What did everyone else think of the scoring situation?
I understand where the scoring rules come from, gracious professionalism, but this year it didn’t work out that way.
With all the collusion and whatnot, it was easily rigged.
If you were beating other robots and they realized it, they would knock down all their stacks or plow their boxes so you’re QP points would be lessened. It was really frustrating for our team especially because we definitely had a dominating robot. The problem was we just won too much. We earned high scores for ourselves but because our opposing teams sabotaged their scores, we didn’t seed well. Then I saw teams we had beat who were well ahead of us.
I hated the scoring system.
If you had a very strong robot that could achieve a total victory, you would in the end be penalized, since a close game among weaker robots would rocket QP’s upward.
The idea, I think, was that teams would not crush their opponents with a score of, say, 60-0, with one robot going offense to knock down opposing stacks, bins, etc, and another guarding the ramp.
The 3x the losers score concept was to make the game more challenging by making it unprofitable for teams to “own” the field during the match, and rake up massive scores while decreasing your opponents scores.
Unfortunately, it made for a game that depended, in my opinion, too heavily on luck. I saw teams that obviously should not have been seeded high been in the finals, picking alliances. All due to the randomness of the game.
If I were in charge, I would make a score more of a function of a robot’s compatibility - my scoring system would remove the 3x the losers, and lessen points for controlling spaces. I mean, plowing bins does not take creativity or ingenuity.
Making something - a stack, etc, does. Those things should be rewarded, not bulldozers. Simple robots that are not creative should not be rewarded.
I agree with you 100%.
*Originally posted by sanddrag *
**Ah, here it goes. **
I know how you feel, buddy…