Quote:
Originally Posted by IKE
IRI seeding algorithm:
I was actually a big fan of the 2010 algorithm with a few tweaks applied. I thought it had the highest potential for doing a good sort on teams. Here is how I would do it for the IRI:
Winners seeding points: Winner score + Loser score + Constant
Loser seeding points: 2xLoser score
Tie score: 2xTie Score for all
What about the Co-Op bridge?
Co-Op is worth 10 pts. for a single balance to both sides. Co-Op is worth 25 points for a balance with 1 red and 1 blue member.
I personally think this carries the right balance for teams. The Co-Op gets doubled for both sides of the field. If the other alliance stands you up at the bridge, you can still get substantial points for it.
Close matches will have close qualifying scores. High scoring matches will provide high qualifying scores. There is a general dissincentive for reducing your opposing alliances score (this dissincentive is adjustable by moving the value of the Winning constant up or down).
This system also eliminates the incentive for 6v0 which was controversial in 2010.
I would award the Co-Opertition award to the highest Co-Op score that is not an alliance captain (possibly alliance captain or higher seed than the lowest seeding alliance captian).
I also think that this can serve as a future scoring model for future first games if they want to continue with the "Co-Opertition" aspect. It must be mutually beneficial to both sides, it must be more valuable if both sides participate. It must have some value if only 1 side participates (this should reduce hurt feelings of getting stood up to the prom).
This style of play would work for many first games. Having a common central goal. As it ties into both teams points, with my ranking system, the common goal is a doubler for both teams. This give it equal precedence for the Loosing side (loosers get 2L), and higher precedence for the higher scoring side (winners get W+L, therefore Co-Op scoring is 2x the value of W only scoring).
Co-Op points could be added in real-time to both scores, or Co-Op could be a seperate entity doubled up for each side at the end of the match.
For this years game, I would put the "winning constant" around 25 points. This should be a high enough value for teams to go for the win.
This is apretty big tear-up to the seeding algorithm this year, but I think it would be oworth trying out at a high caliber event.
|
Interesting, but I think the GDC finally came up with a good QS system that makes sense, with equal weight for winning and Coopertition, which is always stressed. I see the people in charge of IRI respecting that.
Plus, if FRC games are to appeal to the masses (which would be nice, right?), then both match scoring and QS have to be simple to explain to anybody--which they are right now.
I know that wasn't entirely related to IRI, but part of it sort of connected, and this was a chance to say it.