Worst Scoring System in Years

[Gabriel]

I wonder if maybe the tournament style of FIRST isn't the best way of going about it. Each match is only about 2 minutes so its difficult for a spectator to get involved and its very very difficult to accurately figure out which robot is best. The problem isn't necessarily the scoring system so much as the fact that teams have to compete AGAINST each other so we don't get to judge each robot on its own merits all the time. Maybe FIRST should switch to the kind of system we see in many olympic sports, there would be one common challenge and groups of teams would compete in heats. Say, the challenge was to autonomously pick up multicolored balls and deposit them in different spots according to their color just to pick a dumb idea. The overall top 8 teams would go on. It wouldn't be as interesting strategically (or maybe it would be depending on how the game was set up), but it would certainly avoid all the problems with scoring systems, coercion etc. as well as making it easier for a team to practice and the overall result would reflect the performance of the robot, not the performance of the alliance.

I don't know if I like the idea, but its certainly interesting.

[Chris Fultz]

I like the game and love the scoring and ranking system. It forces teams to keep connected with what is going on and change strategy to get a win.

Examples - we usually hang in the last 45 seconds. One match we were ready to go hang, but an opponent was getting ready to cap a goal with 7 balls in it. We gave up 50 hanging points to prevent 70 ball points. It kept the match exciting.

Another example was in Phoenix. 4 robots on the bar with time left on the clock. One alliance realizes they are losing - because of balls in goals, so they drop off the bar, try to corral balls and then get back and hang. They did not make it - but it was exciting to watch the strategy come in.

Both matches would have been played differently if everyone was focused on points.

And yes, sometimes good robots don't make it to the top 8. But teams with good scouting and tracking know which machines and teams can perform in a match and the better teams will almost always get selected for finals.

[Yan Wang]

When I read this thread at first, I thought, "Pfftt... what's this guy thinking? This scoring system rocks!" But hey, at least it was an opinion stated well and asked without intent to harm, IMO. And after reading the sarcastic and rude comments after it, I gave him some positive rep points only to see it drop to gray when I clicked refresh a minute later.

I think this is a good example of people disagreeing and using the reputation system to voice that disagreement. That's not what it's for.

Anyway, to stay on topic... I like the scoring system even though I have yet to go to a regional (Canada in 2 days!). It seems, as Andy Baker pointed out, a system that has been proven in the real world and one which rewards winning over just points. It seems to be a very good move on FIRST's behalf in addition to changing the eliminations to best outta 3, instead of a cumulative points system which promoted descoring over adding to your own score. I guess I'll truly see for myself exactly how good this system is in 2 days.

[ChrisH]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

And yes, sometimes good robots don't make it to the top 8. But teams with good scouting and tracking know which machines and teams can perform in a match and the better teams will almost always get selected for finals.

In LA, 980 was circulating a spread sheet that sorted teams by average points scored in a match. I think it was a very good indicator of the quality of the robots listed. There were also quite a few "bargins". That is teams that had very high scoring but low seeding. Several of the top 10 scorers had seedings in the teens and twenties (including us). The "bargains" didn't last too long when it came to picking though.

[Denman]

because i was feeling bored, i decided to do some statistical work on that data.
Spearmans rank correlation : 0.96368335
This is incredably high
Therefore you kinda can't justify your argument. I think that this hsows that the ranks are very similar, and that what looks like big differences aren't
so there

ok i just double checked my calculations
0.7821
that is the actual answer
its still high, but i can se your point

[white_ChocOlat8]

To me I am appalled to see this as an issue, I started first with my team (1083) this year as a rookie and was told repeatedly that it didn’t matter weather we won or lost, and I was told that the people in this organization understood that. They also told me that FIRST is a way for me to get excited about engineering, and winning dose matter, but it shouldn’t consume the experience for me and I think this leads to what I’m trying to say is, you all are getting caught up in what is fair and what is not fair, instead I think you all need to drop and concentrate some of that energy into improving your team for the community, because guess what, from what I’ve heard, that’s what this is all about.

[Bill Enslen]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

The problem isn't necessarily the scoring system so much as the fact that teams have to compete AGAINST each other so we don't get to judge each robot on its own merits all the time. Maybe FIRST should switch to the kind of system we see in many olympic sports, there would be one common challenge and groups of teams would compete in heats. Say, the challenge was to autonomously pick up multicolored balls and deposit them in different spots according to their color just to pick a dumb idea. The overall top 8 teams would go on. It wouldn't be as interesting strategically (or maybe it would be depending on how the game was set up), but it would certainly avoid all the problems with scoring systems, coercion etc. as well as making it easier for a team to practice and the overall result would reflect the performance of the robot, not the performance of the alliance.

What you describe is pretty much the way the 2001 game was, although eliminations were handled the same way they are today, with the top teams picking alliance partners. In a nutshell, four teams played as a single alliance against the clock to perform a task. The faster they performed the task, the higher their score could be. I personally loved the game, and even if my team wasn't on the national champion alliance I would have still loved the game. It was as exciting as watching the last minute of the final four B-ball games! Trouble was, it was oh-so-difficult to explain the complicated multiplier-based scoring system to anyone other than a FIRST-a-holic.

[Jeremy L]

This scoring system is great for several reasons.
1) It is easy to see which teams have the best defense: they are at the bottom of their tiers.
2) It quickly allows you to see, as PJ pointed out, the ranking range that you will end up in early on.
3) The point reward for a hanging robot is much more in perspective than last year's game; a ball-handling robot is an equally viable option that can win you more games. (totally unbiased statement...)
5) FIRST is on the ball with all aspects of the game this year: the human player involvement, importance of autonomous, gameplay strategies, and scoring system. Way to go, FIRST!

That's right, i skipped number 4.
deal with it.