Ranking Point Threshold

Should they change the ranking point threshold for FIM Championship and other district events and world’s? Should they raise the cargo threshold to 25 or maybe the climb threshold to 22 or something? This year it seems that at the higher levels these will be very easily attainable.

Fair amount of discussion already started here:


I know I just wanted a separate and more recognizable thread.

1 Like

It’s a good thought for the next game (ie. next year). But I’m inclined against this year.

1 Like

Even at worlds?


So a few notes. They really cant change it for DCMP since Israel already had theirs, and if they change it for one DCMP they need to change it for all. CMP they could, but the lack of language in the rules manual to allow changing is interesting, and I wonder if that would preclude them from changing it.

1 Like

Yeah I realized after posting that it couldn’t really happen until CMP. I feel like there’s a chance they’re considering it. In worlds, that 20 point ranking point can almost be attained by one robot alone in most matches. The climbing ranking point as proved to not be that difficult either. Just a thought…

I admit it doesn’t delineate very well. But in reality, this year the game is a pure points game and nothing they do is going to change that.

My Biggest problem with this years RP’s is that they roughly equal in difficulty. I feel that one should be significantly harder than the other.

1 Like

Agreed. They both seem equally as challenging. Raising at least one of the thresholds might change strategy a little more than just… Score more than the other team lol

1 Like

I think I’d have liked 7 in Auto or maybe 8.

As an alternative 16 climb with 3 robots climbing.

The last is by far the hardest (perhaps, depends on what your district / regional looks like)
The first may not raise the bar enough.

1 Like

In our district the climbing ranking point was very easy to come by and very common, the cargo one not as much but still seemed way too easy and even easier at DCM.

I find this topic coming up now to be a little odd… other threads in the past couple of weeks have been complaining about the dominance of the 1 seed. It seems to me that, if the system is generating good rankings, then it doesn’t need to change. I wrote a script against the TBA API. It looked at every event so far this season and counted the number of winners/finalists for each rank.

This actually shows a great correlation between ranking and playoff performance.

Winning teams drops off sharply, as the first seed wins most events and their first pick is generally one of the next few teams (with their third pick being more or less randomly distributed, with an expected uptick later in the rankings due to the serpentine draft order).

Finalist teams peaks at 3 - what you would expect if the ranking system was highly indicative of on-field ability. The first seed picks the second, leading to the third being the second ranked alliance. Then 3 picks 4, and so on - again, with the third pick being more or less randomly distributed (again an uptick later in the rankings due to the serpentine order).

Changing the ranking point threshold may have an impact on team’s match strategies, but from what we’re seeing here I don’t see any data that would say it’s needed in order to have an impact on the rankings.


Good analysis and conclusions, Jon. I just spotlighted this to emphasize that a proposal to change RP thresholds is really a proposal for a different game. My preference would be to let teams continue incremental improvement (iteration) toward perfecting capabilities and strategies for the game we have.


Interesting, I agree with these stats. I don’t think changing the thresholds would really change the ranking and results but more the strategy especially in quals.

At the regional/district level, the top teams could achieve the cargo RP nearly solo so they’d consistently get the cargo RP. The average teams, however, needed good partners to work together to achieve it, so they’d achieve the extra RP only occasionally. This is one of the main reasons the top teams seeded high and the top alliances have done so well.

Assuming the threshold is not changed, the top teams will continue to consistently get the cargo RP. But the average team (and their partners) at the championship will be much better than at the regionals, so now they’d be approaching getting the cargo RP consistently as well. So, we could have a situation where every above average team is getting the cargo RP so the rankings will come down to win-loss, which is more impacted by the random match schedule.


I’d love to see a quantitative analysis to show this. Without having the numbers behind it to show that this would be the case, it really just comes off as speculation.

1 Like

Look at the avg RP of the winning alliance captains and their 1st picks at the completed regionals/dcmps – from my casual observation they are well above 3.0 – this is who will be playing at champs. I think it is fair to say we will many matches at champs end 4RP & 2RP.


Likely this weekend and next weekend also, at several DCMPs.

Plus a few Regionals that are stacked. Looking especially at Green Country.

I agree this will be a very common thing. Which is why I’m wondering is this something we’re okay with at the championship level?

At least at the Michigan Championship, I firmly believe both ranking points will surpass the 50th percentile by far.