Worst Scoring System in Years
 

Every year we think that the FIRST came up with the worst possible scoring system and every year they beat the previous year. Here are the ranks from the Philadelphia regional according to the average match scares. Notice the wide discrepancy between the ranks by scores and ranks by QPs in some of the lower scoring teams. I attached the excel datasheet if anybody wants to check my math.

Eugene



EDIT - I think that the game on other hand was one of the best, especially the partnership of the human and the robot, and the beacons.

EDIT - As you notice the results of the ranking by different methods were most similar at the extremes, while the middle ranks fluctuated wildly.

EDIT - Please do not take the title of the thread as an insult to FIRST. This was just an attention grabber. I honestly believe that every year FIRST tries its best to make sure we have a great game.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

This game is not defined by points, it is defined by wins.

Your argument is irrelevant.

Cory

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

It is going to be something to say but i love this years scoring system. It simple and lets the stragties stay simlar in the finals. Not saying it the best first can do but it is a huge step foward.

shaun

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

i'd argue the opposite... i feel that this is one of the best scoring systems FIRST has come up with. its easy for any parent or viewer to follow, and i also feel that wins is what determines a dominant robot, not QP's.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I think that the rank should reflect the overall performance of the team. I do not think that using the definition of the game as the proof that the rank adequately reflects the performance is a good argument.

Consider the following scenario. Team A and Team B both had high scores but team A won by a few points. Team C and Team D both had low scores and team C won by a few points. According to FIRST, Team C should be ranked above team B. I do not consider that fair. The system used by FIRST would have worked had every team played every other team. Unfortunately that is not possible.

Eugene

P.S. Note that I’m not crying here about the fact that the scoring system was unfair to my team. In fact, we ranked 15 places higher by using FIRST’s system than by using the match scores.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

Will:

So you are saying that we should favor the attractiveness to spectators over fairness?

Eugene

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I still maintain that a win is a win. It doesnt matter how it happened, or how many points were scored. Generally, barring machines breaking, the better alliance/robot will win.

In previous years, a team could win every single match, but not score a ton of points, but some not so good robots would get paired with real good teams, and then theyd get a ton of points, when they didnt really deserve them, or just score lots of points but not win. Guess who ended up on top? Team #2. Now THAT is unfair.

It all boils down to one thing. It doesnt matter how many points you score, it only matters if you win.

Cory

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

either you don't understand FIRST's ranking system, or I'm mis-understanding your post. I'll assume its the second...

In my mind, if Team B lost consistantly and Team C won consistantly, if only by a few points (therefore creating the above scenerio) then team C definatly deserves to be ranked higher. If this competition were based soley on points, and not wins and losses, i think it would be considerably less exciting, with teams foccussing on the points, as in previous years (i.e. collusion 03, chokehold 02, etc...), instead of the overall game.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

well, i guess what i'm trying to say is that this system is both fair and spectator friendly. if you win, then your ranked higher, and if you lose, your ranking drops. its as simple as that.

in no way am i saying that this system is perfect, just that its one of the better FIRST systems. i'm sure that we will be able to find flaws in whatever scoring systems FIRST comes up with in the future, and the "perfect" system will be hard to develope.

overall, i feel that this is a very good scoring system, and it is both fair and spectator friendly.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

For reasons stated by others above, I too think that this is the best scoring system in years.

As far as fairness is concerned, the scoring system is fair because every team had the opportunity design their robot and strategy around it. I could only really view it as unfair if they changed it mid way through the build season in a way that would make some designs and strategies much better than others.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

Cory:

I think that the alliance partner is an uncontrolled variable present in both scoring systems; therefore that argument cannot be used. To me scoring points represents performance, while winning represents chance. Hence, I think our argument boils down to what matters, winning or building a robot that can successfully complete the task.

Eugene

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

first of all, since points scored is the sum of the points scored by the alliance, it is just as dependent on the ally as winning (notice how the alliance with higher points wins?). secondly, since they rank by wins, then a highly ranked team is probably a very effective one. unlike past years, this system doesn't punish a defensive strategy.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I second this; you should not be putting down FIRST but yet embracing it to your advantage. Teams that win all of their matches deserver to be ranked the highest

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

To All:

I totally agree that winning matters. What bothers me is the fact that there are only 8 games that are played. Excluding the variable presented by the alliance partner and assuming that the team scores do not fluctuate much (the data supports that), if the ranking was done by scores than no matter how the teams were paired, the better performing teams would consistently be an top whereas by using the win/lose system the ranks would fluctuate far more. If you look at the table that I compiled, you would notice that the difference in ranks by different methods is huge. One of the statistical methods (which is what we should use in our argument if we were to consider ourselves scientists, as in fir_S_t) that is used to evaluate the validity of the test is the correlation of scores between that test and other tests. In that aspect, the current scoring system would not be considered valid.

