Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Request to change TBP system

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Alec
    replied
    Originally posted by ftcsachse0 View Post
    ... I would highly favor putting emphasis on the autonomous portion of the match in tie breakers ...
    The old objective for TBP being based on losing alliance score was to motivate stronger teams to help weaker teams [prior to a tournament] so as to yield higher TBPs for stronger teams at tournaments. The new objective is to prevent blowout matches. I agree that TBP should be entirely weighted, or otherwise heavily weighted, on your own alliance's autonomous performance (i.e. how well your alliance performs during the actual robotics portion of a match), but unfortunately this does not satisfy the new objective of TBP.

    The deeper issue is that in order to be a legitimate sport FIRST needs to conduct legitimate tournaments. At worlds you had eighty teams in qualification rounds and only four alliances advancing to elimination rounds. This falls short of a legitimate tournament, especially considering the high degree of random factors that can affect match outcomes in qualification rounds. Further, having a sufficient number of alliances in elimination rounds helps alleviate the flaws in TBP.

    Leave a comment:


  • ftcsachse0
    replied
    Having read through the thread several thoughts come to mind:
    • It is easier to teak a system then to replace it. And most people will understand such faster.
    • It should be considered a breach of Gracious Professionalism to even suggest a team do less than their best in competition.
    • Scoring for one's opponent should probably be banned as it does not give an idea of their strength. It does throw off such results.
    • Either way, the legality of scoring for the opponent should be specified in the game rules. (I would think it good to prohibit intentional or repetitive scoring for the opponent.)
    • I would highly favor putting emphasis on the autonomous portion of the match in tie breakers. This doesn't require a change in scoring at the moment. It does encourage the most real world benefits of the program..
    • I think 10 to 20% of teams should move into a face off.

    Leave a comment:


  • JoAnn
    replied
    Hi Folks,

    Please follow the link to our blog post on TBP. Feel free to email me with your thoughts. jhalloran(at)firstinspires(dot)org. Thanks!!

    http://firsttechchallenge.blogspot.c...on-update.html


    Leave a comment:


  • alan_16072
    replied
    Our district FRC events (typically 32 or less teams) have 8 alliances and with 3 teams on each alliance, that means most of the teams are playing in elims.

    Leave a comment:


  • NEOFTC
    replied
    Alan, most qualifying tournaments are between 20-28 teams, so 8 alliances in all tournaments would not be a necessary improvement. The 80-team world championship division is a great place for 8 alliances. I think most big state tournaments use 2 reasonably-sized divisions rather than one big division. There should probably be a threshold set (48 or more perhaps) for when to go to 8 alliances.

    Leave a comment:


  • alan_16072
    replied
    I am a rookie FTC coach, but I have mentored on an FRC team the last three years.

    It seems to me that who you are assigned with in FTC plays a much larger role than FRC for three reasons:
    1) You have far fewer matches - so each one counts for more.
    2) There are two members per alliance instead of three. So the amount of impact each team has is 1/4th instead of 1/6th.
    3) There are many fewer teams that get to play in elims. Only 4 captains instead of 8.

    JoAnn
    I *love* that FTC is trying to keep the scoring where it is easy to explain. I *hate* explaining district points to people new to FRC. They almost feel intentionally complicated. Thank you for your clear explanation of what your goals would be for any replacement for TBP.

    While only tangentially related to TBP, I would *love* to see FTC go to 8 alliances with a quarter-final, semi-final, and final. On the downside, this would make the tournament day longer. On the positive side, this would allow twice as many teams to play in elims and would reduce the impact of TBP as more teams would get to be alliance captains. It would increase the number of teams that need to be scouting, Also, brackets are exciting with the opportunity for upsets.

    --Alan
    Rookie Coach FTC #16072

    Leave a comment:


  • Cheer4FTC
    replied
    Another more radical proposal: the top teams could be more fairly ranked and sorted with a change in the qual match schedule near the end of an event.

    One option for qualifier events would have teams play a random schedule for 3 matches and then the top 1/4 teams could be scheduled to face each other with mid-ranked partners for the final 2 qual matches, resulting in less random and more fair head-to-head types of matches at the ends of quals. At Worlds this could be particularly easy to do by releasing a "final day" match schedule the night before based on the rankings up to that point.

    Or an even more radical concept: after qual matches, have the top 6 teams face off in three 1 v 1 matches, with their relative scores determining the final top 6 rankings. This would add a new stage of matches between regular quals and regular elims (kinda-sorta like the round-robin stage that FRC has at worlds before their finals, though with many obvious differences).
    Last edited by Cheer4FTC; 05-14-2019, 10:02 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cheer4FTC
    replied
    2. Must reward teams for winning more difficult matches.
    The main problem with this criterion is that the simplest way to measure match difficulty is by looking at opponent score. But if you're going to look at opponent score, then that will motivate teams to score for their opponents and will motivate teams to take non-GP actions like asking other teams to throw a match so one of their rivals' matches doesn't look as difficult.

    You could look at more complicated measures of opponent strength (like the average final rank of opponents, etc.), but this could again possibly motivate teams that are not likely to be alliance captains near the end of quals to throw matches. [Unless FTC adopts scoring more like the FRC district model where qual rank overall gives teams more district points so a team that can't be an alliance captain is still motivated to rank as highly as possible at the end of quals.]

