Sunny wrote:Nothing...We just use the same ranking system that we were using last year.
Which was what? This?
ptwortman wrote:last year we did it by wins/losses as well as individual scores. i member this bc i had to write the scores for each team.
And I don't remember us making our own system cause FIRST's wasn't very good - it was just because we didn't plan.
-Tanner
Words of the Year: Tautology, Hysteresis, Buxom, Purvey
"Crossing into established events is strictly forbidden. Except for cheap tricks." - Doctor Who
"Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense you're just not keeping up." - Doctor Who
So what is this method? Sort by wins first and then by what?
-Tanner
Words of the Year: Tautology, Hysteresis, Buxom, Purvey
"Crossing into established events is strictly forbidden. Except for cheap tricks." - Doctor Who
"Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense you're just not keeping up." - Doctor Who
Sunny wrote:Sort by wins first, and then sort by the total number of points your alliance has scored.
For example, two teams are 7-1, but one team has a combined score of 300, while the other team has a combined score of 400.
Ok, that I can do.
ptwortman wrote:that was a bit hectic though...
Why was it hectic? Shouldn't be hectic with a automated system...
And what is so wrong with the FIRST ranking system? I never heard/thought it was bad, besides just being plain confusing.
-Tanner
Words of the Year: Tautology, Hysteresis, Buxom, Purvey
"Crossing into established events is strictly forbidden. Except for cheap tricks." - Doctor Who
"Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense you're just not keeping up." - Doctor Who
The first ranking system makes your ranking points, or your secondary points, dependent on the losing team's score. So if the winners won by 256 to 0. The winning team got 0 ranking points. That is why teams score for other teams. This was really important in '07 and '06 when our robot was so dominant and there was no rule that would ultimately penalize for our team having a high score, and the losing team having a low score. Of course this year, with G-14, every team wanted to make sure that they did not double other teams.
And I believe that the biggest pain in doing the system was mainly entering the scores. We did not have a proper scoring table, or anything, and the lack of crowd control and increase of chaos caused it to be a bit hectic.
Sunny wrote:Sort by wins first, and then sort by the total number of points your alliance has scored.
For example, two teams are 7-1, but one team has a combined score of 300, while the other team has a combined score of 400.
Ok, that I can do.
ptwortman wrote:that was a bit hectic though...
Why was it hectic? Shouldn't be hectic with a automated system...
And what is so wrong with the FIRST ranking system? I never heard/thought it was bad, besides just being plain confusing.
-Tanner
it was hectic bc Beth and Fred had to go back and change everything if one minor thing was left out...not to mention it was rushed, confusing, really time-consuming, and took a lot of pressure.
This year will be much harder because of the field reset and counting the balls in the trailers. While I do not expect scoring to get too high, I do think that counting the score will be harder. We'll need official score keepers, probably 2 for each alliance. They can double off as referees, but we'll need a field re-set crew so that the score keepers can figure out the score.
With more planning, less things will go wrong and more things will go smoothly.
