Worst Scoring System in Years

[xavior06]

it was fun all working together in 2001, wish they brought that back...

[gburlison]

Originally Posted by jpsaul7usa

I agree with Cory. Last year was my team's rookie year and our drive system was absolutely horrible (trust me, I built it and drove the bot). We were incredibly lucky during the qualifying rounds at had excellent allies and placed 5th out of 37 teams at the AZ Regionals by the time the elimation rounds began. I want to call it a fluke because we hardly could do anything on the field because our bot could barely drive anywhere. We never even made it on top of the ramp or stacked boxes when we needed to. In my opinion we coasted by last year because of some lucky rounds (77-76 point win) in which our allies almost completely won by themselves. When it came time for finals we got creamed by out higher-quality opponents.

Do you really think it was a fluke? I have not spent much time researching the match listings, however, I think part of the alliance pairing algorithm that FIRST uses intentionally pairs newer teams with older teams. This increases the chance that a new team will rank highly based on getting lucky and being paired with good teams. It also prevents veteran teams from being paired with other veteran teams and running away with the entire competition as they overpower the newer teams. In your case last year I think that the game worked as FIRST intended. It allowed you the chance to compete and during the finals the better teams beat your inferior bot. You may have coasted to a higher rank than you deserved, but did you win the regional? No, did you deserve to? No. I think the system worked just like FIRST expected. I think that there is too much emphasis on the overall rank. With the alliance selection process a good robot that does not rank highly will get selected by one of the top seeds and end up on one of the top alliances.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by gburlison

I have not spent much time researching the match listings, however, I think part of the alliance pairing algorithm that FIRST uses intentionally pairs newer teams with older teams.

This is correct. I've spent some time discussing match scheduling with FIRST this season. The algorithm does have a provision which tries to place older teams with younger teams. It's not always possible, but an attempt is made.

[Rick]

Eugene you have several options.

1. (the one you already picked) Complain on Chief Delphi to get everyones attention.
2. Play the game. This system should be of no suprise, you had 6 weeks and then some to realize what it was all about.
3. Go to the forum at the end of the season to tell FIRST how you feel. Come up with postive criticism and present things you like and dont like. Then everyone will be happy! yay...

[Jake177]

My only problem with this year's scoring system is the way that it handles penalties. I feel that, instead of points being subtracted from the penalized alliance's score, they should have been added to the other alliance's score. If the penalized alliance loses, then both alliances are penalized with lower RPs. Other than that, I completely approve of this year's system.

[Steve Shade]

I'm going to be a bit cynical here, but add some reality to the discussion.

I've always said FIRST is very much like a micro-real world experience. Competitive alliances are becoming a larger part of the real world experience. In my day job, we are involved with at least 2 now between my group and groups of other companies/organizations. There are winners and losers. In the real world, if you aren't on the winning side, you don't continue to work. There are also bad losers too who (in FIRST terms) "knock down our stacks" or "pull their goals out at the last second to leave us with no QP's" That is part of life, but our society says that winning is important, and you play to win by the rules laid down. The scoring system is the rules we play by, and this year the game and scoring system reflect the idea to curb the "bad losers" who in my opinion, don't help anyone. All we can do is evaluate the entire system after all the dust settles. I personally think this year strongly represents a tie to the real world more than any year since alliances were started.


Steve

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Jake177

My only problem with this year's scoring system is the way that it handles penalties. I feel that, instead of points being subtracted from the penalized alliance's score, they should have been added to the other alliance's score. If the penalized alliance loses, then both alliances are penalized with lower RPs. Other than that, I completely approve of this year's system.

That idea is awesome.

Currently if a team breaks the rules, and then loses the match; the only innocent people to suffer will be the winning team, they just lost QPs. That's almost like rewarding the team that broke the rules.

[George1902]

Originally Posted by Eugene

For example a team that wins gets the opponent’s score (to prevent bullying) plus X amount of points for winning.

