If YOU were the GDC...

[logank013]

I've said this since week 3 to my team mates but we'll see how others feel about this. I'd change the ranking point system slightly. This years ranking system was far better than just W-L-T, but it still caused some problems in Indiana in my opinion. Breaching became the guaranteed point for every match (only missed a few times in quals at IN DCMP). Capturing happened 79 out of 124 possible times (63.7%) at IN DCMP too. Much of the ranking system became a who has the best schedule (who can win the most) and caused some odd results.

Adding onto my issues with the ranking system, I thought we should add in the component of winning margin somehow. Odds are, the team that wins every match by 40 points is probably better than the robot that barely wins every match. A solution one of my team members had was adding another RP for every 30 points you won by (not joint, per match.). So if you won your match by 60 points, you added 2 more ranking points. If you won two matches by 45 points, you would not add the winning margins together to get 3 more RPs. It would be only 2 since each happened in a different match.

Finally, I think to get the capture ranking point, only your robot has to be on the batter. So in quals, if your tower strength was at 0 or less, you'd get the capture RP by your robot on the batter. So if in a match, an alliance wins and gets the breach, that is 3 RPs. The fourth RP gets added if your robot is on the batter. So if team A and Team B are on the batter and Team C rolls off, Team A and B would get 4 RPs for that match while Team C got 3 RPs for the match instead of all three teams getting only 3 RPs. This would not change anything for elims. You only get the 25 points if all three robots are on the batter at the end.

[dirtbikerxz]

Originally Posted by logank013

A solution one of my team members had was adding another RP for every 30 points you won by (not joint, per match.). So if you won your match by 60 points, you added 2 more ranking points.

But this goes against ur complaint of teams just having lucky match schedules. What if a barely okay alliance went up against a super crappy alliance and won by 60 points. Does that mean they are a good alliance?

[logank013]

Originally Posted by dirtbikerxz

But this goes against ur complaint of teams just having lucky match schedules. What if a barely okay alliance went up against a super crappy alliance and won by 60 points. Does that mean they are a good alliance?

I definitely see your point but that is a one time scenario. The point of the winning margin RPs would be for teams that consistently win by 30 points or more. So say we stuck 2056 in a competition with a bunch of teams that can't even shoot a boulder. Then the teams paired with 2056 who would win by at least 60 points a match would have a 1 time 2 RP bonus where 2056 would have a 10 time 2 RP bonus. Does that make sense? So schedule would still factor into this but the teams that are consistently better than the rest of the field should still end up at the top of the field by earning those extra winning margin RPs. Does that make sense?

[dirtbikerxz]

Originally Posted by logank013

I definitely see your point but that is a one time scenario. The point of the winning margin RPs would be for teams that consistently win by 30 points or more. So say we stuck 2056 in a competition with a bunch of teams that can't even shoot a boulder. Then the teams paired with 2056 who would win by at least 60 points a match would have a 1 time 2 RP bonus where 2056 would have a 10 time 2 RP bonus. Does that make sense? So schedule would still factor into this but the teams that are consistently better than the rest of the field should still end up at the top of the field by earning those extra winning margin RPs. Does that make sense?

It makes sense, but in that case, if you stuck a crappy bot with 2056 (with the current system) ya they will get 4 ranking points that one match, but in most of their other matches they will only get 1 max, where as 2056 will get consistent 4 ranking points.

[EricH]

When strength-of-schedule is used as ranking, or to affect gameplay, life gets extremely interesting.

Witness: 2010's coopertition bonus.
Witness: 2009's G14 (loss of ability to score some number of points).

And FIRST has never used the difference in score to give blowouts a boost. They've preferred close matches.

[logank013]

Originally Posted by dirtbikerxz

It makes sense, but in that case, if you stuck a crappy bot with 2056 (with the current system) ya they will get 4 ranking points that one match, but in most of their other matches they will only get 1 max, where as 2056 will get consistent 4 ranking points.

In the current ranking system, getting 4 Rps is an easy thing to do in IN if you have the win. So getting extra ranking points based on margin would encourage more high goals than low goals. Maybe if we changed this to every 5 more high goals your alliance gets over the other alliance per match will earn you 1 more ranking point. I feel like it effectively does the same thing as the winning margin but is a little different.

I think the point I was trying to get to by adding in winning margin was to have more matches that had 6 to 2 ranking points rather than capping at 4 to 2. It makes scoring much more important. A team like 1024 who is amazing had issues with their W-L-T record hurting their rank at their IN events. In many of the wins, they could have boosted their rank by having winning margin involved. Does this still make any sense or am I just beating a dead horse at this point? Thanks for the feedback

[dirtbikerxz]

Originally Posted by logank013

In the current ranking system, getting 4 Rps is an easy thing to do in IN if you have the win. ... Does this still make any sense or am I just beating a dead horse at this point? Thanks for the feedback

No it makes sense . And ya I get what your saying. Something like this will have to be regulated on a event to event basis though. I understand how this can be useful at IN, but if this was done at a event like Bayou, than the entire system would just crash and burn...epicly.

[logank013]

Originally Posted by dirtbikerxz

No it makes sense . And ya I get what your saying. Something like this will have to be regulated on a event to event basis though. I understand how this can be useful at IN, but if this was done at a event like Bayou, than the entire system would just crash and burn...epicly.

Yeah. Agreed entirely. I don't know how accurate it is but I like to think Indiana is one of the best regions this year. Because of this, RPs really came down to W-L-T in many cases because the other two RPs were fairly evenly distributed across the board. But obviously in an area where teams are still struggling to breach, then the current system probably has no issues.

[CJ_Elliott]

Full court shots from human player in last 20 seconds.

[Whatever]

I would have moved the tower strength to 11 (instead of 10) for Worlds.

[bdaroz]

Originally Posted by Whatever

I would have moved the tower strength to 11 (instead of 10) for Worlds.

Because it's one louda?

Sorry, couldn't resist....

[Peyton Yeung]

Originally Posted by Whatever

I would have moved the tower strength to 11 (instead of 10) for Worlds.

Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Peyton Yeung

Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc

Make it loud indeed.

[Road Rash]

I approve the last 4 posts.