Eugene

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I think that anyone who participated in FIRST for four years can be considered a first-a-holic. I totally love the competition and in no way did I mean to put it down.

Eugene

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

So... you can't make everybody happy ALL the time...

FIRST has received feedback over the years, from many sources (including this forum) that teams are sick of "being undefeated, but still seeded low". This is a viable solution to that problem.

I like the way this system has been integrated. I think it presents an interesting dynamic to the "game".

I'm a HUGE fan of the new system, and think it is one of the best we've seen.
Thank you FIRST!



*JVN gives his seal of approval*


John


*Seal may not be valid in all 50 states...

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

ok, how about this scenerio:

team A has an offensive robot.
team B has a defensive robot.

through out the qualifying matches, team A does poorly, losing every match, but comes out with a avg. score of 25. team B on the other hand, wins every match with a score of 5 pts by, though some ingenous strategy, completly denying its opponents the ability to score.

point based ranking would put team A in the lead.
win based ranking would put team B in the lead.

personally, i think that team B performed better, but the definition of 'performance' changes from person to person.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

No matter what people wont be happy. We should just go with it for know and talk about it in the FIRST forums they have around the counrty. I personaly belive this is the best scoring system in my 4 years of FIRST.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I agree with Reger that previous scoring systems put defensive teams at a disadvantage, which I agree is totally unfair.

However, I think that some sort of a combination of systems would be far mare accurate at assessing the team’s overall performance. For example a team that wins gets the opponent’s score (to prevent bullying) plus X amount of points for winning. This way the defensive team would still be able to attain good ranks while a team that ends up competing against tough opponents would not end last.

Eugene

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

Again, I dont see your argument. How do you define better performing? a team like 365/71 in 2002 would dominate the competition. Guess what, they scored darn near zero points because their strategy was only really good in the eliminations.

I know this isnt 2002, but there are robots that do one thing really well, like blocking the bar, or harrassing other robots, and keeping them from effectively completing their objectives. Neither of these types will score a lot of points, but they can be very good robots, that effectively achieve the game's challenges, and WIN. This is a competition, points dont matter, theyre only the means to a win.

So, in the NFL, the top team is the team with the best win/loss record. Let's say that they score on average, 21 points per game, but they go 16-0. Now let's say the last place team is 8-8, but has scored a total of 600 points, because they blew out inferior opponents multiple times, but lost 8 times. What you're saying is that even though they lost half their games, they got lots of points, so they should be #1 above an undefeated team, even though they didnt win!

Eugene-what you just described is this year's system... Adding a constant number of points onto the winning team's score does nothing but uniformly raise *all* winning scores, making them look higher than they effectively are.

Cory

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

My general position on defensive vs. offensive strategy:

FIRST is supposed to represent what the world should strive to be. A world, where there are more participants than spectators. A world that rewards those that make it a better place.

Let’s start with the definitions.

An offensive robot works by performing better than the opponent.
A defensive robot works by disrupting the performance of the opponent and preventing him to do what he is designed to do.

Now let’s apply that to some real world situations.

Would you prefer a market system in which companies compete to deliver a superior product vs. a market system in which the companies use various other means to force their opponents out of business?

Would you like to be in a soccer game were pushing (although the contemporary society will probably like this idea) is allowed therefore players that are heavier, which is a trait that is irrelevant to soccer performance consistently beat players that are actually skilled at maneuvering the ball?

Going back to robotics, I think that the game would be much more entertaining if the robots were trying to outperform each other instead of having one robot prevent the other from doing what it is supposed to do thereby resulting in a game were robots just end up sitting on the field.

To sum up, the life of a person is not about winning or losing, it is about performing and allowing others to do their best.

Good Luck to all this season!!!

Eugene

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

Cory,

I guess I misunderstood your argument as well. Did not you say that teams that win deserve to rank higher? If so, than raising the score of all winners would insure that. Furthermore, by continuing to use the performance as a factor in ranking we would favor the better performing teams over those that simply got lucky by being paired with a weaker opponent.

Eugene

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

The only difference I see is this years system eliminates the significance of freak matches.

In 2002 if you win your match 70-0 and your apponents got DQ'd you got 210 qualifying points. If you get any reasonable amount of points for the rest of your matches you would have seeded 1st (this did happen). This year you would get 2 points for winning and move on.

I think if anything the scoring system does a better job of showing robot performance. It shows how good you are at winning. If all you had to do is score one ball more than your apponent why would you do more? If you had 10 balls and they only had 4 why would you hang?

