Scoring For Your Opponents

[JoeCallahan]

The scoring system has never made any real sense to me... unless you plan to put every team up against every combination of teams with every combination of alliance partners, you're going to get inaccurate results.

Some good team could go up against the best combinations of alliance partners and never win and not get many points, while some less-than- average robot who was up against the easiest teams could end up in the top eight.

I recall at the NJ regional, spike (293) had a great bot who, given the oppertunity, could score a ridiculous amount of points. I also recall after three or four matches they were in about 46th place.

We could also have a really really good team go up against a bunch of really really bad teams, or in one case score a ridiculous *cough 137* amount of points, but because their opponents only got 10 points they would not move up, but down in the rankings because other matches were much closer.

I understand FIRST's logic, that you should only award points based on how hard the match was, but how hard the match was can not be measured in points. If they want to do that they need to create a major league and a minor league. All good bots to the left, all bad bots to the right (which obviously they won't do.)

In the game this year the amount of points scored is based heavily on how hard you get hit by other bots, and it seems the bots who were best at hitting people were also the ones who couldn't really score any points. If there was a bot that was just a drive train with some strong motors and great turning/speed that just smacked 25 around, they wouldn't have had near as many points at the NJ regional. But just because your opponent didn't manage to get any points doesn't mean the match wasn't hard. Dodging three tank bots just to get a few points in the top goal is no easy task for any bot.

It seems they were trying to fix the 'easy matches shouldn't be rewarded' part and by doing so they created many more problems than they had. This isn't like a sporting event, major league and minor league teams don't play against eachother and thus how many points they score and how many points they PREVENT their opponents from scoring measures how good they are.

Having to score for your opponents to get your rightly deserved points is ridiculous in the first place.

I think if you're insulted by the other team scoring for you, you probably should take a look at the scoring system and you'll understand. If I do badly enough in a match that they have to score on themselves to get a good ranking, be my guest. I'd do it in their position.

It sort of makes me wish we had just put 25 on the offense in that match and used both 486 and our alliance partner to score on our own goal near the end so that we got a good ranking, but then again 25 didn't score all 137 points

There were a lot of good teams at NJ that were not ranked well... but they got picked as alliance partners, so I suppose we can say scouting to the rescue

[BobC]

Originally Posted by JoeCallahan

The scoring system has never made any real sense to me... unless you plan to put every team up against every combination of teams with every combination of alliance partners, you're going to get inaccurate results.

Some good team could go up against the best combinations of alliance partners and never win and not get many points, while some less-than- average robot who was up against the easiest teams could end up in the top eight.

I recall at the NJ regional, spike (293) had a great bot who, given the oppertunity, could score a ridiculous amount of points. I also recall after three or four matches they were in about 46th place.

We could also have a really really good team go up against a bunch of really really bad teams, or in one case score a ridiculous *cough 137* amount of points, but because their opponents only got 10 points they would not move up, but down in the rankings because other matches were much closer.

I understand FIRST's logic, that you should only award points based on how hard the match was, but how hard the match was can not be measured in points. If they want to do that they need to create a major league and a minor league. All good bots to the left, all bad bots to the right (which obviously they won't do.)

In the game this year the amount of points scored is based heavily on how hard you get hit by other bots, and it seems the bots who were best at hitting people were also the ones who couldn't really score any points. If there was a bot that was just a drive train with some strong motors and great turning/speed that just smacked 25 around, they wouldn't have had near as many points at the NJ regional. But just because your opponent didn't manage to get any points doesn't mean the match wasn't hard. Dodging three tank bots just to get a few points in the top goal is no easy task for any bot.

It seems they were trying to fix the 'easy matches shouldn't be rewarded' part and by doing so they created many more problems than they had. This isn't like a sporting event, major league and minor league teams don't play against eachother and thus how many points they score and how many points they PREVENT their opponents from scoring measures how good they are.

Having to score for your opponents to get your rightly deserved points is ridiculous in the first place.

