A different perspective on the ranking system

[Tknee]

I'm a little disappointed by all the anger at the ranking system and strategies that attempt to maximize one's QPs.

You may dismiss my opinion because I have not been active with a team since '01 and have not volunteered in an event since WAT '06. Despite that, I have been following competitions via webcasts every year. Maybe by doing so, my perspective is a bit different from everyone elses'. Also shaping my opinion is my love for board games.

I do not see individual matches as the "game" but as a "turn/interaction" in a much larger game. I see the entire qualifying rounds as the game, with the objective of rising up the standings or standing out so that you feel confident that you will be drafted into an alliance.

When you see matches as only a turn in the larger game, it is much easier to see the benefit of scoring on one's own goal. You're less weighed down on wanting to beat your opponents in a single match, but in advancing your agenda for the competition.

Furthermore, your opponents in the game are not the teams in the opposite alliance, but all the other teams at the event. During a match you are executing an interaction between your fellow alliance members and the opposite alliance members at the expense of all the other teams.

Because many of you have not heard of the board games I'd use as an analogy, let me use the analogy of trades in a Monopoly game. Often in a Monopoly games, trades are made between two players that will benefit the participants by granting Monopolies to the two players benefiting both parties. The trades may not always be "fair" in that the benefits are not equal, but you are limited to your circumstances (properties/cash on hand). However, both parties have benefitted more than the other players who have not participated in the trade.

With all that in mind, many different strategies become viable:

The one that I feel should be employed the most is one where an alliance has two defection curves which map relative to time, when (in terms of point difference) the alliance should begin and stop scoring on their own goal. The shape of the curves will have to depend on robot capabilities, but by dropping the notion that you shouldn't score on your own goal, both alliances benefit (the better alliance benefitting moreso).

Although I'm not against the 6 Vs 0 strategy, I feel it is inferior to the one posted above. You eliminate some of the risk due to penalties, but if you are the better alliance you get far more bang for your buck with a competitve score. There may be a time when the majority of the 6 robots want to protect a lead in the standings where it might be the better play.

QPs are not the end all and be all in the game though. Unlike some CD strategy posters whom I respect, I believe it may be beneficial to play defense in qualification matches. This is akin to the '02 Team 71 bot. If you wish to showcase that your robot's defensive prowness can dominate a match so that you attract the attention of the other teams - that is fine too. However, I have learnt that there is much to say for being able to choose your elimination alliance rather than rely on being picked.

Thus I'm a big proponent of having the six teams in a match coming to an entendre before the start of every match. This does not that you predetermine the final score and fix the match. It means you understand what each teams goals are and try to negotiate how the match will be played (will there be defence?). Here I feel GP is at work so that teams do not lie about their motivations.

Anyways I hope this softens some anger at the ranking system and I wish all the teams the best of luck and hopefully we'll see some exciting competition.

[Analog]

We were ranked third in the Kettering competition seeding. If we would have turned around and scored two goals on our own goal, we would have ended up seeded 2nd. This is counter intuitive, and is seen by some as anticompetitive. I think that's the real issue here.