You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm trying to understand why the RP total for TOA doesn't match that of FTCStats. Take for example team 11691 in Michigan Championships Edison. FTCStats calculates their RP as 1329 and had them at # 3 in the division instead of # 2. However, TOA has their RP at 1369 and had them at # 2 in the division. If I manually add all the non-penalty losing scores for their 6 matches, I also get 1329.
The only way to get 11691's RP to 1369 would be to include 40 penalty points from their 4th match (Q38), but my understanding is that those penalty points were actually awarded to the blue alliance for a red-alliance infraction, so it looks like 11691's RP was increased by the # of penalties that their alliance committed. Note that when I checked the discrepancies for 8646 and 10136, I got the same result: their TOA RP seems to include the penalties that their alliances committed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'm trying to understand why the RP total for TOA doesn't match that of FTCStats. Take for example team 11691 in Michigan Championships Edison. FTCStats calculates their RP as 1329 and had them at # 3 in the division instead of # 2. However, TOA has their RP at 1369 and had them at # 2 in the division. If I manually add all the non-penalty losing scores for their 6 matches, I also get 1329.
The only way to get 11691's RP to 1369 would be to include 40 penalty points from their 4th match (Q38), but my understanding is that those penalty points were actually awarded to the blue alliance for a red-alliance infraction, so it looks like 11691's RP was increased by the # of penalties that their alliance committed. Note that when I checked the discrepancies for 8646 and 10136, I got the same result: their TOA RP seems to include the penalties that their alliances committed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: