Something this system offers that previous scoring systems didn't is the ability to achieve high seeding points regardless of the difficulty of your opponents. (Given that you are a fairly competitive robot with the ability to think strategically...). The seeding points system seemed balanced, especially after the conclusion of my teams final two qualification matches.
The Situation: Qualification Match 125 (Galileo)
Blue Alliance: 3164, 2467, 1466
Red Alliance: 78, 1058, 2834
Due to the strength of the teams on our alliance, we predicted a high scoring match. The outcome of the match was 21-7, which resulted in 40 seeding points. As stated by Johh Fox:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Fox
I don't remember the exact wording of things, which I'll attribute to the rigorous Champs Schedule, but I was left with the impression that the whole 6v0 idea was not something that the GDC necessarily intended or wanted.
|
The innate balance of this system makes me believe that the GDC never intended on teams scoring for one another in the first place, to make the scores as close as possible. This came to me immediately after the conclusion of our final qualification match, which consisted of the following alliances.
The Situation: Qualification Match 144 (Galileo)
Blue Alliance: 1717, 3138, 2283
Red Alliance: 78, 2036, 85
It was known that this match was going to be difficult compared to Match 125. The final score of the match was 12-11, which resulted in
39 seeding points for the winning alliance.
So now to look at the matches side by side, in regards of their overall difficulty and the resulting seeding points.
Five less balls were scored in total in match 144 than in match 125, yet there was only one less seeding point generated in that match than in match 125. This was because the difficulty of opponents was somewhat proportional to the amount of balls we scored (obviously). But the genius in this system lies in that the stakes are high even when the match scores aren't blowouts. (Like in qualification match 144.) This is why I believe that the GDC did not mean for alliances to score for their opponents at all, because in a standard "score for yourself" match, regardless of the difficulty, the resulting seeding points awarded to the winning alliance is balanced depending on the difficulty of the opponents faced.**
I am describing the balance of seeding points of the winning alliance based on the difficulty of their opponents, the seeding points awarded to the losing alliance is a whole different story. (Which I think needs a bit of revision)