I think if you're insulted by the other team scoring for you, you probably should take a look at the scoring system and you'll understand. If I do badly enough in a match that they have to score on themselves to get a good ranking, be my guest. I'd do it in their position.

It sort of makes me wish we had just put 25 on the offense in that match and used both 486 and our alliance partner to score on our own goal near the end so that we got a good ranking, but then again 25 didn't score all 137 points

There were a lot of good teams at NJ that were not ranked well... but they got picked as alliance partners, so I suppose we can say scouting to the rescue

Last year in Atlanta we were able to stack tetras 6 or 7 high almost every round. Which was very good, we could cap the center goal easily. At the end of day one we were dead last and no wins if I remember right.

[Lil' Lavery]

Challenging the ranking system is not going to really help. The RP system exists for more than just strength of schedule, as I have already pointed out in previous posts in this thread. The symbolism behind it is what is truly important.

[Hutch]

It's not gracious. It's not professional. It's just plain insulting and rude.

If you're so bent on winning that you do that, then FIRST is not for you.

[Joel J]

not so long ago teams would get some multiple of the loser's score, if they won. This "tweaking" of points that we are seeing at some competitions is like a remnant of that frame of mind.

[Bill Moore]

Originally Posted by Joel J.

not so long ago teams would get some multiple of the loser's score, if they won. This "tweaking" of points that we are seeing at some competitions is like a remnant of that frame of mind.

Since I wasn't in FIRST before 2001, I can't speak for earlier years, but in 2002 you received some form of the losers score. That is the first year I remember watching teams "descore" to cause their opponents to have fewer "ranking points". The 2002 game had "tethers" back to the end zone for additional points, and robots that obviously had lost would drive out of the end zone so they wouldn't count for bonus points. It wasn't frequent, but it did happen occasionally.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Hutch

It's not gracious. It's not professional. It's just plain insulting and rude.

If you're so bent on winning that you do that, then FIRST is not for you.

Please excuse me, but maybe FIRST is not for people who think that FIRST is not for someone else.

[meaubry]

The only reason that this issue even matters is because of tie breakers in seeding. Teams with the same number of wins are then ranked by the points derived by the formula that promotes scoring for the opponent, once the win/loss has been determined.
Which is often by the end of the auton period or the end of the next period - leaving the final period when everyone can score to decide what they will do.
I don't advocate scoring for the opponent - because I think thats demeaning and not worth upsetting the opponents feelings, but I do realize and understand why others may feel differently about this - and that is their choice.
What could have been done to eliminate this entire issue, is when they decided to go back to seeding using this method (it wasn't always like this), they could have used a formula that didn't encourage this kind of behaviour.
The problem with that is, there are times when point differential isn't the issue - its more a problem of what attributes the alliance has, and the number of robots that are working and play in the match.
On top of the problem with unbalanced alliances, often their are 3 team alliances, where 1 or 2 teams can carry the 3rd team to victory regardless of the score for either team. Scoring teams provide the next level of seeding for everyone in the alliance - even if some of them cannot score at all. This doesn't seem like a good way to determine which teams should be seeded above others - to me. Teams playing great defense don't get extra points for the team, but they do keep the score down (which is opposite of what the next level of seeding is based on). Something is wrong with this concept.
Using score differential as the next level tie breaker in seeding implies that the teams CAN score, but often that is NOT the case. 3 Defensive teams can win matches by outnumbering the scoring teams that have little or no help - 7 to 9, 8 to 10, whatever. Low scores with little point differential. The teams playing defense cannot afford to let the other team score for them and as the match progresses the teams are too busy trying to get enough of their own points, let alone worry about scoring for the other team.
I think if you are going to use the points for wins method to determine seeding, the second tier for ranking is going to be very difficult to determine and make it so everyone is going to be happy - perhaps just draw straws at the time of the alliance selection process would suffice and drop the formula scoring differential altogether as the tie breaker. All teams with 0 losses draw straws to determine which is higher ranked for alliance selection, then those with 1 loss, and on and on until the top 12 are determined - after all, beyond the top 12 seeding doesn't much matter.