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I love the new scoring system. As for the data I believe it might be a little squed. Most team will do enough to win (as they should). They do not blow out the competition everytime but play smart. They play efense as well as offense. I don't think one match where you score 200pts should boost you in rank. Wins shows consistent preformance and that is why it is FAIR.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

this game rocks...hands down...



if you dont like it...dont bring it here because a majority of the people in first who have been here a while LOVE this new system.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

Therefore the opinions of minority do not deserve to be heard? I did not expect that from someone who has been in FIRST for many years. Remember that our biggest award is for collaboration with other people in making FIRST a better place for everyone. Robots are just something that brings us together.

Eugene

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

the only reason i say that is because a team will complain about how first cheated them and etc., all im saying is i have always been against the former system, and have always prayed that they would change it. and they have...


now that there is a feesable system that caters to what the aspect of first is... teams that dont do well argue that the systems is unfair and whatnot, but truthfully, its the best way to get other outside sources interested in the game...

you dont know hard it was to explain 2001-2003's game to people...and how they seed. now its simple...best record=best seed



so sorry if i came off crabby..but its the only way it should be done

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

If you noticed, my team did FAR better according to the new scoring system.

Eugene

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

why you anti-utilitarian you! ;)

to paraphrase their main point:
"The wants of the many outweigh the wants of the few, or the one"

and judging by the poll results, the game this year is probably the best it has ever been.... and most agree. Another thing to keep in mind: deservance is a subjective term. many do not believe in one deserving certain things unconditionally, ie being heard in a cacophony of other opinions.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

Leon Machado did this spreadsheet attached of the BAE regional. A few things I noticed off the bat:

• RPs are still necessary for a higher seed. The catch is, this year you actually have to win rounds.
  
• On the topic of RPs, the ninth seed had the highest, 17th had second, 32nd was third, and the 2 seed was fourth. So again, you need high QPs. Imagine the shakeup that would've happened had we used a scoring system based on the RPs.
  
• Most of the higher seeds pulled lower RP scores. In fact, seeds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8 in RPs placed 5, 4, 21, 9, 16, 25, 30, & 44, respectively.
  
• This is the first year in the Alliance Era QPs were based on Win/Loss. If they had been based on previous formulas, we'd be seeing teams shooting for the opposing goals, and maybe less fighting (for lack of a better word) on the platform. Take that any way you want. We'd also see the #9 seed placed first. Again, take that as you will.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I think you might be missing the big picture...

Who ever said that the scoring system was designed to be fair? Who ever said that its purpose was to identify the best robot? Perhaps the scoring system each year pefectly meets FIRST's purpose...

Team Update 15 stated it in black-and-white: "Remember, our organization is not one that centers on winning a robotics competition, but rather one that is focused on transforming lives."

:)

Aidan

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I think this years set up was nice. It awarded a good desin that was capable to win which was the main ranking tool. But then it had the opponents score as the second which gave an oppurtunity to show gracious profeesionalism in not beating a team exubriantly like removing a multiplier even if you knew you were winning

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

Out of the few years I knew of FIRST, I think this year has the best ranking system (just MY opinion). The main reason has already been mentioned: it rewards both good offensive as well as defensive robots. This vastly increases the variety of strategies that teams have and makes the game more interesting.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I also agree that the system is fine because its based on wins and not points.

If the system was based on points, that meant that the top seeded team must have allowed their opponents to score a lot of points, almost as many as them. While it means that the winning team scored a lot of points, it means they didn't play defense against the other team. I'm not saying that its not good that both teams scored a lot of points, I just feel that ranking by score removes extra variables that are necessary to make an educated guess about how a team performs.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

In my analysis I used the match points, not the ranking points (RP) since FIRST did not make the average match points available on their website, I actually had to calculate them myself.

Lastly, with exception of the few posts arguing that the newer scoring levels the playing field for offensive and defensive robots I did not see many other good arguments in support of the newer system. Most degenerated into repetitive “that is the way it is and deal with it” or “I just FEEL that it is good.” Please include some stats to support your arguments.

To clarify my argument once again, I dislike the current scoring system because it produces results that are far more random than the results produced by other system. Eight games just are not enough for this to give consistent results. (Speaking scientifically it is too small of a sample.) There are hundreds of little things that can sway the game. However, the team with the best strategy and the robot will consistently score better than a team with the worse robot and strategy.

To those of you nicely point out that I should shut up simply because the poll is stating that I’m a minority let me remind you of a few other minorities that changed the world.

Galileo and Copernicus – Changed the view of the solar system
Martin Luther – Forever changed Christianity
Mark Twain – One of the strongest speakers against slavery
Emerson – Writer of “Self-Reliance”


Eugene

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

Oddly enough, I was watching Star Trek II, and that quote from Spock came up literally 5 minutes before I read that post...

But back on topic, I do very much like this year's scoring compared to previous years. In 2002 (Zone Zeal), during our team's first match at nationals, we had an incredible match. With 10 seconds left, the score was something like 54 to 45. With that 10 seconds left, the opposing alliance moved their goal full of balls out of the scoring zone. The resulting score for the match- 54 - 0.

