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.
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.
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 
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.
In theory, I like the game theory addition but I think in practice it has significant drawbacks.
First, it adds to the complexity of an already pretty complex to explain game (GeeToo’s 50 word explanation above not withstanding).
Second, it adds to the fun for super fans but doesn’t confuses the snot out of the causual fan (explain again why does that team get a free pass and also an impregnable defense?).
Third, if you don’t actually set up the defenses and then then change them to Fields and Keeps after the fact, the strategy is pretty much going to be lost on anyone but the drive teams of those involved, but if you do that, an already crazy cycle time gets even longer.
Finally, I am worried how things work in practice. Have we opened up a hole that lets folks break the game by enabling strategy that wins every time.
But… …I wouldn’t mind trying this out at an afterglow competition if one of them decided that they wanted give it a go.
Nice post.
Dr. Joe J.
Full court shots from human player in last 20 seconds.
I would have moved the tower strength to 11 (instead of 10) for Worlds.
Because it’s one louda?
Sorry, couldn’t resist…
Why don’t you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Make it loud indeed.
I approve the last 4 posts.
Well, since you asked…
I would have replaced the boulders with totes, the outer defenses with scoring platforms, and the midline with a step.
That’s right, more Recycle Rush!!! Most exciting game ever!
jk - I think I would rather watch grass grow.
While many teams shots might not be blockable, those tall opaque robots might happen to block many teams vision tracking systems. Most of the systems are mounted down low, so maybe courtyard defenders won’t be entirely useless?
I mean you’re technically right, but if your tall opaque robot was previously a short, defense-crossing robot and you cheesecaked on a wall, you might run the issue of being called for purposely obstructing their vision from R9C.
IIRC, most refs will tend to favor the offensive robot in those calls, and your alliance risks failing inspection if the RI believes that your blocker exists for more than boulder blocking.
From the Q&A and related discussion, my understanding was that if your blocker exists for blocking shots, the cheesecaked wall would be perfectly legal.
If the cheesecake wall exists singularly to block/interfere with cameras, it wouldn’t be allowed.
EDIT-
To get this post back on topic, If I were the GDC I would eliminate rules based on intent. Things either happen or they don’t, but there’s quite a bit that we didn’t mean to do.
Your interpretation is correct, but how do you create the line between an expansive shot blocker and a wall to block cameras?
If I was to grab a 4’x4’ sheet of black fabric and create a frame for it such that it widened my blocking wall for boulders, I could make the argument that its purpose is to increase blocking surface area, but the opposing alliance could claim that your ulterior motive is to mess with their camera.
From the Q&A
A. A device which is not specifically intended to interfere with the remote sensing capabilities of another ROBOT, but merely happens to be in the way of that ROBOT sensing a desired object, while intended for other functions(such as blocking shots), would not be a violation of R9-C.
If your camera is mounted low then you knew the possibility existed for someone to drive in front of you. Its probably better if we don’t make this another intent rule, where an official has to try to figure out what your team is thinking.