OPR vs Coopertition Strategies

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

Now I'm a bit confused; this post shows that the new seeding algorithm keeps the ranking order more or less the same (using last years data). The post you linked shows a completely different result.

Which is actually correct?

You are looking at two different sets of scores, but regardless, I think you still can see the same thing in each. Here are two cases:

Curie 2009
-- Team 668 was in 44th place. According to the new seeding, they are now in 3rd.

Newton 2009
-- Team 1629 was in 8th place. According to the new seeding, they are now in 22nd.

Those are huge changes, as how they impact the teams. If you had team that totally dominated before, 75-0, for example, that team doesn't do any better than the teams they just beat, and perhaps if there had been a penalty - they would actually do worse than the teams they just beat.

[DanDon]

Originally Posted by SteveGPage

You are looking at two different sets of scores, but regardless, I think you still can see the same thing in each. Here are two cases:

Curie 2009
-- Team 668 was in 44th place. According to the new seeding, they are now in 3rd.

Newton 2009
-- Team 1629 was in 8th place. According to the new seeding, they are now in 22nd.

Those are huge changes, as how they impact the teams. If you had team that totally dominated before, 75-0, for example, that team doesn't do any better than the teams they just beat, and perhaps if there had been a penalty - they would actually do worse than the teams they just beat.

Let's see if we can get this cleared up a bit. I believe that in Andrew's calculation he kept the seeding scores and the coopertition bonus separate, but I'm not sure. If that is indeed the case, that's where the two differ as I have the coopertition bonus added to the seeding scores in mine.

[Bomberofdoom]

I could be missing something, since I don't have much time to read the manuals (college and all), but don't ranking points COME BEFORE the coopertition points?

In games where you have a difference of 7 points, no problem over here, go get like 4 more goals to even it up, or even more if it seems possible that the opponents will not be able to turn the tide somehow from this move. You'd do that do add coopertition points to make sure you will be ranked first in you rank level (if someone else is 2nd place with you, your coopertition points will beat his, therefore you'll be above him in ranking). But if you are about 1-2 in point difference, I'd say forget about it. MAKE SURE YOU WIN, because 2 ranking/seeding points are much more important that 2 coopertition points, as it always was!

As I see it, the coopertition is just a tie-breaker for similar ranks.

Please do correct me, for I am confused of the comments in this topic.

[DanDon]

Originally Posted by Bomberofdoom

I could be missing something, since I don't have much time to read the manuals (college and all), but don't ranking points COME BEFORE the coopertition points?

In games where you have a difference of 7 points, no problem over here, go get like 4 more goals to even it up, or even more if it seems possible that the opponents will not be able to turn the tide somehow from this move. You'd do that do add coopertition points to make sure you will be ranked first in you rank level (if someone else is 2nd place with you, your coopertition points will beat his, therefore you'll be above him in ranking). But if you are about 1-2 in point difference, I'd say forget about it. MAKE SURE YOU WIN, because 2 ranking/seeding points are much more important that 2 coopertition points, as it always was!

As I see it, the coopertition is just a tie-breaker for similar ranks.

Please do correct me, for I am confused of the comments in this topic.

Nir- the coopertition bonus gets added on to your seeding score in addition to being a tie-breaker.

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by Bomberofdoom

I could be missing something, since I don't have much time to read the manuals (college and all), but don't ranking points COME BEFORE the coopertition points?

In games where you have a difference of 7 points, no problem over here, go get like 4 more goals to even it up, or even more if it seems possible that the opponents will not be able to turn the tide somehow from this move. You'd do that do add coopertition points to make sure you will be ranked first in you rank level (if someone else is 2nd place with you, your coopertition points will beat his, therefore you'll be above him in ranking). But if you are about 1-2 in point difference, I'd say forget about it. MAKE SURE YOU WIN, because 2 ranking/seeding points are much more important that 2 coopertition points, as it always was!

As I see it, the coopertition is just a tie-breaker for similar ranks.

Please do correct me, for I am confused of the comments in this topic.

I understand that college, and such can keep you busy, but take 5 minutes and read in the Tournament section 9.3 (especially 9.3.3 - 9.3.5). Ranking points are no longer a part of the game. There is no 2 points for a win. Totally different formula and philosophy. Please do read the manuals for this game!

[Passion]

I find this way of ranking very funny. For the first time in my life, I might be actually trying to win, but in fact I might be actually losing even more....

[DanDon]

Originally Posted by Passion

I find this way of ranking very funny. For the first time in my life, I might be actually trying to win, but in fact I might be actually losing even more....

The one benefit I can see to the new ranking rules is that I get rewarded more for beating a stronger alliance than a weaker alliance, and I get hurt less by losing to a stronger alliance than a weaker alliance.

This is all assuming a fair-played match with no collusion.

[leafy]

Originally Posted by DanDon

The one benefit I can see to the new ranking rules is that I get rewarded more for beating a stronger alliance than a weaker alliance, and I get hurt less by losing to a stronger alliance than a weaker alliance.

This is all assuming a fair-played match with no collusion.

Exactly; the new seeding score is normalized by the difference in score. In the old system, beating a team 75-10 was the same as beating them 75-74. In the new system, it rewards you for having a close score (or, if you're already high, it rewards you for scoring for the other team).

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by SteveGPage

You are looking at two different sets of scores, but regardless, I think you still can see the same thing in each. Here are two cases:

Curie 2009
-- Team 668 was in 44th place. According to the new seeding, they are now in 3rd.

Newton 2009
-- Team 1629 was in 8th place. According to the new seeding, they are now in 22nd.

Those are huge changes, as how they impact the teams. If you had team that totally dominated before, 75-0, for example, that team doesn't do any better than the teams they just beat, and perhaps if there had been a penalty - they would actually do worse than the teams they just beat.

Oddly enough, 668 was rather under-ranked on Curie, scoring 24 balls in their first match then being subject to defense all weekend long. 1629, while an elimination caliber robot roughly on par with 469, had a slightly easier schedule than many. Perhaps this system somewhat corrects for that?

I'm interested to see Andrew's data, corrected to include Coopertition Points.