Compatition Ranking

[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Why use the average? Why not just the total accumulated points? Every team is scheduled for the same number of matches, so why do we do the (extra) math?

I think it is to normalize the "perfect storm" random chance alliances, where 3 super powerful robots are paired by the all mighty randomized partner algorithm. It dilutes that one magic match where the stars align and the score ends up 3 times higher than your other matches, mainly because of a particular mix of robots and not so much the individual robot's performance. The average gives an adjusted and IMO more accurate portrayal of actual robot contribution over multiple matches, rather than cumulative score, where one magic match can boost a team's ranking beyond their typical performance.

[Anteprefix]

Originally Posted by Marc P.

I think it is to normalize the "perfect storm" random chance alliances, where 3 super powerful robots are paired by the all mighty randomized partner algorithm. It dilutes that one magic match where the stars align and the score ends up 3 times higher than your other matches, mainly because of a particular mix of robots and not so much the individual robot's performance. The average gives an adjusted and IMO more accurate portrayal of actual robot contribution over multiple matches, rather than cumulative score, where one magic match can boost a team's ranking beyond their typical performance.

In what way does the average adjust the robot's contribution? The QA is just the cumulative score divided by a factor.

[Skyehawk]

Originally Posted by Marc P.

I think it is to normalize the "perfect storm" random chance alliances, where 3 super powerful robots are paired by the all mighty randomized partner algorithm. It dilutes that one magic match where the stars align and the score ends up 3 times higher than your other matches, mainly because of a particular mix of robots and not so much the individual robot's performance. The average gives an adjusted and IMO more accurate portrayal of actual robot contribution over multiple matches, rather than cumulative score, where one magic match can boost a team's ranking beyond their typical performance.

Consider this scenario:
Last match of qualifications:
Team A: Average Score:98pts/match
Team B: 100pts/match
Team C: 102pts/match

Team D: 98pts/match
Team E: 100pts/match
Team F: 102pts/match

Seems like a fair match-up right? but the stars align for team A-B-C and...
Final score:A-B-C 300 | D-E-F 100

Even tough these teams were identical in their stats team A-B-C pulled out a significant win. The average scores of team D-E-F stay approximately the same, and while the teams were tied in the standings before this match took place teams A,B, and C are now all ahead of teams D,E, and F.

My point being: since the same number of qualification matches are played (excluding surrogates) why does averaging matter?

[Kpchem]

Under this system of averaging, it is easier to compare between events that run different numbers of matches. This could be especially valuable if events within a single district region have to run different numbers of matches.

That's my guess anyway.

[Skyehawk]

My updated insight is as follows- the averaging simply allows for an easier way to compare teams that have different number of matches played. For example:
Team A has a QA of 100pts/match and 4 games played
Team B has a QA of 110pts/match and 3 games played

This is a lot easier to compare than
Team A has 400 points total, and 4 games played
Team B has 330 points total, and 3 games played

[MikeE]

Originally Posted by Kpchem

Under this system of averaging, it is easier to compare between events that run different numbers of matches. This could be especially valuable if events within a single district region have to run different numbers of matches.

That's my guess anyway.

I hope that District events stay with the standard 12 matches for all teams. This guarantees no surrogates and for smaller events also keeps a feasible inter-match minimum.

[dellagd]

I Initially thought it was just to make the ranking nicer to watch, but it appears this doesn't happen...

Section 5.3.3:

Originally Posted by Ye Olde Maual

The total number of MATCH Points earned by a Team throughout their Qualification MATCHES, divided by their number of assigned MATCHES (excluding any SURROGATE MATCHES), then truncated to two decimal places, is their Qualification Average (QA).

The key word is assigned. It does not say matches played at that point.

This leads me to believe that the divisor of the average is constant through the whole event, actually making the whole averaging thing pointless for viewing purposes or... anything... over just a total. This seems really weird though, I'm guessing they don't mean that since, well, it doesn't make any sense.

[MikeE]

Originally Posted by dellagd

I Initially thought it was just to make the ranking nicer to watch, but it appears this doesn't happen...

Section 5.3.3:

The key word is assigned. It does not say matches played at that point.

This leads me to believe that the divisor of the average is constant through the whole event, actually making the whole averaging thing pointless for viewing purposes or... anything... over just a total. This seems really weird though, I'm guessing they don't mean that since, well, it doesn't make any sense.

I don't have any special knowledge but I expect the Pit Display will show average score throughout the competition. From a tournament perspective Qualification Average doesn't have any role before final ranking, although in practice we all want to know where we stand throughout the competition.