Talk:Seeding

Controversy
Ok, clearly we need to talk about this because the same controversies keep popping up after I delete them, and I don't want to put the page in Protected mode. This page is not for every little trifling matter that amounted to a robot being seeded one place too high or too low. It goes without saying that empirical evidence (like how impressive it looked in battle and how much it impressed the people in charge of seedings) often carries more weight than the raw statistics. Remember, seedings are expectations of how well they think a robot will do, they're drafted by a human being not a computer, so if a "controversial seeding" can be explained by "X robot could reasonably be expected to finish in that place," don't add it. Here are a few I'd like to not see on htis page again.

How is Tornado's seeding controversial in Series 6? They were short two Series 5 finalists so they dipped into the ones from Series 4. Stinger only made it one battle further than Tornado in Series 5, so I don't see why only Tornado's seeding is so controversial. And who exactly are the "some" found it unfair? (Hint: don't respond with "I did")

Panic Attack was the Series 2 Grand Champion, it's not that controversial for it to be one rank above former grand finalists with virtually zero other pedigree to their name, especially when Panic Attack itself was only one battle shy of the grand final. Besides, Steg 2 and Firestorm are already mentioned as being too low so it's kind of redundant.

Diotoir in Series 4, there are only three that you can really make a strong case shouldn't have been seeded higher than it; Killerhurtz Cerberus, and Aggrobot; everyone else was a semifinalist at one point and Diotoir never was.

I'll give anyone a chance to appeal these. '''R A 2 ; aka Resetti's Replicas. ( My Talk )''' 21:16, February 20, 2012 (UTC)