Rank was determined by average qualification points. Qualification points were equal to three times the loosing alliance's score. Three times zero averaged into 7 matches doesn't work out very well, despite a very good match, and a relatively strong showing the other 6 matches. Needless to say, I didn't think it was too fair, but didn't mind. I had a great time at nationals that year, and accepted it as part of the game.

This year, the primary method of rank based on wins is a tremendous breath of fresh air to anyone who ailed under the previous ranking systems. The inclusion of the Ranking Points system further increases the fairness in the ranks, by including the all important factor of specific performance in addition to a simple win/loss.


What it comes down to is this: robots that do well deserve to win. The argument is how well they win. In a game focused more on strategy (as inferred by the quote from the manual earlier in the discussion), does a robot not deserve to be ranked by merit of win/loss than to points? Does a robot who hangs on the bar deserve to be ranked higher than a ball gatherer/capper? Each potentially yield different point values yet will succeed if well built and capable. In the current system, robots who do well win, and rank accordingly. However, as you say, 8 matches is not enough to accurately rank based on that alone. Hence the ranking point system. To quote the FIRST manual-
In order to gain qualification points, a team must win the match, implying they have a score greater than the loosing alliance. However, in the spirit of FIRST, shutouts are discouraged, and will reflect accordingly in the rankings. Therein lies what I believe to be the primary concept behind the current scoring system: Robots must be capable of controlling the situation of each match to the point where they win by a minimalistic margin while attaining the highest possible score. So essentially, a quarter of what you wish to be in the scoring system already is, in that score has something to do with it. But, in all fairness and the interest of FIRST, it's not the winners score which is important, but the loosing alliance's, which adds a very interesting dynamic to the way the game is played. It makes the competition that much more exciting, particularly from a strategy perspective.

I really hate to be repetitive but i dont open my mouth very often
 

While i have never had the pleasure of meeting him in person, i would have to say a pretty wise man said last year :
and to morph that into a term we can use this year, "A WIN IS A WIN IS A WIN"

i think Dean Kamen said it best at kick off STOP BEING LAWYERS

the scoring is one of the most simple yet, you win, you win you loose, you loose. the tie breaker is your match scores

Competitor Friendly: Yes
Spectator Friendly: Yes
Gives us a new way to strategize: Yes
Gave us a headache at NJ as we tried to figure out who was ranked where: Yes

to quote another wise man: Thank you FIRST this really is the best yet

i wouldnt have found that quote if it werent for the spotlight system thanks brandon

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I agree with the original poster, this years scoring system was a step backwards.

First, the stated goal was to make the system simpler, they succeeded in making it more complex. Now, instead of having to keep track of one number (avg. opponents score) you have to keep track of two (# of wins and avg opponents score). Also, winning is important but so is the "cooperation" aspect, I think that last years scoring system balanced both of them quite well. Unfortunately, this years system didn't - there was too much emphasis on winning at all costs, if you were in the middle of the pack winning or losing a game would cause you to jump a whole tier (maybe as many as 10 slots) so it wasn't worth the risk of losing by a small margin. Last year, losing by a small margin wasn't bad at all so there was more of an incentive to try for really interesting matches with high scores on both sides.

Here's an example of how the scoring system seems to punish losing a little too much: I remember that one of the last matches at UTC was between four excellent teams (181, 782, 195 and 236 IIRC). I think that 181 and 782 won by a score of something like 115 to 110 - a margin of 1 ball and as a result 195 dropped from 6th to about 12th and didn't make the finals. Last year a high losing score at the end wouldn't have hurt nearly as much.

I don't know, maybe this system will grow on me but I think its overly convoluted and a step backwards.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

Actually, I'd imagine that the strategies would shift somewhat. In qualifying, you want to win with your opponent having a high score (to get the win and the QPs). However, as eliminations come, QPs go out the window and the ability to win (within the rules and GP, of course) becomes more important. While it still isn't cool to utterly crush a team, you still want to come out ahead.

Maybe the folks that have been to regionals can prove me wrong, but that's how I'm reading the tourney setup.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I'm not sure anyone should address your complaints unless you reccomend a better scoring system.
Most of your issue is with the randomness that results in playing a low number of seeding matches (8). That's not going to change any time soon- there's just not enough time in the day.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I agree with Cory. Last year was my team's rookie year and our drive system was absolutely horrible (trust me, I built it and drove the bot). We were incredibly lucky during the qualifying rounds at had excellent allies and placed 5th out of 37 teams at the AZ Regionals by the time the elimation rounds began. I want to call it a fluke because we hardly could do anything on the field because our bot could barely drive anywhere. We never even made it on top of the ramp or stacked boxes when we needed to. In my opinion we coasted by last year because of some lucky rounds (77-76 point win) in which our allies almost completely won by themselves. When it came time for finals we got creamed by out higher-quality opponents.

