Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave McLaughlin
If the best robots tend to not rank in the top 8 because less capable teams will not cooperate with them then the ranking system itself is flawed.
|
Dave hits the nail on the head here. This is a robotics competition, and the elimination tournament is based around the ranking system. There is an expectation that the ranking system does the best job possible at ranking the robots at how good they are at playing the game. Right now, the system puts, In my opinion, too big of a weight on the coopertition bridge at the end. If you win and cooperate, you double your qualifying points. If you lose and cooperate, it's the same as if you'd won without the bridge.
Look at the teams who consistently win: 67, 111, 217, 254, 1114 to name a few. The way these teams are able to do so well is because they are able to win matches no matter who their opponents and partners are, and by doing so they put themselves in a position in the rankings to select the best partner. The expectation is that the teams that win matches will rank high.
With this year's ranking system, we have a situation where a powerhouse team that wins every match (10-0-0), but only is able to get their opponents to cooperate with them in 4 matches, will score (4*4)+(6*2) = 28 qualifying points. Another robot, which is able to win 4 matches and goes 4-6-0, but is able to get all of their opponents to cooperate also gets (4*4)+(6*2) = 28 qualifying points.
While this may be an extreme example, it's not a wholly improbable one. We have a situation where a very very good robot was able to go undefeated and should probably be #1 seed by common sense, and yet there is a team who won
less than half of their matches, and is in contention for the same ranking spot.
As far as strategy is concerned, I believe it is very simple:
Scenario 1: You are clearly losing the match, and going for the bridge balance is not enough to get the win (or your partners are already balanced on it).
Result: Go for the coopertition bridge. Worst case you get 0 ranking points, same as if you didn't go for it. Best case you get 2.
Scenario 2: You are clearly winning the match, and going for bridge balance points is not necessary to secure the win (or your partners are already balanced on it).
Result: Go for the coopertition bridge. Worst case is you win the match but no bonus, and get 2 points. Best case you get 4.
Scenario 3: The match is close, and going for the alliance bridge could get you the win, while not going for it will likely net you a loss (this assumes that your choice matters, ie that your partners are not balanced and cannot get the coopertition bridge).
Result: Debatable, but I would say go for the alliance bridge. If you win, you get 2 points and your opponents get 0. If you lose, your opponents get 2 and your alliance gets 0. If you go for the bonus and lose the match as a result, you'd get 2 and your opponents would get 4. Loosing the match either way leaves you 2 points behind them, but one has the ability to win you the match. Granted, there may be some situations given your ranking and who you're facing where you would rather get the 2 points no matter the cost, but I believe in general, winning the match is better than losing with the bonus.