Quote:
Originally Posted by sgreco
I have declined to comment on the scoring system all year...
So all I have to say is: Any scoring system that ever gives people incentive to score on themselves at ANY point during ANY match needs to be re-evaluated.
What was wrong with the old days when the teams that won got the best seeds? What part of earning your seeding position isn't fair?
|
Unless, as posted above, FIRST's intent was to make a game where you aren't true opponents. Before the alliance era, there were games where (as I understand it) you had to work together with the others in the match to maximize your score in that match. If you look at backwards scoring less as "scoring on yourself" and more as "scoring for the greater good of both alliances", then the difference becomes clearer. This game and seeding system can be interpreted as not a strictly 3v3 game, it can also be seen at 6v0.
The highest possible QP comes from a tightly-fought match, but the most reliable QP comes if both teams agree to co-operate and only score on one side.