This year, our bot is so much better than last. Even though it still doesn't look like much, it gets the job done. For the first two qualifying rounds our winch was malfunctioning, but after it was fixed we won every single round following in the qualifying rounds and only lost one match in the elimination rounds. Some wins were big, some were small. I think this year's scoring system is much more fair because our team made it to the 4th position (of 36) at the beginning of elimination rounds and I believe we deserved it.

I'm also a huge baseball fan, and in baseball scores don't matter, wins do. Like in the 2001 World Series, when the Diamond Backs (Go DBacks!) went up against the Yankees: In the first 6 games the DBacks outscored the Yankees 32-9, but despite this huge difference it still came down to the bottom of the ninth inning of game 7 to determine the winner. It was much more exciting to see who won than who scored the most runs of the series.

As in baseball, some robots cam win with good defense in low scoring games. Some bots loose with a great offense in high scoring games. By counting wins and not points, a greater variety of strategies are allowed and a greater variety of robots have a chance to go onto elimination rounds. I think this year's scoring system, simpler than last year's, was great, hands down.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I want to make a simple point here:

Comparing the actual rankings from this year to some other ranking system is pointless and not at all accurate. Why? Because teams play with a strategy that will earn them their highest possible ranking in the current system. In other words, they're not playing to rank highly in your hypothetical system, they're playing to rank highly according to wins and losses.

Therefore, whatever results you calculate will be highly skewed by the fact that teams are playing toward a particular ranking system. Recaculating in another system is simply inaccurate and doesn't prove anything.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

Chris, you definitely have a valid point that I did not consider. At least some one finally said something insightful.

I decided to make this post because I was rather surprised by the fact that my team ranked much higher than I would have expected by my prior experience, so I decided to analyze the situation. The day before, we were in the high 20s. The day after, we placed 14th. The first match of the second day we were paired against a really weak opponent and we beat them 35 to 30. The following match we were paired with an extremely strong opponent and we won again. This propelled us some 13 ranking places. I’m not complaining about our luck but after doing some statistical analysis I noticed that the current scoring system is far susceptible to be influenced by the factors outside of the team’s control than by their prior preparation.

To all who seem to be so crazy about winning, let me once again remind you that we are not about that. It is far better to have a great game were both sides end up benefiting in their rankings that a lousy game in which one side benefits tremendously. The current system, as Chris correctly pointed out encourages wining at all costs. Whatever Ranking Points (you opponent’s scores) you have accumulated in reality make very little difference in your ranking compared to wins and loses.

What I did like however is that in certain cases this system allowed for more creative teams by using strategies that did not score many points. If we could use some combination of this year’s system (to allow for more creative game play) and last year’s system (to eliminate randomness and shear luck) I think we would have a better scoring system.

Eugene

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I think sheer luck will always be a gigantic part of the competition. If random and unexpected events never happened then a match wouldn't be all that exciting, i.e. team A always gets the ball release, always scores 5 balls in a basket, and always makes it onto the bar with 20 seconds left, while team B, their opponent, does the same except only gets 4 balls, meaning the team B wins before the match even starts. Boring. There is definitely a range between completely random and completely calculated (best antonym I can come up with for random) matches that is optimum, and I currently think it's at the right level.

However, I am puzzled this year why there are fewer matches. The field takes less time to reset (I think), at my regional there were fewer teams than last year, and the matches are the same length. Why are there fewer matches? Down to 9 from 11? Not to mention the even more limited number of teams you do play in those matches. If it's because there are more teams overall and there aren't enough new competitions to meet the increased demand then what's going to happen in a few years as the growth rate continues to increase and there isn't enough money to have more regionals? Sorry to get a bit off topic but in the future if the number of matches continues to decrease, teams will be less able to operate their bots effectively and random occurences will have a much greater impact than they do now. If randomness is to be lessoned then there need to be more matches. Perhaps longer days?

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

it was fun all working together in 2001, wish they brought that back...

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

Do you really think it was a fluke? I have not spent much time researching the match listings, however, I think part of the alliance pairing algorithm that FIRST uses intentionally pairs newer teams with older teams. This increases the chance that a new team will rank highly based on getting lucky and being paired with good teams. It also prevents veteran teams from being paired with other veteran teams and running away with the entire competition as they overpower the newer teams. In your case last year I think that the game worked as FIRST intended. It allowed you the chance to compete and during the finals the better teams beat your inferior bot. You may have coasted to a higher rank than you deserved, but did you win the regional? No, did you deserve to? No. I think the system worked just like FIRST expected. I think that there is too much emphasis on the overall rank. With the alliance selection process a good robot that does not rank highly will get selected by one of the top seeds and end up on one of the top alliances.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

This is correct. I've spent some time discussing match scheduling with FIRST this season. The algorithm does have a provision which tries to place older teams with younger teams. It's not always possible, but an attempt is made.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

Eugene you have several options.

