Quote:
Originally Posted by Knufire
I think i see where you're coming from. Generally speaking, any ranking system that factors in performance relative to a standard outside the scope of that single match (i.e. bonus RP for secondary objectives, tournament average, etc) leaves room for teams in a given match to collude in order to maximize their own gains. I think this is a necessary evil, as purely looking at each match in a vacuum (which is basically what WLT does) leaves you more at the mercy of the schedule gods. I don't think this really happens enough in FRC to be a major concern, and with the 2016 manual, is explicitly discouraged by FiRST.
The differences between qualifications and playoff rounds that concern me were more related to game design, such as tasks being worth RP in quals and points in eliminations (2016), disappear completely in playoffs (co-op 2015, co-op 2012), or don't exist in the qualification rounds but are important to playoff rounds (triple-balancing 2012). These are almost all related to game design and not the ranking system. IMO, make everything worth points and let the ranking system do the work of filtering teams into rank.
|
I thought the thing that 2016 did best was making sure that factors which influenced ranking (breaches and captures) converted to something of value during the playoffs, unlike in 2015 and 2012. However, I also agree that the 2015 version did the best work to separate the best teams, but I think using that exact system in any game that requires defense would, by virtue of team intelligence, result in a no defense game, at least until the playoffs. However, a system similar to 2015, but using scoring differential, might be a better way to separate teams.
A danger could be that you could see teams try to run up the score, but I think that's much more difficult to do in a 150 second match than a 60 minute football/basketball/hockey/etc game.