[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by RoteAugen

why you anti-utilitarian you!

to paraphrase their main point:
"The wants of the many outweigh the wants of the few, or the one"

Oddly enough, I was watching Star Trek II, and that quote from Spock came up literally 5 minutes before I read that post...

But back on topic, I do very much like this year's scoring compared to previous years. In 2002 (Zone Zeal), during our team's first match at nationals, we had an incredible match. With 10 seconds left, the score was something like 54 to 45. With that 10 seconds left, the opposing alliance moved their goal full of balls out of the scoring zone. The resulting score for the match- 54 - 0.

Rank was determined by average qualification points. Qualification points were equal to three times the loosing alliance's score. Three times zero averaged into 7 matches doesn't work out very well, despite a very good match, and a relatively strong showing the other 6 matches. Needless to say, I didn't think it was too fair, but didn't mind. I had a great time at nationals that year, and accepted it as part of the game.

This year, the primary method of rank based on wins is a tremendous breath of fresh air to anyone who ailed under the previous ranking systems. The inclusion of the Ranking Points system further increases the fairness in the ranks, by including the all important factor of specific performance in addition to a simple win/loss.

Originally Posted by Eugene

To clarify my argument once again, I dislike the current scoring system because it produces results that are far more random than the results produced by other system. Eight games just are not enough for this to give consistent results. (Speaking scientifically it is too small of a sample.) There are hundreds of little things that can sway the game. However, the team with the best strategy and the robot will consistently score better than a team with the worse robot and strategy.

What it comes down to is this: robots that do well deserve to win. The argument is how well they win. In a game focused more on strategy (as inferred by the quote from the manual earlier in the discussion), does a robot not deserve to be ranked by merit of win/loss than to points? Does a robot who hangs on the bar deserve to be ranked higher than a ball gatherer/capper? Each potentially yield different point values yet will succeed if well built and capable. In the current system, robots who do well win, and rank accordingly. However, as you say, 8 matches is not enough to accurately rank based on that alone. Hence the ranking point system. To quote the FIRST manual-

All four teams will receive a number of Ranking Points equal to the Match Score of the
losing alliance or their alliance score in the case of a tie.

In order to gain qualification points, a team must win the match, implying they have a score greater than the loosing alliance. However, in the spirit of FIRST, shutouts are discouraged, and will reflect accordingly in the rankings. Therein lies what I believe to be the primary concept behind the current scoring system: Robots must be capable of controlling the situation of each match to the point where they win by a minimalistic margin while attaining the highest possible score. So essentially, a quarter of what you wish to be in the scoring system already is, in that score has something to do with it. But, in all fairness and the interest of FIRST, it's not the winners score which is important, but the loosing alliance's, which adds a very interesting dynamic to the way the game is played. It makes the competition that much more exciting, particularly from a strategy perspective.