Re: World Qualification Ranks
 

Correct.

"Category" or as some call it "Component" OPR is still possible, by using the category (component) scores in the Team Rankings table. Problem is, DQs muddy up the waters because the FRC API that is supposed to provide DQ data is broken.

That's where Ed Law comes in :-) He devotes a lot of effort to make the most out of the data that is available.

Re: World Qualification Ranks
 

Exactly. OPR is a better guess at what individually the teams can do than qual average scores. And obviously watching their matches is an even better guess as to how they will preform in their next match.

What makes the list interesting is how weird seeding is this year. It's by far more indicative of a team's strength than previous years with win/losses and the list is only a data source for looking at how seeding changes.

The rankings themselves are no more useful than people keeping track of world high scores or many of the other things that we look at to an extent. Lists made of averages, OPR, or CCWM ultimately are for fun. You can't watch every single match to know who is better than who, but you can give educated guesses.

This data however can be used to quantify game trends to some extent, like the massive increase in litter in cans from week 1 to 2, and 2 to 3 to a lesser extent. More interesting things are in the data, you just have to look.

Is it possible to do a similar ranking for finals averages?

Re: World Qualification Ranks
 

It says my team was at Orlando? We were at week1 Dallas, the rest of the stats are correct however.

Re: World Qualification Ranks
 

YES they certainly are...and then capping them w/ Littered RC's over and over.

How can you possibly use Q Points Average to compare a midling robot in an 8 Q Match Regional (See Week 4 Virginia), against a 13 Q Match Regional (See Week 4 Waterloo), now add 1114, 2056, & 5406 to that mix? You cannot....More chances at success for 1114 & company, more chances at failure for many, many others. Or, the opposite fewer chances to stub your toe (or even have others do it for you in blind draw qualifying...I'm talking about non-movers, not the attempters).

The whole thing is percentage based to the very last few matches. How is it, that disparity in number of Q Matches was possibly left in?

Per Regional I understand...level playing field for all competing there is OK (each plays the same amount of matches). Comparing QPA at Virginia vs. Waterloo is not OK...Even without the super magic dream team alliance partners. (Outlier(s)...LOL Ummm, different planet or solar system maybe).

Does the OPR calculation set, somehow correct for that major disparity? If so, how? Inquiring minds want to know.

Re: World Qualification Ranks
 

Please don't take any of the below (Team 5406), stated as personal, since it shows (w/ the 7 mid 200 point + playoff matches), that you contributed to each quite well, without seeking out the videos...yet!

Just trying to prove a point.

Put any absolutely "never move dead bot" (in the right place, on or off the field of course), w/ 1114 and 2056 in any Q Match, and their (the dead ones), personal QPA will exponentially increase without ever contributing a single point (call that the QPA Inflation).

Then increase the amount of matches from 8~13, and that difference gets larger & larger every match in the QPA.

This year you cannot judge even a single bot by their QPA, unless you know personally, that it is a major points contributor, or not.

Or just look at the easily seen spreads between the top QPA Averages, then their (as built/used), specialties are easily seen in the other data and very evident, the actual qualifying scores help here), as pertains to co-op, Auto, Container, Tote, & Litter.

(I Just noticed only 1 point total Litter in 10 Q matches in Dallas 148? You were the vid release masters of the over the wall bent litter stuff, and it was ruled legal). Headed back to watch the videos again now...Stacking, capping totes gains more points, and time is valuable for sure). I know w/ 987, I'd give them all the litter they can handle...but over that many Q matches? Hmmmm...

But, midrange in the QPA Rankings...The rest of the data avail. and listed is just as much junk too. You score Litter points, Tote points, RC points (I can do nothing...I get the same points, and credit, as the real contributors). TYVM. "The eyes still have it," by watching what robots can, and do actually, do.

Your eyes is all you have this year (thank you YouTube, Live streamers, videographers, and other contributors)...And the Playoff points averages the alliances do score.

There is no tossing the Last Stand at Waterloo Playoff scores or the 284 point Match 20 among others...They are as real (and scary & inspiring, all at the same time), as the master bots (and teams), that designed, built, operate, & posted them.
________________
Waterloo 30 bots, 13 Q Matches ea., total 65 Q matches (QPA Spread 183.46~53.38). At least 2 really high scorers. Third bot, I can't tell until I see the actual videos, as the QPA inflation rate takes over somewhere in there. (No offense please to 5406 @ 135.69 QPA, you earned it). Still though QPA inflation/deflation is real.

