Was this a result of not showing up to a match? I’m assuming this was the case, which means they received no seeding points for the match?
If so, I read a thread about a regional where a team that rarely showed up to matches was ranked 2nd at some point. How could this be the case? Are no-shows being handled differently at different regionals?
Could someone confirm what exactly is supposed to happen to no-shows in terms of seeding points?
A no-show receives no seeding points. As in past years all you have to do is send a human player to not be considered a no-show, no robot required.
9.3.6 Seeding Point Exceptions
A SURROGATE TEAM will receive zero seeding points and zero coopertition bonus.
A TEAM is declared a no-show if no member of the team is in the ALLIANCE ZONE at the start of the MATCH; a no-show team will receive a RED CARD for that MATCH.
During the qualification matches, TEAMS can individually receive RED CARDS. A RED CARDED TEAM will receive zero seeding points and zero coopertition bonus.
…
Yep, as long as some member of your team is in the alliance box at the start of the match you will get your Seeding Points. The Human Player is usually the one that gets sent, but they don’t have to be.
I suppose my point is that this year in a 2vs3 there are strategies you can use to still guarantee pretty good seeding points in a loss - in fact you CAN guarantee as many seeding points as the winning alliance.
In past years there was less incentive to play a 2vs3 because it typically meant a loss.
This year, although 2vs3 still aren’t great, if played right, you will still earn very significant seeding points even if you lose - so long as you play it right.
To no-show isn’t just walking away from a probable loss, but you’re now walking away from very significant seeding points - possibly the same had you won.
To me, that makes the penalty for no-showing much higher this year.
Another reason for less matches is DQ’s / red cards. They’re relatively easy to get this year. 14 of them in 74 matches at Kettering, none were because of no-shows.
Hey, I am here from 639, and the reason we only “played” 8 was because of 2 DQ’s (ikr?). The first red card was due to while we were hanging, and touching the tower, another robot bumped us right while our arm was going down, and we hit the two bars under the ball return. Our drive team decided to go for it anyways, and pulled up. Due to this, the ref thought it was intentional, and gave us a red card. The second one was due to our driver raising our arm before finale. He saw another robot doing it (he was touching the tower) and assumed that we were in finale. Sadly, it cost us a yellow, and then a red card due to the first one. Anyways, we were seeded at 27 due to no few losses after the DQs. They also give you NO seeding score, so it killed our qual rank.
Anyways, we were very successful in elimination, scoring five points while the rest of our team lost connection to the field.
I disagree somewhat. In previous years missing a match didn’t mean too much for ranks. I remember a match 1766 couldn’t make due to robot fixes. After that round of matches, we went up in ranks. I studied the ranks and noticed something. A team that wins 2 and loses 3 is ranked lower then a team that wins 2 loses 2. This means that missing a match you lose would raise your rank even though you’d lose rank points. I realize this doesn’t work for this years game…and am disappointed that it was true for previous years. However, it is true. I’ve yet to hear of a team that has actually used such a strategy due to the ethics of doing it on purpose.
Actually this was only true in some instances. Wins were 2 points, ties were 1, and losses were 0. Therefore 2-3-0 and 2-2-0 would both be equal to 4 qualification points. What caused the team with 3 losses to be ranked below the one with 2 losses would be the ranking points (score of losing alliance).
EDIT: Just for clarification, this is about last year, not this year.
I guess I stand corrected. I just remember looking at the rankings and we somehow were above everyone else with the same number of wins. I must have come to the wrong conclusion. Well, though I show my ignorance…I’m glad I posted this to learn. That always kind of bothered me a bit. Now I know. Thanks CD.
