[Ben Mitchell]

I hated the scoring system.

If you had a very strong robot that could achieve a total victory, you would in the end be penalized, since a close game among weaker robots would rocket QP's upward.

The idea, I think, was that teams would not crush their opponents with a score of, say, 60-0, with one robot going offense to knock down opposing stacks, bins, etc, and another guarding the ramp.

The 3x the losers score concept was to make the game more challenging by making it unprofitable for teams to "own" the field during the match, and rake up massive scores while decreasing your opponents scores.

Unfortunately, it made for a game that depended, in my opinion, too heavily on luck. I saw teams that obviously should not have been seeded high been in the finals, picking alliances. All due to the randomness of the game.

If I were in charge, I would make a score more of a function of a robot's compatibility - my scoring system would remove the 3x the losers, and lessen points for controlling spaces. I mean, plowing bins does not take creativity or ingenuity.

Making something - a stack, etc, does. Those things should be rewarded, not bulldozers. Simple robots that are not creative should not be rewarded.

I agree with you 100%.