back to the old?

[Corey Balint]

Does anyone else think FIRST should go back to the old system of rankings? I mean my opinion is obviously biased since we did well in points this year, but did the Win-Loss idea really work out? Many teams just benefitted from great partners and ended up squeaking out a match, but there seemed to be no real reward for such a close match. Just a high qp-that could ultimately be ignored.
I also think with using the point system only, it will make scouting more important, because they will have to look at records deeper, and actually see who is defensive and who isnt. This year everything was right there for you. Id rather see a challenge out there.

[white_ChocOlat8]

Isn’t there something like this already up ?????
Sorry if there isn't

[Corey Balint]

If there is-i am reallly really bad at this game-cycled through prev posts-dint see it-but may be there somewhere

[NoRemorse]

Personaly, I liked this year's system much better. There was a thread on this somewhere tho. A defending robot had no chance in previous years because the scores were always relativly low. This way they can win, and that's primarily what dictates the ranking. It's also much less confusing when tryin to calcualte how you stand and what you need to do to improve your ranking. Also easier to undersatnd for the spectators who don't know all the rules.

[Corey Balint]

Although that is true, i still think that many of the teams taht win-arent as good as it says they are. You could just get good partners and win, without doing anything. I know the whole gracious professionalism thing, but still.

The defense thing is true, but if u go back to points, thats what scouting is there for.

[P.J. Baker]

This is the original thread about the scoring system:

Scoring system thread

I loved the ranking system this year. I felt that it provided much more useful information than any other we've had.

[Pat Roche]

The reason I like the scoring system this year is that it made it easier to scout for alliances. In the elims it was solely based on who won 2 out of 3. By having the win loss record right there I could really tell who could get the job done based on looking at the record. Teams dont win every match on accident. There are some matches that they actually gotta do well in and that reflects on the win/loss record.

-Pat

[FizMan]

On the flip side of the coin; with the old ranking system, the teams that did really great (i.e. winning with a great margin of points) would be lower in the standings than perhaps what truly reflected their abilities. Since their score was based on the loser's score, if they played very well, they might end up with a lower score than the teams that barely came ontop of their matches (having a smaller margin of points).

And like already said; the eliminations are based on winning; not points. So the current score system more accurately reflects a team that will be more apt to do well in the finals.