Ranking

[Tanner]

Originally Posted by IKE

Nope, Bongle is right. They are defending their own goals and thus 2 bots are allowed to hang out at home.

Yep, it is wierd, but correct.

Our team was considering that once for one of our matches, but decided against it as we hoped that our new and improved suction device would work better. Results? We lost with a score of zero anyway.

-Tanner

[mariak37]

Actually, this was what our alliance did for our last qualification match, at the KC regional. We'd noticed the system didn't seem fair (why should the losing team get the points that the winning team scored?) so our alliance scored in the other alliance's goals. It ended up 13-0 with one penalty, so they had 13 QPs and we had 14. It was interesting, because we actually ended up playing defense in front of our own goals.

I agree that the system at least needs to be revised, to place more emphasis on wins and losses and less on the scores. Another problem that you could run into is that a blowout gives both alliances more QPs than a hard-fought match with well-played defense, where the score ends up, say, 2-3. It is also probably better for a losing team to lose by a lot-not a way to encourage continued scoring even if you're down.

A final problem is that all the hullaballoo about ranking points means that teams may have to entirely change their strategies between qualification matches and finals.

[ttldomination]

Originally Posted by Tanner

Our team was considering that once for one of our matches, but decided against it as we hoped that our new and improved suction device would work better. Results? We lost with a score of zero anyway.

-Tanner

Hahaha, we changed our strategy three times. The first plan was to purposefully take the loss, then we decided to play, thirty seconds into the match we decided to back off and just take the loss.

- Sunny