[Bill Moore]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Please excuse me, but maybe FIRST is not for people who think that FIRST is not for someone else.

Isn't this statement a Catch-22 ?

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Isn't this statement a Catch-22 ?

No - it's oxymoronic, which is what the "Excuse me" was about.

[the_short1]

Originally Posted by meaubry

The only reason that this issue even matters is because of tie breakers in seeding. .....

[Claps] That is realy well put, although another way to fix would be to make it against the rules to score for your opponent, it woulnt fix everything, but would fix a lot i think.

BUt past the 12 seed is STILL important for some teams, if your 13/68 seed it feels beter then having (no rank) ... or having a 7way tie for 3-3-2 record is rediculous.

-kevin

[Zoheb N]

well this has not really been an issue for our team at Lone Star because the random alliances are pretty balanced out so almost every match the score is close, but like usual there are matches were an alliance just blows away the opposing alliance. i think our team has just gotten to the conclusion not to worry about it and just win.

[Jaine Perotti]

I think boosting your rank like this is very unfair. Is it legitimate? sure. But fair? no.

I honestly can't see why scoring for the other alliance can be interpreted as unfair. Scoring for your alliance partners has several benefits for both teams involved:

1) The winner of the match gets their ranking points increased.
2) The loser of the match gets their ranking points increased.

The way I see it, there is nothing un-GP about helping to raise the ranking points of the losing team. I think this shows a great deal more sportsmanship than if you were to completely shut down the opposing alliance.

That's not fair to the team's who truly WORKED to just pull out of a match and win by a single point.

Saying that this is not fair to the teams who "worked" to win a match does not make sense to me. It takes just as much "work" to score for your opponent as it does to score for yourself. Scoring for your opponent shows that you are competent strategists who have "worked" very hard to come up with a good game plan. Claiming that teams who score for their opponent don't "work as hard" as other teams, AND using this as further justification for the "unfairness" of scoring for the opponent - simply does not make much sense to me.

I believe that this is a legitimate game strategy. My team did this several times at the UTC New England Regional. No one approached us afterwards saying that this offended them.

It's not gracious. It's not professional. It's just plain insulting and rude.

If you're so bent on winning that you do that, then FIRST is not for you.

How does scoring for your opponent mean that you are "bent on winning"? If a team were so crudely "bent on winning", then I think they would be trying to completely shut down the opponsing the alliance, rather than help them by increasing their ranking points.

Far too often, people take occurrences on the playing field in much too personal a manner. In my team's case (and in many others), scoring for our opponent was never done to make them feel bad about their team's performance. The only reason we did this was to increase our ranking points. I don't see any legitimate reason for teams to see this as unfair - the only thing it does to them is increase their own ranking points.

If this happens to your team, don't take it so personally. It does not mean that your alliance parters think your robot is trash. You could have done poorly because you were having problems with your robot, or were placed on a not-so-hot alliance. Be glad that your opponents had the forethought and professionalism to make the loss not as hard on both your and their ranking points.

-- Jaine

[Justin]

Since you asked...

I think that the best possible thing for this years game would be to go back to seeding rounds and a double elimination tournament style of play. Why you ask? Simple it makes things more exciting by a factor of about 10. Think about this year's game (or any recent FIRST game post-2001) what is the most exciting part? The finals. Why? Because teams play each match like it is their last they put more on the line which makes things a lot more exciting. I would love to see a competition use this double elimination tournament style for this years game...hrm now if only I could find an off season competition. O:-) I know that FIRST couldn't go back to this full time because teams rightfully so have grown used to playing 8 matches a regional and I think this was a positive change. If you run into me at a competition someday I will give you my thoughts on "copertition."

Justin

[JoeCallahan]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

No - it's oxymoronic, which is what the "Excuse me" was about.

Actually it's not oxymoronic because it does not contradict itself in itself, it's more hypocritical than anything else. Saying that "Stupid people call people stupid" doesn't mean that stupid people both do and don't call stupid people stupid, it only means that you believe you, yourself, are stupid.