believe you'll find the rest of my argument invalid (as this is the basis of everything I'm going to say now).

So, do you think that this algorithm brings out the top of the pack? I do. Lets look at the alliance selection results from Cass Tech (I can't say if similar results were seen at other regionals). Straight off usfirst.org...

1) 217
2) 1718
3) 469
4) 226
5) 2612
6) 1941
7) 308
8) 313

Those were seeds 1 through 8. If you see a large amount of "inter-picking", I think that indicates that this algorithm worked to bring out the top of the pack.

1 Picked 3. Then 2 picked 4. Then 5 picked 7. That is to say, the first 3 picks were all top 8 inter-picks. I think this speaks volumes to this algorithm's ability to sort out the top tier of teams. Granted, Cass Tech was a FiM event with 12 matches, and more matches generally ensures better sorting out of teams. Nevertheless, I believe that this algorithm is effective when sorting out the best teams, especially the very best. If a very good team ends up with a poor win/loss record, but played well, they'll still seed rather high. Likewise, if a middle/bottom tier team gets a lucky schedule and goes 11-1 or 10-2, they're likely to seed lower than a good team that only managed to go 8-4 due to a killer schedule.

So, while I think that getting the winner's points for the losing alliance is conceptually flawed, it helps bring out the best teams to the top of the pack, regardless of the "toughness" of their schedule.

I do think, however, that it does not do a good job of sorting out the middle/bottom of the pack. Nor does TU16 fix the "6v0" condition. However, I think it's a step in the right direction.

Just my $.02.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I'd like to know how you're going to earn a trophy without a focus on winning your matches. Maximizing your seeding points will help you to find yourself in the elimination rounds, but unless you've been playing to win you likely won't find yourself staying there very long.

That's how I see it, anyway.

Quoted because it's so true.

There's a large difference between quals and elims and unless you've been apart of the strategy in elims then it's hard to truly understand. A generic example is teams who have a very bad qual record yet bring something to a table for an alliance to help them win, such as awesome defense. Specific examples are 233 in 2009 (Florida) and 176 in 2010 (DC). In both instances both teams played to win in Quals, regardless of the seeding system, and the result was experience that was used to get them a Regional banner.

[Kims Robot]

Originally Posted by Mrs.Drake343

If you are happy to let the chips fall where they may and just accept what place you land in, then there is no strategy involved. If you would like to try and control your own destiny then different thinking will be required.

I think this sums up my thoughts on the current ranking system... both pre and post update 16.

My question for teams is "Do you want to Pick or be Picked?". In my mind there are two very different styles of strategy & play depending on what your answer to that question is. For the Juggernaut teams, the answer might be the same, as they can outscore any team on the field. For the rest of us, there is a choice to be made.

If your answer is you want to Pick your own alliance, go for whatever strategy gets you the highest seeding scores. Its not hard to do the math, if two of your robots dont move in the match and you are up against good teams, go help the other alliance... if your opposing alliance is going to be successful defending the heck out of you... figure out a way to get a lot of points for everyone.

If your answer is you want to be Picked, then play to win every match. If you are lucky, your alliances will be set up such that you can do so, and hopefully make it to the top of the ranks anyway. If you are unlucky and your alliance partners don't move and you end up in a 3v1 match, you "show your stuff" and hope that the top seeded teams or your opponents notice/have good scouting and pick you.

Me personally (I cant speak for 1511 anymore), I like to control my own destiny. I like to be in charge of my own outcomes. I shudder at having to completely rely on luck or someone else to pick my team. A complete aside, we gave a team at champs who only had 10 members our pick list, our honest assessment was that we were 5th on our list and although the team wanted to pick us first, we told them there were better choices. They finally agreed to use our list and were able to pick our second rank team... that team then convinced them NOT to pick us, even though we were still available and highest on the pick list! Granted if I was completely selfish, we would have told them to pick us first, but its been a stellar reason in my mind to NOT rely on other team's selection.

But at any rate, if you are fortunate, don't go up against any teams playing defense, and have good alliance partners, playing to win every match will likely boost you up in the rankings. If you are unfortunate, go up against teams that play defense, and have alliance partners that have control system problems, playing to win every match is very unlikely to win you a top 8 seed no matter how hard you try.

Personally, I don't like that we have a system that forces teams to choose between the two options. I would rather a game where winning matches and climbing the ranks were ALWAYS the same thing (Key word is ALWAYS). I'm hoping next year we go back to a game that is W-L-T then seeding points, or a game where it is clearly acceptable to EVERYONE to play a 6v0 game.

[Molten]

I think that in some situations, the bottom of the list(assuming the same ability) is the best place to be. Most of the teams you'd rather not pick you, won't have heard of you. Most of the teams you want to pick you, will scout well enough to see you if your good. Being selected is just as much an accomplishment as seeding highly. The trick to keeping selection in your favor despite seed is to advertise. If your about average and well known by the person picking, you will have a decent chance of being selected. If you are good, you have a very good chance at making it. Besides, if you really think seeding shows ability...wouldn't you rather be picked by alliance 1 on their second pick then have to choose and get lower end teams? The point of elimination matches are twofold. First, it selects teams that get to choose. Second, it allows the rest of us to shine for the selecting process. Both can be achieved through luck or skill. How is one any better or worse then the other? How is either safer? I've discussed which one I prefer, but I believe it is just that. A preference that doesn't have a right answer.