A Tie in 15 second Autonomous Should Award Each Alliance 2 AP


#1

Alliances who tie each other in 15 second autonomous both receive 0 AP. However they should both receive 2 AP.

WP is done this way; a tie is awarded with 1 WP, a win with 2 WP. Why is AP not done this way?

Paul


#2

You don’t want four teams that do nothing to get AP, do you? I think this would be too complicated…


#3

Ya I agree though they must get a minimum of 1 point.


#4

What if neither alliance scores anything? They should not be awarded any AP for that.


#5

I think this is a good idea it would be just that. It is just too late in the season for the GDC to implement anything for it. But even before they change this I think the SP ranking system needs to be reworked


#6

If 1 robot moves 2 feet and turns a low flag, while the other alliance doesn’t move, they get 4 AP. That isn’t fair, compared to teams who have 15 full seconds of auto action. The game is not fair… Also not complicated at all! Is awarding 1 WP to both alliances for a tie in a match complicated??? No.


#7

What if you have a match with 3 robots that never move and 1 that can barely score anything? Do you not give them to 2 WP for the win because the competition was weak?? No. There are obvious cases where all rules don’t make sense. I am simply saying that since AP is an important tie breaker, don’t make a tie the same as a loss. It isn’t.


#8

In the case that 3 never move and 1 can barely score anything, those WPs are still based off of activity. I believe a better example would be a match where no robot can move and they both get a single WP.

AP is an important tie breaker, but you shouldn’t get AP off of not having an auton (we could have a conversation about scoring individual autonomous routines during a match, but that is not the topic.) In the case no robot has an auton, nobody should get AP, but when both team’s autons tie they should get an AP point. It isn’t as simple as just giving both teams 2 points after tying in auton.


#9

I think that 1 point should be given to an autonomous tie if and only if points are scored on both sides.


#10

Having both teams get an AP point in the circumstance of an autonomous tie is honestly stupid. It sounds good in theory, having good teams get higher in the rankings but it promotes mediocrity, bad teams, and match corruption. If no team scores a point and they tie and both get an auton point is ridiculous .

you can fix that with this, however that introduces new problems of promoting mediocrity in teams, they won’t shoot for the best autonomous cause they know that if they have one just decent enough they still get points not to mention more stress for competition managers.

Also it brings a new method of corruption to matches. If you are going against someone from your school or a team you want to get in higher placement you could purposely set up a tie so both teams profit. It’s malarkey. Had more to say but ran out of time.


#11

comparing WP to AP isn’t a valid argument by the way.


#12

I have to admit, that could happen.

This, however, I don’t see happening. If you wouldn’t care about an autonomous before, you most likely don’t care much about WP, SP, or AP. Also, it could promote good autonomouses (autonomi?) because some teams could, as you stated earlier, throw together weak autonomi just for points.


#13

I kind of like the idea of having 1 AP per alliance if it’s tied, but isn’t the norm bonus 1 anyway?
If both alliances actually score points, then, sure. I could see this as effective. But if nobody scores anything, then it shouldn’t give points.

Before someone tries to make the argument that 2 APs per win will make a steep curve to climb if a team messes up, I’d offer the concept of overall inflation. Doubling the point values across the board won’t actually increase or decrease the point gaps.

I tried it.

I tried to make that argument myself, and then had to delete a perfectly good paragraph because it made no sense to me.


#14

This is really the only way to do it, and of course both teams start with points… How often do we really see ties anyway? Wish that data was available, but they do have the information internally.


#15

I don’t know, I see it going both ways. I can see teams all doing the same auton that scores a point then teams that care a little bit more just trying to get 2 points to overcome the meta followers of 1 point. Then the teams that actually are competitive getting as much as possible. I think it would affect more of the middle pack then the front runners.


#16

I do like the idea of still getting points from a tie, I just don’t think it is worth it.


#17

This can be calculated based on public data. Each non-tied autonomous period awards a total of 8 APs. So, if no matches tie in autonomous, the sum of everyone’s AP should be 8*(number of qualification matches). Thus, to find the number of tied autonomous periods at a tournament, perform the following calculation:
(Number of Qualification Matches) - ([Sum of all teams’ APs]/8)

(This won’t work if a team that wins auton. gets DQed, since DQed teams receive no APs. But in my experience, most events don’t have any DQs so it’s probably not a big deal.)


#18

I feel like adding in the fact that they have to move is just asking for mistakes to happen. I personally don’t see anything wrong with giving 0 AP for a tie. Although I also see the argument from the other side. You get 1 WP for a tie why not 1 AP for a tie? I don’t see it being something that will change this season but maybe next season if there is enough support for it.


#19

DQ's can be calculated a similar way, by comparing total WP's to the total number of marches run.

You can even figure out which match the DQ was in, and which team was DQ'd (or no-showed), by comparing each team's SP's to the sum of the losing scores of the matches they were in.


#20

Lets make a poll.

How many AP points should be given in a tie?

  • 0 AP (currently in effect)
  • 1 AP
  • 2 AP

0 voters