[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by dodar

You cannot compare games by the number of "scores" a team can make. Look at it like this, how many opportunities to score that soccerball did a 2010 team have per match? Now, compare that to how many opportunities teams had to score a frisbee in 2013, basketball in 2012, a tote in 2015, etc...

If the average alliance score in 2010 was 3, and the average OPR was 1 which came out to 1 goal per team per match, that would be the equivalent of scoring 20 points this year.(if the average alliance score was around 60)

Like I said, OPR isnt a good way to compare robot ability from year to year.

Thank you for your insight. However, I feel you missed my main point.

My point was not to compare OPR from year to year. My point, in a nutshell, is that if it takes a robot the entire match period to get one game piece in a goal, then that game is probably harder than a game where a robot can score many times in one match, regardless of the point value of scoring; this supports Knufire's claim. If an average robot can only score once on a decent match then the game is probably too hard. That being said, there were some great robots in 2010, but they came around less often than most other years since the game was harder to play.

In other words, even though 2010 had fewer opportunities to score (i.e. fewer balls on the field) there were still many cases when none of those opportunities were completed anyways and that led to a bunch of "0" scores. Our team won 7 matches in 2010 against a 0 score and lost 6 matches the same way - tell me Breakaway wasn't hard.