Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Billfred
What flaws would there be? The only one that comes to mind (and I haven't tested it yet) is that everyone would have the same opponent-win percentage if everyone played everyone else once at a regional--but when does that happen?
|
I meant just using a straight copy of it would be flawed. If instead you factor in each opponents' wins and also each of your alliance partners' losses, you could make a better system (the idea then would be a win over 3 winless opponents with 2 undefeated partners would be equal to a loss to 3 undefeated opponents with 2 winless partners).
The bigger problem is I'm not sure how accurate it would be in a system where your opponents can also be your partners, as the original system wasn't designed for this type of scenario.
I like the current system (especially when compared to the old one from 2003 and earlier), and whether it should be changed really depends on what FIRST wants to promote in matches and design.
If they want high scoring matches, they should keep the current system, which rewards an offensive strategy more than a defensive one.
If they want to account more for opponents' strength, they need a system like Billfred's or many high school sports.
If they want close games, they should probably go back to the old system or get one like Steve's.
If they want something else... well, adjust accordingly.
Regardless of how FIRST does rankings, I will still use something more like my idea when trying to figure out alliance selections, because when I'm doing that I care far more about how good they are performing than how close their matches have been and whether they're an offensive or defensive robot. FIRST would want to promote exciting matches, but from a success viewpoint I would not want to be part of one because that usually means one team barely wins a shootout or that they come from behind for a close victory.