Virgina 64 bots, 8 Q Matches ea., total 86 Q matches (QPA Spread 83.25~21.25). Average scorers. No QPA Inflation rate appearing.

Difference.....5 more Q matches to either shine in, or stub your toe.

Comparisons you can possibly make between robots at 1 event today (Week 4), and the other based on any of the provided data (except of course 2 bots we already know are absolutely fantastic) ~ NONE WHATSOEVER. (You are comparing the economies of S. Africa and it's diamond and gold mines, to Botswana).

Now the Playoff scores and percentages are absolutely real, as long as all 6 bots were on the field or in the vicinity. As well as Playoff Alliance averages.

And some amazing averages & scores they are indeed!
_______________
Same 2 high scorer QA Inflation/Deflation applies to Dallas in Week
1, though w/ the weather affecting the event like it did, it isn't fair to judge that event. Just the bots that put up the great scores.

Re: World Qualification Ranks
 

Does anyone know the 3 highest scores ever achieved so far this year? Or scored during elims vs qualifications? I know 1114, 2056 and 2935 scored 284 in their qualifications match. Just curious how our 216 points in semi-finals ranks. Kids are telling me it's the second best in world and first in country so far. I'm finding it hard to believe.
Thanks

Re: World Qualification Ranks
 

As soon as all the Week4 qual matches are done, I'll post my Top25 list again.

Re: World Qualification Ranks
 

Thanks

Re: World Qualification Ranks
 

No offense taken. Our QPA was definitely higher than we contributed alone. Certainly our matches with 1114 and 2056 were our top scorers (252 @ q24 and 202 @ q54). We could put up 80 to 100 point ourselves if nothing went wrong. Our OPR of ~80 is closer to the actual mark. Still, we were able to post 190 points in q61 without 1114 or 2056, so we weren't completely carried :)

Re: World Qualification Ranks
 

I scanned TBA this morning. Sacramento put up 226 in the semi's and 218 in the finals yesterday, so only for a brief moment did we have the highest score in the US. If you have time, you should check out the Waterloo Regional stats, 1114, 2056 and 5719's LOWEST elimination score was 200 and the rest were over 224!

It was great to bring home another regional win with 2062 and 2530 yesterday. See you in St. Louis!

Re: World Qualification Ranks
 

Thanks to 1676 and 1305 by the way for being amazing alliance partners that match.

Re: World Qualification Ranks
 

Here's the raw data (in XLS format) for Week4 Qual Match Results and Team Rankings:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/3120

You can search, sort, and plot it any way you like.

Re: World Qualification Ranks
 

I saw some video also and I believe every word you posted (there is still an inflation value with the QPA's when there are a couple to a few exceptional bots present, especially for lesser contributors than those that can put up 100+ alone on the board). I knew you were a decent to higher contributor (even before I saw the vids), as even the best can't skyrocket to 282 without help, the game is limited in time. (You put up 190, you were never carried!) Great Job!

Thank you for not taking any offense. The data Ether has provided today (Weeks 1~4), and OPR vs. Live Scouting data, and discussions about the disparity in # of Q matches at events, and between events (and he does attempt to correct for that, but given the lack of actual per team vs. per alliance real data), I don't know exactly how much trust can be put in that this year. (I do realize that he is doing the best w/ data avail. though, and the extreme work put in to deliver that is fully appreciated BTW).

Then, I actually went and looked at the OPR data, and how he calculates it. I trust it a bit more now after comparing actual game play vids (action), for just kicks watching random game play in Q matches over many events for a few hrs., then some playoff matches (of course the cream always rises to the top there), and compared my opinions only of indiv. bot gameplay vs the OPR listing locations Weeks 1~4...It seems fairly somewhat true to form, robot to robot though, given their distinct capabillities (or not), if you look at it and, add scale top to bottom~ which is what the OPR actually does.

TY to Ether for making the data avail to all here, and explaining how you do the OPR calcs a bit more clearly, also.

Re: World Qualification Ranks
 

Our alliance (2137, 1918, 4967) put up 228 in Qualification match 47 at West Michigan.