Quote:
Originally Posted by thefro526
I think you're onto something here.
It rewards teams who score well whether they win or not. I like it, because it emphasizes doing your best and playing your heart out which is what I firmly believe this is what it's all about. If FIRST wants to de-emphasize winning, but still keep matches exciting and make sure teams are doing their best then maybe they should look into this.
|
I would even suggest the following seeding scoring algorithm
The winner of the match gets the winner's penalized score, and the losers unpenalized score times 2 (same as today)
The loser gets the loser's penalized score, plus half the winner's unpenalized score.
Ties are handled as today.
The reason I am still involving the winner's score in the loser's seeding points is to equalize biased schedules. 1318 2009 on Galileo had an extremely favorable schedule. We managed to eke out being undefeated, but had a much lower OPR than 111 (undefeated) or 67 (undefeated until the very end). I feel this proposed system would have ranked us lower, but would have reflected OPR/DPR more closely as a measure of robot performance.
This system still rewards the winner for winning by the smallest margin possible, and the incentive of seeding points will get both teams to be scoring, and usually for different sides. If they are scoring on the same side, it won't be for long.
No changes are made for the penalties, since teams should strive not to have them (I know they happen anyway, but First people are smart and can learn to avoid them.)
Let's look at a hypothetical match where the current score is R8-B6. If the game ended now, R would earn 20, and B would earn 10. If the match hasn't ended yet, what does each alliance want to do? Blue earns 1 seeding point for every 'normal' goal, but only 1/2 a point for an opposing goal. Therefore, Blue scores 'normally'. Red has the incentive to score an opposing goal, since it is worth 2 points, but the game is close, so it may not be worth the risk. That is up to the leading alliance to decide, and would make for some quick changes to match strategy. On the defensive side, the trailing alliance wants to defend against the leading alliances goals, to improve their chances of catching up, and the leading alliance again gets to decide if it is worth the risk to leaving the opponents goal undefended, and risk an upset at the end.
Another case discussed here often is the tie case. Let's say 5-5 (10 seeding points if it ended right now). For both alliances, a 'normal' goal would count as 6 seeding points (6-5 gives 16 and 8 seeding points), while an opposing goal would LOSE 2 points. So in this tie situation, both teams want to score, and also defend the opposing goal 'properly'.
The last case often discussed is the x-0 score. Let's say R0-B5. Again, Blue want's seeding points, so scores for Red. Red also wants seeding points, and scores for Red. The match score quickly becomes the first situation above, and we have an exciting competition.