    If we had a way to measure this #2 criterion in a fair and reliable way that could not be gamed, it would seem like a reasonable criterion. But the "easy to explain" ways of measuring winning difficult matches seem to be easy to unfairly game.

    Can anybody think up a way to accomplish both criterion #1 and criterion #2 in a way that doesn't provide a method and motivation to game the system??

    The other problem with criterion #2 is that whether a team has difficult or easy matches is not up to the team! A simple example is GlutenFree at Detroit Worlds. They likely could have defeated nearly every opposing alliance with a normal or even weak partner, but their match schedule didn't have a lot of difficult matches for them to play. Should they be punished for their relatively easy match schedule? Ranking them poorly because of things out of their control would seem to violate criterion #4.

    RollerCoaster45 I like the FRC-type ranking too, but I don't see how that measures how hard the match was to win. It's just another way to measure how good an alliance is at scoring points or achieving a particular scoring achievement, which could just as easily be measured by looking at a team's average score, or auto score, or endgame score, etc. Thoughts?

    Bottom line: TBP is primarily needed to rank a set of undefeated teams after quals to determine alliance captains. To me, measuring their capability of scoring in some way seems more fair and sensible than measuring who they happened to play against (especially given the motivation for non-GP gaming of this latter measurement).

    JoAnn I suggest that at least you add an additional criterion #5, something like "must motivate teams to win and score as many points as possible for their alliance in all matches, and not provide motivation for teams to take actions counter to these goals and to overall Gracious Professionalism and fair play."

    Leave a comment:


  • RollerCoaster45
    replied
    Switching over to something like they have in FRC would be a good way to meet all 4 of these criteria. 2 points per win, 1 point for a tie, zero per loss and you can earn up to two additional ranking points for completing some on-field task. Then using TBP would be fine, because it would be possible to make it very difficult to earn all 4 ranking points so you would be rewarded for winning hard matches, but also doing well yourself.

    Leave a comment:


  • JoAnn
    replied
    Lots of ideas in this thread! We've been looking at TBP, and have some criteria for what we'd consider.

    1. Must be easy to explain to everyone.
    2. Must reward teams for winning more difficult matches.
    3. Must not require a significant change to the way referees score matches.
    4. Must be fair.

    These are a lot, I know, and everyone might not agree that these criteria are important. Remember that strategy plays into this. Some seasons we allow teams to score for their opponents, and some years we don't (depends on the game). A team with an amazing robot, and world record scores still needs to pay attention to the best strategy for their team at each event, and even for each match.

    JoAnn

    Leave a comment:


  • FLARE
    replied
    Originally posted by FTC12090 View Post
    I dislike the current system as well. Incentivizing scoring for your opponent... .
    With the current scoring system, this is a strategy that makes sense, unfortunate though it may be. The 2 years with the beacons, scoring for opponents was actually a highly-used strategy and did not seem frowned upon at the time.

    This season we did this at our first qualifier and were penalized for egregious behavior. After that is was clarified as legal on the forums, but our team was afraid to do it after that because of how it might appear to other teams and refs. Then of course we saw it in Detroit, where due to scoring for the opponents, the top 5 teams ended up in an order that seems quite skewed compared to actual robot performance.

    Though I strongly agree that the TBP system should change, if it does not then I think it should be made very clear from the season beginning that scoring for the opponent is an acceptable strategy.

    Leave a comment:


  • FTC12090
    replied
    I dislike the current system as well. Incentivizing scoring for your opponent... I mean how much more insulting can you get? Not to mention the incentive to intentionally lose to hurt your opponent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cheer4FTC
    replied
    Originally posted by NEOFTC View Post
    I strongly agree that there should be 8 alliances on each field at Worlds.
    Or maybe 4 divisions of 40 teams each instead of 2 divisions of 80 teams each, with each division still having 4 alliances competing for the division championship?

    Then the 4 division winners play each other round robin with the top 2 after the round robin round playing best-of-three for the championship.

    FRC does this right now, except they have 6 divisions instead of 4.

    [Or maybe even a simple double-elimination tournament for the 4 division winners?]
    Last edited by Cheer4FTC; 05-04-2019, 05:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • NEOFTC
    replied
    I strongly agree that there should be 8 alliances on each field at Worlds. Too many teams did not compete at all on Saturday. As far as tiebreakers, I suggest cumulative autonomous points. I would also like to see the rankings displayed just like they do in FRC. Divide by the number of matches. That way you don't have to wait until the end of a round to see how things really shake out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mentor 777
    replied
    Originally posted by Cheer4FTC View Post

    I suggest replacing TBP with the average of a team's top 1/2 qualification round scores (so with 5 or 6 qual matches at an event, take the average of their best 3 scores, and with 9 or 10 qual matches at an event, take the average of their best 5 scores).
    I like that suggestion! Simply using an alliance's own score is better than using the opposing alliance's score. However, your suggestion also takes into account the many things that can go wrong in a match, even with an excellent robot! Connection issues occur very frequently at competitions, even at the World Championship level. By using the top half of the scores, a team would not be penalized so harshly for an issue that is mostly out of their control. While there are things that can be done to mitigate the connection issues, even the top teams ran into this problem.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X