1. (the one you already picked) Complain on Chief Delphi to get everyones attention.
2. Play the game. This system should be of no suprise, you had 6 weeks and then some to realize what it was all about.
3. Go to the forum at the end of the season to tell FIRST how you feel. Come up with postive criticism and present things you like and dont like. Then everyone will be happy! yay...

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

My only problem with this year's scoring system is the way that it handles penalties. I feel that, instead of points being subtracted from the penalized alliance's score, they should have been added to the other alliance's score. If the penalized alliance loses, then both alliances are penalized with lower RPs. Other than that, I completely approve of this year's system.

Re: I really hate to be repetitive but i dont open my mouth very often
 

I'm going to be a bit cynical here, but add some reality to the discussion.

I've always said FIRST is very much like a micro-real world experience. Competitive alliances are becoming a larger part of the real world experience. In my day job, we are involved with at least 2 now between my group and groups of other companies/organizations. There are winners and losers. In the real world, if you aren't on the winning side, you don't continue to work. There are also bad losers too who (in FIRST terms) "knock down our stacks" or "pull their goals out at the last second to leave us with no QP's" That is part of life, but our society says that winning is important, and you play to win by the rules laid down. The scoring system is the rules we play by, and this year the game and scoring system reflect the idea to curb the "bad losers" who in my opinion, don't help anyone. All we can do is evaluate the entire system after all the dust settles. I personally think this year strongly represents a tie to the real world more than any year since alliances were started.


Steve

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

That idea is awesome.

Currently if a team breaks the rules, and then loses the match; the only innocent people to suffer will be the winning team, they just lost QPs. That's almost like rewarding the team that broke the rules.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

Great idea!! Let's give any team who wins 2 points. We'll call these points "ranking points." Then we make sure everyone gets the loser's score to prevent bullying. We'll call these "qualifying points."

I think you've come up with the perfect system, Eugene! But for some wierd reason, it sounds familiar...

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

Yeah, strength of competition should also be a factor. We didn't win so much, but we got picked by the #1 alliance (which never picks terrible robots, at least not if its 111). [p.s. Thank you Wildstang, 461 loves you!]
I also think strenght of alliances should be a factor. If you have a good robot, but get allied with cardboard boxes, that leaves too much to good (or absolutely terrible) luck.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I have to say that this is a great scoring system. This year a team's first priority is to go into a match with what they built their robot to do...its no longer "well let me perform well and then if im going to be penalized for doing well let me go try to score points for my opponents." QP's still play a big part in this years game...if youre in the middle of the pack you will be higher than those that didnt score as much. but by putting Wins & Losses first and QP's second teams are ranked more for their strong performances and less for their ability to balance scores or inflate a losing alliances score and at least at the BAE regional it seemed that for the most part if you did well you were rewarded with a higher rank.

"Rigged" Partner Assignment?!?!
 

What? I thought partner and opposition assignment was completely random! This makes certain things very unfair. As you said, FIRST makes an "attempt" to put veterans w/ rookies. That means sometimes they can't, and some rookies get ripped off.

But, back to the original topic of this thread:

A high number of wins indicates a robot and team that can do what the game called for consistently, no matter who their opponents or partners are. A high number of points only indicates that the robot and team can score high consistently. That would also mean that hanging teams would often score higher than others. An emphasis on wins indicates that you must adapt your strategy to meet challenges from your opponent. This might mean you have to score lower to beat them. Thus, you are rewarded for being a real scientist or engineer. You're being creative and you're completing the objective.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

Didn't Dean say FIRST wasn't meant to be fair?

I love the new scoring system, by the way. We are able to stick to our strategy and play against the robots in front of us, not the entire pack all at once...though I would like to see, instead of the points of the losing alliance as seeders, the strength of schedule (wins/losses), head to head matchups and record vs common opponents to break ties.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I don't see why almost everyone's complaining about the scoring system. No matter what there will be a problem. The fact that there are these changes make teams more careful. For example, with the penalty system... it makes teams want to be more cautious cause it hurts everybody in the end. I think that this being a "terrible" scoring system in some peoples minds... is just that it's different. If it were the same each year, boy would that get boring. Changing it around makes you have to change a bit to coup with the problems you'll encounter. If anything it adds to the game.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I like the scoring system, and it's better than any other year's system.

It's easy to understand. People understand wins, losses, and ties. This system is just like the process of rankings (conference and league rankings, not polls) in professional and college sports, so it is a proven system that works.

