Compatition Ranking

[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

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

If that is the reason, why change it now? FIRST has always done total qualification points (or whatever the points were called in 2010).

Perhaps it is a way to normalize scoring across events for district points?

The one nice (depending on your perspective) thing about the old method was more teams got to be in 1st place (or other high ranking spots) for a short while due to the extra noise. Now since everything is normalized, there will be a lot less movement in the rankings. A good thing from a usability standpoint, but not as many teams will get a short-lived boost from seeing their names at the top of the scrolling chart.

[cbudrecki]

My big question is if we are taking an AVERAGE score, then why leave out a surrogate match. Why not have that team's average be based on 11 matches instead of 10 (or whatever the case may be)? I can see in a Win/Loss scenario, or even if we were going with total points, but going off an average?

My fear is that teams will adopt the strategy of sabotaging their surrogate matches. If it doesn't count against them, why not lower the other teams' average? Granted, definitely NOT in the spirit of FIRST, but you know teams will do it. If we did away with surrogates this year, and let a few teams have an extra match figured into their average, I don't see where it would hurt.

[cbudrecki]

My other question; Is ranking averaged match-by-match as the day goes on, or is it always calculated by the number of matches scheduled?

Example: After 3 matches, a team has 330 points. They are scheduled for 10 Qualifier matches. Is their current average 110 (330/3) or 33 (330/10)?

[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.

[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.

[Skyehawk]

Originally Posted by cbudrecki

My big question is if we are taking an AVERAGE score, then why leave out a surrogate match. Why not have that team's average be based on 11 matches instead of 10 (or whatever the case may be)? I can see in a Win/Loss scenario, or even if we were going with total points, but going off an average?

My fear is that teams will adopt the strategy of sabotaging their surrogate matches. If it doesn't count against them, why not lower the other teams' average? Granted, definitely NOT in the spirit of FIRST, but you know teams will do it. If we did away with surrogates this year, and let a few teams have an extra match figured into their average, I don't see where it would hurt.

You wouldn't want to throw a surrogate match. Not all teams look closely enough while scouting to realize that a team is playing a surrogate match. A bad performance in match number 4 (typically where surrogate matches are inserted) may put the team that might want to pick them in a position where they said "But they did terrible in match Number 4". And thus may not consider picking the team when Saturday afternoon comes around.