Worst Scoring System in Years

[JVN]

So... you can't make everybody happy ALL the time...

FIRST has received feedback over the years, from many sources (including this forum) that teams are sick of "being undefeated, but still seeded low". This is a viable solution to that problem.

I like the way this system has been integrated. I think it presents an interesting dynamic to the "game".

I'm a HUGE fan of the new system, and think it is one of the best we've seen.
Thank you FIRST!



*JVN gives his seal of approval*


John


*Seal may not be valid in all 50 states...

[RogerR]

ok, how about this scenerio:

team A has an offensive robot.
team B has a defensive robot.

through out the qualifying matches, team A does poorly, losing every match, but comes out with a avg. score of 25. team B on the other hand, wins every match with a score of 5 pts by, though some ingenous strategy, completly denying its opponents the ability to score.

point based ranking would put team A in the lead.
win based ranking would put team B in the lead.

personally, i think that team B performed better, but the definition of 'performance' changes from person to person.

[Jones571]

No matter what people wont be happy. We should just go with it for know and talk about it in the FIRST forums they have around the counrty. I personaly belive this is the best scoring system in my 4 years of FIRST.

[Eugene]

I agree with Reger that previous scoring systems put defensive teams at a disadvantage, which I agree is totally unfair.

However, I think that some sort of a combination of systems would be far mare accurate at assessing the team’s overall performance. For example a team that wins gets the opponent’s score (to prevent bullying) plus X amount of points for winning. This way the defensive team would still be able to attain good ranks while a team that ends up competing against tough opponents would not end last.

Eugene

[Cory]

Again, I dont see your argument. How do you define better performing? a team like 365/71 in 2002 would dominate the competition. Guess what, they scored darn near zero points because their strategy was only really good in the eliminations.

I know this isnt 2002, but there are robots that do one thing really well, like blocking the bar, or harrassing other robots, and keeping them from effectively completing their objectives. Neither of these types will score a lot of points, but they can be very good robots, that effectively achieve the game's challenges, and WIN. This is a competition, points dont matter, theyre only the means to a win.

So, in the NFL, the top team is the team with the best win/loss record. Let's say that they score on average, 21 points per game, but they go 16-0. Now let's say the last place team is 8-8, but has scored a total of 600 points, because they blew out inferior opponents multiple times, but lost 8 times. What you're saying is that even though they lost half their games, they got lots of points, so they should be #1 above an undefeated team, even though they didnt win!

Eugene-what you just described is this year's system... Adding a constant number of points onto the winning team's score does nothing but uniformly raise *all* winning scores, making them look higher than they effectively are.

Cory

[Eugene]

My general position on defensive vs. offensive strategy:

FIRST is supposed to represent what the world should strive to be. A world, where there are more participants than spectators. A world that rewards those that make it a better place.

Let’s start with the definitions.

An offensive robot works by performing better than the opponent.
A defensive robot works by disrupting the performance of the opponent and preventing him to do what he is designed to do.

Now let’s apply that to some real world situations.

Would you prefer a market system in which companies compete to deliver a superior product vs. a market system in which the companies use various other means to force their opponents out of business?

Would you like to be in a soccer game were pushing (although the contemporary society will probably like this idea) is allowed therefore players that are heavier, which is a trait that is irrelevant to soccer performance consistently beat players that are actually skilled at maneuvering the ball?

Going back to robotics, I think that the game would be much more entertaining if the robots were trying to outperform each other instead of having one robot prevent the other from doing what it is supposed to do thereby resulting in a game were robots just end up sitting on the field.

To sum up, the life of a person is not about winning or losing, it is about performing and allowing others to do their best.

Good Luck to all this season!!!

Eugene

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Cory

Eugene-what you just described is this year's system... Adding a constant number of points onto the winning team's score does nothing but uniformly raise *all* winning scores, making them look higher than they effectively are.

Cory

Cory,

I guess I misunderstood your argument as well. Did not you say that teams that win deserve to rank higher? If so, than raising the score of all winners would insure that. Furthermore, by continuing to use the performance as a factor in ranking we would favor the better performing teams over those that simply got lucky by being paired with a weaker opponent.

Eugene

[Eric Bareiss]

The only difference I see is this years system eliminates the significance of freak matches.

In 2002 if you win your match 70-0 and your apponents got DQ'd you got 210 qualifying points. If you get any reasonable amount of points for the rest of your matches you would have seeded 1st (this did happen). This year you would get 2 points for winning and move on.

I think if anything the scoring system does a better job of showing robot performance. It shows how good you are at winning. If all you had to do is score one ball more than your apponent why would you do more? If you had 10 balls and they only had 4 why would you hang?

[Bob92]

I love the new scoring system. As for the data I believe it might be a little squed. Most team will do enough to win (as they should). They do not blow out the competition everytime but play smart. They play efense as well as offense. I don't think one match where you score 200pts should boost you in rank. Wins shows consistent preformance and that is why it is FAIR.

[Greg Perkins]

this game rocks...hands down...



if you dont like it...dont bring it here because a majority of the people in first who have been here a while LOVE this new system.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Greg Perkins

if you dont like it...dont bring it here because a majority of the people in first who have been here a while LOVE this new system.

Therefore the opinions of minority do not deserve to be heard? I did not expect that from someone who has been in FIRST for many years. Remember that our biggest award is for collaboration with other people in making FIRST a better place for everyone. Robots are just something that brings us together.

Eugene

[Greg Perkins]

the only reason i say that is because a team will complain about how first cheated them and etc., all im saying is i have always been against the former system, and have always prayed that they would change it. and they have...


now that there is a feesable system that caters to what the aspect of first is... teams that dont do well argue that the systems is unfair and whatnot, but truthfully, its the best way to get other outside sources interested in the game...

you dont know hard it was to explain 2001-2003's game to people...and how they seed. now its simple...best record=best seed



so sorry if i came off crabby..but its the only way it should be done

[Eugene]

If you noticed, my team did FAR better according to the new scoring system.

Eugene

[RoteAugen]

Originally Posted by Cory

This game is not defined by points, it is defined by wins.

Your argument is irrelevant.

Cory

APPLAUSE

[RoteAugen]

Originally Posted by Eugene

Therefore the opinions of minority do not deserve to be heard? I did not expect that from someone who has been in FIRST for many years. Remember that our biggest award is for collaboration with other people in making FIRST a better place for everyone. Robots are just something that brings us together.

Eugene

why you anti-utilitarian you!

to paraphrase their main point:
"The wants of the many outweigh the wants of the few, or the one"

and judging by the poll results, the game this year is probably the best it has ever been.... and most agree. Another thing to keep in mind: deservance is a subjective term. many do not believe in one deserving certain things unconditionally, ie being heard in a cacophony of other opinions.