Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Johnson
SO... ...I think the GDC should make a general statement (or a rule if you'd rather) that says that it is bad for the game, and for FIRST generally, to have teams gaming the system in this way, that it is corrosive to the FIRST community, puts teams in ethical paradoxes, confuses the general public, causes lice to thrive and rats to over run the castle, etc. (insert your bad outcome here)... ...Therefor, it is the desire of the GDC that teams try to win every match that they are in. Even if they are in a hopeless cause, they should be trying to accomplish the game objective. Strategies aimed at deliberately losing a match or losing it in a way that provides a seeding benefit are not in the best interest of the game and are not to be employed or encouraged. Specifically, if ever optimizing seeding strategies are at odds with trying to accomplish the game objectives, teams are to favor accomplishing the game objectives over seeding considerations.
|
I would prefer a ranking system that doesn't incentivize scoring for your opponent in the first place to an imperial edict from on high that tries to browbeat competitors into a certain mode of play.
I like coopertition, but next year's version needs some tweaks:
First, if you don't want the losing alliance scoring for the winning alliance, give them ownership of their own score. This year the losing alliance received nothing for their own efforts at the end of the match. They were awarded the winner's score in seeding points. Once they knew they were going to lose, there was no reason to keep scoring points for themselves as those points wouldn't be theirs anymore once the match ended.
Solution: Give the losing alliance their
own score in seeding points. Additionally, you may want to add a portion of the winner's score to the loser's seeding points to factor in strength of schedule. One possible formula for the loser's seeding score is S = L + 1/2*W.
Second, if you don't want the winning alliance scoring for the losing alliance, don't make the loser's score more valuable to them than their own score. This year the winning alliance received twice as many seeding points for points the loser scored than for points they scored themselves. Once they knew they were going to win, there was no reason to keep scoring for themselves as those points were worth half as much as points scored for their opponents.
Solution: Make sure the winning alliance isn't rewarded better for the loser's score than they are for their own. One possible formula for the winner's seeding score is S = W + L.
If you run an off season event, try to tweak the ranking system a bit instead of making a knee-jerk switch back to the W-L-T method. I think FIRST is on to something here, it just needs some refinement.