I find this way of ranking very funny. For the first time in my life, I might be actually trying to win, but in fact I might be actually losing even more…
The one benefit I can see to the new ranking rules is that I get rewarded more for beating a stronger alliance than a weaker alliance, and I get hurt less by losing to a stronger alliance than a weaker alliance.
This is all assuming a fair-played match with no collusion.
Exactly; the new seeding score is normalized by the difference in score. In the old system, beating a team 75-10 was the same as beating them 75-74. In the new system, it rewards you for having a close score (or, if you’re already high, it rewards you for scoring for the other team).
Oddly enough, 668 was rather under-ranked on Curie, scoring 24 balls in their first match then being subject to defense all weekend long. 1629, while an elimination caliber robot roughly on par with 469, had a slightly easier schedule than many. Perhaps this system somewhat corrects for that?
I’m interested to see Andrew’s data, corrected to include Coopertition Points.