Andy B.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

Mabey if your parent or viewer was a high performance computer, then mabey. I'm sorry, but how can this scoring system be so easy if there are 2 levels of ranking with numerous calculations just to figure out who is at the top? Compare that to last years where it's just your's plus your opponents score (or so I can remember). Not bad at all. Compare this to this year's where you need to know their win-loss record, their current QP average, and other things! Even someone like me who studies the book didn't know and wanted to make sure I was doing it right!

FIRST, just go back to last year's system. It's fast, easy, and simple to use.

*edit*not saying that this year's is bad, but I think last year's was easier to remeber and use*edit*

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I'm not sure I get the arguments that this years system is more complicated because won-loss record and QP's must both be calculated. The avereage Joe in the stands is not keeping a runnning calculation of the rankings going, so they don't have to worry about it.

If a team is trying to keep track of the rankings, its's not too hard to do with a spreadsheet and the match scores. This is no different than it has been in the past. It would be nice though, if F.I.R.S.T. could consistently push the scores out to their website or at least to an open wireless access point at the event. For Philly, the scores on the website were up to date, but I don't think this has been the case everywhere.

If you can get the ranking data from F.I.R.S.T., I think that this years ranking system actually provides much more useful information for teams preparing for the draft. You always know what your highest and lowest possible rankings are, which has almost never been the case before. For example, after Friday's rounds at Philly, I knew that 177 could not finish the competition ranked lower than 15th. It seemed a god bet that the team would end up having to draft, so they worked on their list. After the first match on Saturday, we knew that the team could not finish lower than 6th, so the focus shifted to trying to set up an alliance with one of the teams ranked ahead of us (which didn't happen) and finalizing the draft list.

Some have complained that a team could fall out of a drafting position at the last minute and then be over looked for the draft. This has always been a possibility. This year though, it is easy to see that it might happen to you and head it off by making sure that you are talking to the teams ahead of you and the teams that might be ahead of you so they know that you might be available in the draft.

This has gotten way to long (the baby is taking a nap, so I have a few minutes to type away), so I'll cut it off here. I really do like this year's system a lot and hope it sticks around for a while.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I think this is the BEST scoring system I've seen in the last 5 years. It's the first year where the game hasn't changed between the qualification rounds and finals. To better understand what I like about this year's game I think it's important to discuss things I didn't like about previous year's games. Let's just forget about 2001 for the purposes of this discussion. :)

Last year (2003) was a step in the right direction, where the goal in winning in the eliminations was the same as qualifications. The only down side was the "win the first match and then score zero in the second" strategy. While very effective, it was pretty confusing for most spectators. It also pretty much sealed your fate in the first match.

In 2002 the game changed dramatically between the qualification rounds and elimination round. The machines that seemed to seed well had a one goal, lots of balls strategy. The machines that seemed to win tournaments were either two goal or three goal machines. Most of the finals matches came down to who could control all three goals. This three-goal strategy was never implemented in the qualification rounds by teams trying to seed well. I felt that 2000 had a similar issue, but wasn't as pronounced as in 2002.

I like playing for two wins in the finals. When designing a robot I don't want to have to choose between trying to seed well or win tournaments. This year's scoring system achieves these two goals effectively. A machine that wins all of their matches will certainly seed well and will likely do quite well in the finals.

Now to discuss why I like the system FIRST is using to differentiate between teams with equal win/loss/tie records. I also like an offensively focused game. By then sorting teams based on who's opponents had the highest score you discourage defensive strategies. It also has the effect of rating the quality of opponent you faced.

As mentioned before, the penalties can hurt your opponent more than yourself (if they had a clear victory anyway) but if the penalties change who wins I can't see giving a team more "points" than they scored.

For the reasons mentioned above I think this is the best seeding/elimination system yet. The game's a pretty good one too. ;)

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I like this year's qualifying system. It is much more direct and to the point. Win and you're in. Lose and you need some help. Unlike previous years, you can actually control your own destiny.

Even though you need to rely on your alliance partner to win the game, the scoring system doesn't make you rely on your alliance partner to attain your rank.

In previous years, you could design a robot and devise a strategy that would allow you to win (invariant of alliance partner), but you could end up out of the top rankings because your opponents did not score enough points. In other words, you had to rely on both your alliance partner and your opponents!

On another topic, I am appalled at statements that equate defense with badness. It seems to me that a large portion of the FIRST community has a deliberate blind spot when it comes to defense.

Defense is a relevant objective of the game. Had the game designers wanted the game to be purely offensive, they would have separated the alliances with an impermeable barrier. We are expected to compete over the game artifacts (goals, balls, space on the bar).

