Let’s say all the teams at a district event participate in The Noodle Agreement during qualification rounds. So the base is 40.
Let’s also say all alliances participate in Coopertition Stacks during quals. So the base is 40 + 40 = 80.
By following these two simple steps, every team in an event can start out with 80 points per qualification match with minimal effort.
If all scores are inflated across the event, there seems to be no individual gain. However, the point allocation for the District ranking system is a bit of an unknown right now, since W-L-T has been removed from the equation. Frank hinted at QA possibly replacing W-L-T.
This means that an entire district event could possibly have inflated ranking points when compared to another district in which teams don’t wish to participate in the controversial TNA or Coopertition strategies, which has interesting consequences for invitations to the District Championship or World Championship events.
I don’t have any inside knowledge, but I would expect the solution will be to allocate points based on final qualification ranking rather than average scores directly. Average scores always increase through the season.
By design all district events have the same number of qualification matches, so the average number of qualification points is fixed across all events1. This is even more important with the introduction of inter-District play this season.
1 Almost constant. Disqualified teams (no shows, not inspected & red cards) do decrease the average qualification points across events
That’s an excellent point I hadn’t considered. They can’t use points per match. It would hugely disadvantage robots at a weak district or robots that compete early in the season. Final rank is a better metric.
I can’t image the point model being very unexpected from a point breakdown perspective. They can’t and shouldn’t change the strategic requirements for the game by altering the priorities.
That being said, other than ranking by QA, I’m not sure how they would do it off the top of my head. The main issue I foresee is that you have a variable relationship between on field performance and awards, and that is likely a large concern of theirs…