Very cool!
Quote:
Originally Posted by billw
Now for the interesting part: It quickly became apparent that the total points scored by a team was a much better predictor than the win/loss record. In an effort to simulate the current scoring system, I added another measure which ranked the robots by wins and losses and then by total points. This helped somewhat, but it is still nowhere near the ability of the total points method.
In fact, you can run fewer matches and still have a better result using the total point method of scoring. To get a feeling for how many matches would be necessary, I ran simulations for 3, 6 and 9 matches in tournaments having 32, 64 and 96 robots.
|
This is no surprise. At the NorCal Chapionship, I felt bad for an above-average (IMO) team that had a winless record. Unlike several higher-ranking teams that had multiple scoreless matches, they never failed to score less than 25 points. Using the point system would have given a more representative idea of their abilities.
However, I'm not sure how well a ranking system based primarily on points (rather than W-L-T) would go over. People are used to the sports paradigm, where a win is a win, no matter how squeakily it was obtained. Also, defensive play would go out the window.
The saving grace to a limted system has been alliance selection. The above-average team described was selected in the first draft, as they should have been.