Worst Scoring System in Years

[Eugene]

To All:

I totally agree that winning matters. What bothers me is the fact that there are only 8 games that are played. Excluding the variable presented by the alliance partner and assuming that the team scores do not fluctuate much (the data supports that), if the ranking was done by scores than no matter how the teams were paired, the better performing teams would consistently be an top whereas by using the win/lose system the ranks would fluctuate far more. If you look at the table that I compiled, you would notice that the difference in ranks by different methods is huge. One of the statistical methods (which is what we should use in our argument if we were to consider ourselves scientists, as in fir_S_t) that is used to evaluate the validity of the test is the correlation of scores between that test and other tests. In that aspect, the current scoring system would not be considered valid.

Eugene

[Eugene]

I think that anyone who participated in FIRST for four years can be considered a first-a-holic. I totally love the competition and in no way did I mean to put it down.

Eugene

[Cory]

Again, I dont see your argument. How do you define better performing? a team like 365/71 in 2002 would dominate the competition. Guess what, they scored darn near zero points because their strategy was only really good in the eliminations.

I know this isnt 2002, but there are robots that do one thing really well, like blocking the bar, or harrassing other robots, and keeping them from effectively completing their objectives. Neither of these types will score a lot of points, but they can be very good robots, that effectively achieve the game's challenges, and WIN. This is a competition, points dont matter, theyre only the means to a win.

So, in the NFL, the top team is the team with the best win/loss record. Let's say that they score on average, 21 points per game, but they go 16-0. Now let's say the last place team is 8-8, but has scored a total of 600 points, because they blew out inferior opponents multiple times, but lost 8 times. What you're saying is that even though they lost half their games, they got lots of points, so they should be #1 above an undefeated team, even though they didnt win!

Eugene-what you just described is this year's system... Adding a constant number of points onto the winning team's score does nothing but uniformly raise *all* winning scores, making them look higher than they effectively are.

Cory

[Eugene]

My general position on defensive vs. offensive strategy:

FIRST is supposed to represent what the world should strive to be. A world, where there are more participants than spectators. A world that rewards those that make it a better place.

Let’s start with the definitions.

An offensive robot works by performing better than the opponent.
A defensive robot works by disrupting the performance of the opponent and preventing him to do what he is designed to do.

Now let’s apply that to some real world situations.

Would you prefer a market system in which companies compete to deliver a superior product vs. a market system in which the companies use various other means to force their opponents out of business?

Would you like to be in a soccer game were pushing (although the contemporary society will probably like this idea) is allowed therefore players that are heavier, which is a trait that is irrelevant to soccer performance consistently beat players that are actually skilled at maneuvering the ball?

Going back to robotics, I think that the game would be much more entertaining if the robots were trying to outperform each other instead of having one robot prevent the other from doing what it is supposed to do thereby resulting in a game were robots just end up sitting on the field.

To sum up, the life of a person is not about winning or losing, it is about performing and allowing others to do their best.

Good Luck to all this season!!!

Eugene

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Cory

Eugene-what you just described is this year's system... Adding a constant number of points onto the winning team's score does nothing but uniformly raise *all* winning scores, making them look higher than they effectively are.

Cory

Cory,

I guess I misunderstood your argument as well. Did not you say that teams that win deserve to rank higher? If so, than raising the score of all winners would insure that. Furthermore, by continuing to use the performance as a factor in ranking we would favor the better performing teams over those that simply got lucky by being paired with a weaker opponent.

Eugene

[Eric Bareiss]

The only difference I see is this years system eliminates the significance of freak matches.

In 2002 if you win your match 70-0 and your apponents got DQ'd you got 210 qualifying points. If you get any reasonable amount of points for the rest of your matches you would have seeded 1st (this did happen). This year you would get 2 points for winning and move on.

I think if anything the scoring system does a better job of showing robot performance. It shows how good you are at winning. If all you had to do is score one ball more than your apponent why would you do more? If you had 10 balls and they only had 4 why would you hang?

[Bob92]

I love the new scoring system. As for the data I believe it might be a little squed. Most team will do enough to win (as they should). They do not blow out the competition everytime but play smart. They play efense as well as offense. I don't think one match where you score 200pts should boost you in rank. Wins shows consistent preformance and that is why it is FAIR.

[Greg Perkins]

this game rocks...hands down...



if you dont like it...dont bring it here because a majority of the people in first who have been here a while LOVE this new system.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Greg Perkins

if you dont like it...dont bring it here because a majority of the people in first who have been here a while LOVE this new system.

Therefore the opinions of minority do not deserve to be heard? I did not expect that from someone who has been in FIRST for many years. Remember that our biggest award is for collaboration with other people in making FIRST a better place for everyone. Robots are just something that brings us together.

Eugene

[Greg Perkins]

the only reason i say that is because a team will complain about how first cheated them and etc., all im saying is i have always been against the former system, and have always prayed that they would change it. and they have...


now that there is a feesable system that caters to what the aspect of first is... teams that dont do well argue that the systems is unfair and whatnot, but truthfully, its the best way to get other outside sources interested in the game...

you dont know hard it was to explain 2001-2003's game to people...and how they seed. now its simple...best record=best seed



so sorry if i came off crabby..but its the only way it should be done

[Eugene]

If you noticed, my team did FAR better according to the new scoring system.

