The scoring system has never made any real sense to me... unless you plan to put every team up against every combination of teams with every combination of alliance partners, you're going to get inaccurate results.
Some good team could go up against the best combinations of alliance partners and never win and not get many points, while some less-than- average robot who was up against the easiest teams could end up in the top eight.
I recall at the NJ regional, spike (293) had a great bot who, given the oppertunity, could score a ridiculous amount of points. I also recall after three or four matches they were in about 46th place.
We could also have a really really good team go up against a bunch of really really bad teams, or in one case score a ridiculous *cough 137* amount of points, but because their opponents only got 10 points they would not move up, but down in the rankings because other matches were much closer.
I understand FIRST's logic, that you should only award points based on how hard the match was, but how hard the match was can not be measured in points. If they want to do that they need to create a major league and a minor league. All good bots to the left, all bad bots to the right (which obviously they won't do.)
In the game this year the amount of points scored is based heavily on how hard you get hit by other bots, and it seems the bots who were best at hitting people were also the ones who couldn't really score any points. If there was a bot that was just a drive train with some strong motors and great turning/speed that just smacked 25 around, they wouldn't have had near as many points at the NJ regional. But just because your opponent didn't manage to get any points doesn't mean the match wasn't hard. Dodging three tank bots just to get a few points in the top goal is no easy task for any bot.
It seems they were trying to fix the 'easy matches shouldn't be rewarded' part and by doing so they created many more problems than they had. This isn't like a sporting event, major league and minor league teams don't play against eachother and thus how many points they score and how many points they PREVENT their opponents from scoring measures how good they are.
Having to score for your opponents to get your rightly deserved points is ridiculous in the first place.
I think if you're insulted by the other team scoring for you, you probably should take a look at the scoring system and you'll understand. If I do badly enough in a match that they have to score on themselves to get a good ranking, be my guest. I'd do it in their position.
It sort of makes me wish we had just put 25 on the offense in that match and used both 486 and our alliance partner to score on our own goal near the end so that we got a good ranking, but then again 25 didn't score all 137 points
There were a lot of good teams at NJ that were not ranked well... but they got picked as alliance partners, so I suppose we can say scouting to the rescue