Especially in this game, where there is so much territory to cover and so many teams have an effective offensive strategy, designing a competitive, consistent defensive strategy is a very difficult engineering challenge.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I wonder if maybe the tournament style of FIRST isn't the best way of going about it. Each match is only about 2 minutes so its difficult for a spectator to get involved and its very very difficult to accurately figure out which robot is best. The problem isn't necessarily the scoring system so much as the fact that teams have to compete AGAINST each other so we don't get to judge each robot on its own merits all the time. Maybe FIRST should switch to the kind of system we see in many olympic sports, there would be one common challenge and groups of teams would compete in heats. Say, the challenge was to autonomously pick up multicolored balls and deposit them in different spots according to their color just to pick a dumb idea. The overall top 8 teams would go on. It wouldn't be as interesting strategically (or maybe it would be depending on how the game was set up), but it would certainly avoid all the problems with scoring systems, coercion etc. as well as making it easier for a team to practice and the overall result would reflect the performance of the robot, not the performance of the alliance.

I don't know if I like the idea, but its certainly interesting.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

I like the game and love the scoring and ranking system. It forces teams to keep connected with what is going on and change strategy to get a win.

Examples - we usually hang in the last 45 seconds. One match we were ready to go hang, but an opponent was getting ready to cap a goal with 7 balls in it. We gave up 50 hanging points to prevent 70 ball points. It kept the match exciting.

Another example was in Phoenix. 4 robots on the bar with time left on the clock. One alliance realizes they are losing - because of balls in goals, so they drop off the bar, try to corral balls and then get back and hang. They did not make it - but it was exciting to watch the strategy come in.

Both matches would have been played differently if everyone was focused on points.

And yes, sometimes good robots don't make it to the top 8. But teams with good scouting and tracking know which machines and teams can perform in a match and the better teams will almost always get selected for finals.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

When I read this thread at first, I thought, "Pfftt... what's this guy thinking? This scoring system rocks!" But hey, at least it was an opinion stated well and asked without intent to harm, IMO. And after reading the sarcastic and rude comments after it, I gave him some positive rep points only to see it drop to gray when I clicked refresh a minute later.

I think this is a good example of people disagreeing and using the reputation system to voice that disagreement. That's not what it's for.

Anyway, to stay on topic... I like the scoring system even though I have yet to go to a regional (Canada in 2 days!). It seems, as Andy Baker pointed out, a system that has been proven in the real world and one which rewards winning over just points. It seems to be a very good move on FIRST's behalf in addition to changing the eliminations to best outta 3, instead of a cumulative points system which promoted descoring over adding to your own score. I guess I'll truly see for myself exactly how good this system is in 2 days.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

In LA, 980 was circulating a spread sheet that sorted teams by average points scored in a match. I think it was a very good indicator of the quality of the robots listed. There were also quite a few "bargins". That is teams that had very high scoring but low seeding. Several of the top 10 scorers had seedings in the teens and twenties (including us). The "bargains" didn't last too long when it came to picking though.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

because i was feeling bored, i decided to do some statistical work on that data.
Spearmans rank correlation : 0.96368335
This is incredably high
Therefore you kinda can't justify your argument. I think that this hsows that the ranks are very similar, and that what looks like big differences aren't
so there :D

ok i just double checked my calculations
0.7821
that is the actual answer
its still high, but i can se your point

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

To me I am appalled to see this as an issue, I started first with my team (1083) this year as a rookie and was told repeatedly that it didn’t matter weather we won or lost, and I was told that the people in this organization understood that. They also told me that FIRST is a way for me to get excited about engineering, and winning dose matter, but it shouldn’t consume the experience for me and I think this leads to what I’m trying to say is, you all are getting caught up in what is fair and what is not fair, instead I think you all need to drop and concentrate some of that energy into improving your team for the community, because guess what, from what I’ve heard, that’s what this is all about.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

What you describe is pretty much the way the 2001 game was, although eliminations were handled the same way they are today, with the top teams picking alliance partners. In a nutshell, four teams played as a single alliance against the clock to perform a task. The faster they performed the task, the higher their score could be. I personally loved the game, and even if my team wasn't on the national champion alliance I would have still loved the game. It was as exciting as watching the last minute of the final four B-ball games! Trouble was, it was oh-so-difficult to explain the complicated multiplier-based scoring system to anyone other than a FIRST-a-holic.

Re: Worst Scoring System in Years
 

This scoring system is great for several reasons.
1) It is easy to see which teams have the best defense: they are at the bottom of their tiers.
2) It quickly allows you to see, as PJ pointed out, the ranking range that you will end up in early on.
3) The point reward for a hanging robot is much more in perspective than last year's game; a ball-handling robot is an equally viable option that can win you more games. (totally unbiased statement...)
5) FIRST is on the ball with all aspects of the game this year: the human player involvement, importance of autonomous, gameplay strategies, and scoring system. Way to go, FIRST!

That's right, i skipped number 4.
deal with it. :D