Summary of Ranking System

I am surprised to see the following rules are in place:

3 scores contribute to a team’s overall rank.

1: Qualification score

  • Winning teams get 2 points
  • Losing temas get 0 points
  • teams that tie get 1 point

2: Ranking Score

  • Winning team’s ranking score is equal to the unpenalized score of the losing alliance
  • Losing team’s RS is equal to their score including penalties
  • Teams that tie receive a RS of their final score
  • A team’s overall ranking score is equal to their total ranking score divided by the number of matches played and truncated to two decimals

3: Coopertition score

  • Teams that lend minibots to their alliance (and those robots score) receive 1 Cooperation point

I like it :slight_smile: Makes sense to me!

Coopertition has zero effect on rank.

imo this has a massive impact on overall strategy. In this situation the penalty for playing defense (lack of yourself scoring) is much smaller than last year where a team’s score was the only input in the seeding algorithm.

Except large parts of the field forbid defense.

I checked how the seeding system goes and I think I got it down.

First your record for wins, ties, and losses are checked.
This determine “tiers” of initial ranking.

Within “tiers,” teams with the same amount of qualification points,
Ranking points are used to determine seeding position.
Teams sharing the same tier and ranking points will be seeded randomly.

Does anyone know what the significance of the Coopertition points are?

Is it just to determine who wins the Coopertition award? (Or, more accurately, the “most loaned minibot” award, since there is no other source of Coopertition points this year?)

Personally, I don’t like this ranking system. Yes it’s simple, but causes a lot of stress. At most regionals two losses means you’re out of the top eight.

Absolutely nothing (I checked and rechecked the rules), and it makes me very happy. :slight_smile:

For all Technical Purposes:
From 5.3.7
“The FMS will use the following seeding method:
• TEAMS will be broken into tiers based on their qualification score. A tier is made up of all TEAMS with the same qualification score. Tiers will be seeded in decreasing order by qualification score.
• Within each tier, TEAMS will be seeded in decreasing order by their ranking score.
• If any TEAMS within a tier have the same ranking score, they will then be seeded in decreasing order by their highest match score.
• If any TEAMS within a tier have the same ranking score and the same highest match score, then they will be seeded based on a random sorting by the FMS.”
Co-opertition score effects your rank in no way, it appears just to be a score judges will like to look at

I agree. The last couple years, our team has been seeded in the top 15. With this new system, two bad rounds or a bad inspection could easily put us out of the running.

Last year was the only year in recent memory that did not use W-L-T as a primary ranking system.

I’m wondering if there is an opportunity for the two alliances to cooperate a bit to drive up their ranking score. Suppose each alliance agreed to throw 3 (or 4) game pieces directly into the other alliance’s scoring area. These could be scored easily to drive up the ranking score and the rest of the match would proceed normally.

Facilitating scoring for your opponents is nothing new–1114 ruffled a few feathers (but totally did nothing wrong) in 2006 when they lit up their opponent’s goal in a safely-put-away match–but Tom’s hit on the best way to handle it this year. You can’t directly score for your opponents without getting flagged five ways to Friday, but parking game pieces would allow you to tighten up a put-away match.

(Cue human players working on their arc throws to land directly on the grid…)