Ranking
 

Hi all,

Second day of Peachtree - yay!

Now that we're actually playing matches and having the ranking system react, it doesn't make very much sense to us.

My team has lost a few matches due to mechanical problems, and have found ourselves going up in the rankings for no reason. We have even missed matches and gone up. I talked to a team that had won 80% of their matches and are ranked towards the bottom of the list.

I'm confused. How is this supposed to work? Like I've read the rules and all, but what?!

Cheers
-Tanner

Re: Ranking
 

Dont worry, this years ranking systems has thrown everyone at the Kansas City Regional off as well.
Example: we were ranked 5, lossed 9 to 0 and went to rank 2. :eek:
We are just going with the flow here.

Re: Ranking
 

That's really odd. Kinda like the odd that makes you tilt your head.

Yeah, we've can't change it so there's not much to do. Hopefully some of the rookie teams in the top will realize its not all about ranking.

-Tanner

Re: Ranking
 

Did you guys go into this without reading and understanding the seeding rules?

This leaves me completely baffled and befuddled.

Re: Ranking
 

People who are surprised by their low rank, despite winning matches need to A) STOP TAKING PENALTIES!!! and B) Strategize with the rules in mind.

Re: Ranking
 

Maybe we need to get people to make multiple announcements about this at events, many teams obviously don't understand this based on the gameplay I'm seeing (I'm not just picking on you two).

WINS AND LOSSES DO NOT MATTER FOR RANKING THIS YEAR. They affect how many qualifying points you receive from a match, but after QPs are assigned the system no longer tracks who won and lost the match.

The Coopertition Bonus is the important part here. It is added to the Seeding Points earned as described in section 9.3.4 in addition to being recoded separately as a tiebreaker.

You want high scores in this game! If both alliances are scoring high it is much better to win than lose, but a 5-0 loss is better than a 3-0 win!!

Re: Ranking
 

Pro-tip:

Friends don't let friends play defense! (in qualifications)

Re: Ranking
 

I understand the rules.
a day of competition made sure of that, it just baffled me that we were stomp and still shoot up 3 ranks, thats all.

Re: Ranking
 

Good luck getting this to happen. Every match at KC has had defense played in it. Teams still want to win. And, judging by the scores across the country, KC isn't the only place this is true.

I am personally becomming a fan of this new ranking system. It's really factoring in a strength of schedule into the rankings. In the old system, a 2-0 win was worth the same as a 10-9 win (I know...ranking points...but the W was the most important). Now, a 10-9 win is a HUGE score.

We'll see how it plays out, but so far, I'm a fan. And, as I look through the top teams at KC on the rankings, I agree with most of them, which is more than I could say for the old system at times.

Re: Ranking
 

If both teams have scored points, playing limited defense to secure a win is often more beneficial than a zero defense match.

Re: Ranking
 

Well, yeah we always try not to get penalties (isn't that the general goal for any alliance?).

I'm not saying I don't understand how it is found, I'm saying I don't understand why it was made to be like this. It doesn't make much sense to me. 'Course I never understood completely how it worked in year's past, but at least it made logical sense.

-Tanner

Re: Ranking
 

There is an easy way to factor in the difficulty of a match. Take both the red and blue scores (before penalties), add them together, and divide by 2 (or not). There is your match difficulty score. Teams are ranked by win/loss first, then difficulty score. This both promotes scoring and winning.

Re: Ranking
 

Isn't this basically what the old system did? It ranked you by W/L then by opponent's points, so if you were winning high scoring matches, you ranked higher than if you were winning low scoring matches or matches where you scored high but your opponents don't score much.

I'm not saying one way is better than the other, yet. Let's get through a few weeks of regionals and Champs before hashing it out. All I'm saying is that I REALLY didn't like the ranking process going into this morning, but after watching it play out for a day, it's not so bad.

Will there be flaws in any system that uses such a small population of data to "rank" teams? Of course. That's the world in which we choose to compete. I'm just saying it's not as bad as I thought it would be going in.

Re: Ranking
 

I would be a fan of the new ranking system if the matches were higher-scoring. Here is an example of what happened to us:

We won a match 3-2 and were very happy, this was a fairly good match for us. Then, a robot on our alliance was assessed 5 <G46> penalties and the other team 1, causing us to lose 0-1. This means we get 2 seeding points. The other team gets 1 + 6 = 7 seeding points. This is a huge number of seeding points when the matches are usually won 1 or 2 to 0 (we only have around 8 seeding points total). A win due to exorbitant penalties on a good alliance is not a strategic win, and should not be rewarded like this.

Re: Ranking
 

If the alliance wracked up exorbitant penalties I guess they weren't really so good after all were they?

Moral of the story: Don't get penalties!!