Eugene

[RoteAugen]

Originally Posted by Eugene

Therefore the opinions of minority do not deserve to be heard? I did not expect that from someone who has been in FIRST for many years. Remember that our biggest award is for collaboration with other people in making FIRST a better place for everyone. Robots are just something that brings us together.

Eugene

why you anti-utilitarian you!

to paraphrase their main point:
"The wants of the many outweigh the wants of the few, or the one"

and judging by the poll results, the game this year is probably the best it has ever been.... and most agree. Another thing to keep in mind: deservance is a subjective term. many do not believe in one deserving certain things unconditionally, ie being heard in a cacophony of other opinions.

[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by RoteAugen

why you anti-utilitarian you!

to paraphrase their main point:
"The wants of the many outweigh the wants of the few, or the one"

Oddly enough, I was watching Star Trek II, and that quote from Spock came up literally 5 minutes before I read that post...

But back on topic, I do very much like this year's scoring compared to previous years. In 2002 (Zone Zeal), during our team's first match at nationals, we had an incredible match. With 10 seconds left, the score was something like 54 to 45. With that 10 seconds left, the opposing alliance moved their goal full of balls out of the scoring zone. The resulting score for the match- 54 - 0.

Rank was determined by average qualification points. Qualification points were equal to three times the loosing alliance's score. Three times zero averaged into 7 matches doesn't work out very well, despite a very good match, and a relatively strong showing the other 6 matches. Needless to say, I didn't think it was too fair, but didn't mind. I had a great time at nationals that year, and accepted it as part of the game.

This year, the primary method of rank based on wins is a tremendous breath of fresh air to anyone who ailed under the previous ranking systems. The inclusion of the Ranking Points system further increases the fairness in the ranks, by including the all important factor of specific performance in addition to a simple win/loss.

Originally Posted by Eugene

To clarify my argument once again, I dislike the current scoring system because it produces results that are far more random than the results produced by other system. Eight games just are not enough for this to give consistent results. (Speaking scientifically it is too small of a sample.) There are hundreds of little things that can sway the game. However, the team with the best strategy and the robot will consistently score better than a team with the worse robot and strategy.

What it comes down to is this: robots that do well deserve to win. The argument is how well they win. In a game focused more on strategy (as inferred by the quote from the manual earlier in the discussion), does a robot not deserve to be ranked by merit of win/loss than to points? Does a robot who hangs on the bar deserve to be ranked higher than a ball gatherer/capper? Each potentially yield different point values yet will succeed if well built and capable. In the current system, robots who do well win, and rank accordingly. However, as you say, 8 matches is not enough to accurately rank based on that alone. Hence the ranking point system. To quote the FIRST manual-

All four teams will receive a number of Ranking Points equal to the Match Score of the
losing alliance or their alliance score in the case of a tie.

In order to gain qualification points, a team must win the match, implying they have a score greater than the loosing alliance. However, in the spirit of FIRST, shutouts are discouraged, and will reflect accordingly in the rankings. Therein lies what I believe to be the primary concept behind the current scoring system: Robots must be capable of controlling the situation of each match to the point where they win by a minimalistic margin while attaining the highest possible score. So essentially, a quarter of what you wish to be in the scoring system already is, in that score has something to do with it. But, in all fairness and the interest of FIRST, it's not the winners score which is important, but the loosing alliance's, which adds a very interesting dynamic to the way the game is played. It makes the competition that much more exciting, particularly from a strategy perspective.

[Mike Schroeder]

While i have never had the pleasure of meeting him in person, i would have to say a pretty wise man said last year :

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

A stack is a stack is a stack.
-Paul

and to morph that into a term we can use this year, "A WIN IS A WIN IS A WIN"

i think Dean Kamen said it best at kick off STOP BEING LAWYERS

the scoring is one of the most simple yet, you win, you win you loose, you loose. the tie breaker is your match scores

Competitor Friendly: Yes
Spectator Friendly: Yes
Gives us a new way to strategize: Yes
Gave us a headache at NJ as we tried to figure out who was ranked where: Yes

to quote another wise man: Thank you FIRST this really is the best yet

i wouldnt have found that quote if it werent for the spotlight system thanks brandon

[Steve Shade]

I'm going to be a bit cynical here, but add some reality to the discussion.

I've always said FIRST is very much like a micro-real world experience. Competitive alliances are becoming a larger part of the real world experience. In my day job, we are involved with at least 2 now between my group and groups of other companies/organizations. There are winners and losers. In the real world, if you aren't on the winning side, you don't continue to work. There are also bad losers too who (in FIRST terms) "knock down our stacks" or "pull their goals out at the last second to leave us with no QP's" That is part of life, but our society says that winning is important, and you play to win by the rules laid down. The scoring system is the rules we play by, and this year the game and scoring system reflect the idea to curb the "bad losers" who in my opinion, don't help anyone. All we can do is evaluate the entire system after all the dust settles. I personally think this year strongly represents a tie to the real world more than any year since alliances were started.


Steve