Great idea!! Let's give any team who wins 2 points. We'll call these points "ranking points." Then we make sure everyone gets the loser's score to prevent bullying. We'll call these "qualifying points."

I think you've come up with the perfect system, Eugene! But for some wierd reason, it sounds familiar...

[suneel112]

Yeah, strength of competition should also be a factor. We didn't win so much, but we got picked by the #1 alliance (which never picks terrible robots, at least not if its 111). [p.s. Thank you Wildstang, 461 loves you!]
I also think strenght of alliances should be a factor. If you have a good robot, but get allied with cardboard boxes, that leaves too much to good (or absolutely terrible) luck.

[JMB1786]

I have to say that this is a great scoring system. This year a team's first priority is to go into a match with what they built their robot to do...its no longer "well let me perform well and then if im going to be penalized for doing well let me go try to score points for my opponents." QP's still play a big part in this years game...if youre in the middle of the pack you will be higher than those that didnt score as much. but by putting Wins & Losses first and QP's second teams are ranked more for their strong performances and less for their ability to balance scores or inflate a losing alliances score and at least at the BAE regional it seemed that for the most part if you did well you were rewarded with a higher rank.

Originally Posted by Karthik

This is correct. I've spent some time discussing match scheduling with FIRST this season. The algorithm does have a provision which tries to place older teams with younger teams. It's not always possible, but an attempt is made.

What? I thought partner and opposition assignment was completely random! This makes certain things very unfair. As you said, FIRST makes an "attempt" to put veterans w/ rookies. That means sometimes they can't, and some rookies get ripped off.

But, back to the original topic of this thread:

A high number of wins indicates a robot and team that can do what the game called for consistently, no matter who their opponents or partners are. A high number of points only indicates that the robot and team can score high consistently. That would also mean that hanging teams would often score higher than others. An emphasis on wins indicates that you must adapt your strategy to meet challenges from your opponent. This might mean you have to score lower to beat them. Thus, you are rewarded for being a real scientist or engineer. You're being creative and you're completing the objective.

[10intheCrunch]

Didn't Dean say FIRST wasn't meant to be fair?

I love the new scoring system, by the way. We are able to stick to our strategy and play against the robots in front of us, not the entire pack all at once...though I would like to see, instead of the points of the losing alliance as seeders, the strength of schedule (wins/losses), head to head matchups and record vs common opponents to break ties.

[miketwalker]

I don't see why almost everyone's complaining about the scoring system. No matter what there will be a problem. The fact that there are these changes make teams more careful. For example, with the penalty system... it makes teams want to be more cautious cause it hurts everybody in the end. I think that this being a "terrible" scoring system in some peoples minds... is just that it's different. If it were the same each year, boy would that get boring. Changing it around makes you have to change a bit to coup with the problems you'll encounter. If anything it adds to the game.

[Andy Baker]

I like the scoring system, and it's better than any other year's system.

It's easy to understand. People understand wins, losses, and ties. This system is just like the process of rankings (conference and league rankings, not polls) in professional and college sports, so it is a proven system that works.

Andy B.

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by Will Hanashiro

i'd argue the opposite... i feel that this is one of the best scoring systems FIRST has come up with. its easy for any parent or viewer to follow, and i also feel that wins is what determines a dominant robot, not QP's.

Mabey if your parent or viewer was a high performance computer, then mabey. I'm sorry, but how can this scoring system be so easy if there are 2 levels of ranking with numerous calculations just to figure out who is at the top? Compare that to last years where it's just your's plus your opponents score (or so I can remember). Not bad at all. Compare this to this year's where you need to know their win-loss record, their current QP average, and other things! Even someone like me who studies the book didn't know and wanted to make sure I was doing it right!

FIRST, just go back to last year's system. It's fast, easy, and simple to use.

*edit*not saying that this year's is bad, but I think last year's was easier to remeber and use*edit*