View Single Post
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:54
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Do it like seeding last year...

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/5/99 7:58 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Or we could try the easy way... posted by Andrew Trax on 5/5/99 4:25 AM MST:



Exactly. If ranking was done as seeding was last year, wins would mean a lot more.

Average QPs can be the tie breaker.

To point out the difference, my team was 4 of 4 last year and we ended up seeding at 6th place. This year we were 6 of 6. Although you'd naturally think that would be even better, we ended up ranking in the mid-30s.

Funny that.

A win-based ranking system would reward both defensive and offensive strategies, and would hold both at similar values as in the finals. It makes too much sence!

Still, this would bring robots that lose a match due to bad luck way down in seeding. In either case, more matches are needed.

My position still stands =)


-Daniel
__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.