Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote

[Chris Fultz]

We are considering three options for the co-op bridge at IRI, and will probably let each attending team vote (one vote per team) on how to proceed.

Here is an "unofficial" vote to see what CD thinks.

1. 2 points. No change to point values, ranking structure, etc.

2. 1 point. No change to ranking structure, just make a win worth more than the co-op bridge. Only counts if fully balanced.

3. 1 point. Ranking based on win-loss record, with co-op points as a tie breaker. This keeps the ranking focus on win-loss, but also makes the co-op important for teams with the same record. Only counts if fully balanced.

[efoote868]

I'd vote for a bonus for 3 robots on the co-op bridge. :D

[Peyton Yeung]

Well how about 3 coop points for 3 on the coop bridge or 4 coop points for 4 on the coop bridge. I've seen it happen :)

[Clinton Bolinger]

Has there been any talks about making the coop worth 0 and adjusting the qualification balance points?

I would have to agree with Adam's post in the MARC thread:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1164667&postcount=55

I am not sure that making it 1pt is going to make things any better. If nothing else, it makes it easier for a team to decide not to do it. Which, if you are on the other side of that decision is still going to effect your ranking. All it does is change the situations in which a team decides to coop or not.

We used the coop bridge with great success this year. We took advantage that winning + coop will move us way up in the rankings and that doing it consistently everytime will lead to great success. In our local districts team s that knew us pretty much agreed we should be the ones to do it, and we had no shortage of willing and capable partners. At MSC, so teams from farther away from metro-Detroit, did not know us so well and we had to have a direct conversation about why we should do it. Everyone at MSC was capable. In St. Louis, it was even worse...we needed to convince most teams that we should be the one coop'ing and then struggle to find an opponent that was capable of performing the task with us.

I also saw a lot of teams declining to coop or agreeing and not showing up. We have never experienced that this season, but I can imagine that is probably one of the worst feelings...knowing someone is messing with your ranking for their own benefit (without beating you) or even worse they just lied to you.

Making it 1pt, lessens the pain of those lies, but also makes it easier to either decieve someone or just plain tell them you don't want to do it. It definitely changes the dynamic a bit.

It still takes the same effort and time to do it. If you are going too...wouldn't you want to get the most benefit from it?

I say either leave it as 2pts...or get rid of it all together for off-season events and let us just run up the scores as much as possible...:D

-Clinton-

[Chris Fultz]

We posted three options.

[Taylor]

Option 1.
The scoring system, as it stands, is great. Leave it as-is.
This invites many strategies to the competition and the meta-competition as it were. Especially when every contestant is regional-champion-or-beyond quality, as they are at IRI, I can see no benefit to denying any team the coop bonus.

opinion of a likely non-participating but interested third party

[Adam Freeman]

1. 2 points. No change to point values, ranking structure, etc.

2. 1 point. No change to ranking structure, just make a win worth more than the co-op bridge. Only counts if fully balanced.

3. 1 point. Ranking based on win-loss record, with co-op points as a tie breaker. This keeps the ranking focus on win-loss, but also makes the co-op important for teams with the same record. Only counts if fully balanced.

Well since no one else has actually commented on the available three options, I will try too.

I am debating which option between 1 or 3 is best. Option 1 pretty much makes everyone at atleast attempt to Coop early in the event. Since all the teams attending will believe they have a shot at seeding first and selecting the best robot available. But, as the competition carries on Friday evening and Saturday morning, all the strategic and competitive juices will be in full force. Will this coop bridge be more like MSC, where there are so many qualified teams that 100% coop scores will be the norm...or will there be significant strategic plays similar to what we saw at Champs. Any time someone messes with the coop bridge (ie; not doing it in any way...) people's feelings get hurt. I would hate for IRI to turn into another controversy over this bridge.

Clinton quoted my opinion on a 1pt coop bridge. Just not worth it to perform every match and easier to accept screwing others over. I am not a fan of option #2.

I am leaning towards option #3. It's as close to just doing W-L-T as they are going to allow. I think the competition will devolve into no one doing it at all, since it takes too much effort to do it and at IRI you are probably going to need to score the entire match to win, unless there is agreement between the teams that a match is too lopsided and both teams agree to get the 1pt bonus for the tie-breaker. I believe this option limits controversy and makes the qualification matches more exciting.

After typing through all of this, I think I have decided on option #3.

[Craig Roys]

I like option 1, but I am a bit biased as we were able to use the coop bridge effectively all season long. I know there are many who believe that it was worth too much. If not option 1, I would also vote for option 3 and use it as a tie-breaker. I don't think option 2 with a 1 pt coop makes it worthwhile to do - it would tend to make it more likely that you would get stood up at the bridge as the game came down to the wire and a team decides the win is more important that the coop.

[Paul Copioli]

Chris,

I want option 4: 2 co-op points but not used for anything other than the co-op award. Allow triple balances in qualifications since the robots will be good enough to either triple or defend the triple. Let's make all IRI matches like elimination matches. It will be an insane tournament this way.

To me, all of the other options are bad for IRI. It may have worked fine for a competition season where 90% of the robots were OK or bad, but at a competition that will have the top 2ish% robots participating, what will the co-op bridge achieve? It will just be another strategic option for teams to use to manipulate rankings.

Paul

[XaulZan11]

Allow triple balances in qualifications since the robots will be good enough to either triple or defend the triple. Let's make all IRI matches like elimination matches. It will be an insane tournament this way.


I'm with Paul on this one. The triple balance is the most exciting aspect of this years game, why not extend it to the qualification matchs?

[IndySam]

I'm also with Paul but if we can't have triple balances then option 3.

[Richard Wallace]

3. 1 point. Ranking based on win-loss record, with co-op points as a tie breaker. This keeps the ranking focus on win-loss, but also makes the co-op important for teams with the same record. Only counts if fully balanced.If this option is chosen, would co-op points be the first tie-breaker, shifting the other tie breakers down in priority? So HP (hybrid hoop points) would become the 2nd tie breaker, BP (bridge points) would become the 3rd tie breaker, etc.?

I think I like option 3.

[jwfoss]

My initial opinion would be to leave it as it was originally written, however if a change is required I agree with Paul with a minor tweak.

If triple balances are worth 40pts in Qualifications then balancing on the Co-Op Bridge should be worth 10pts.

[Tom Line]

Leave it as is. Adding in the ability to 40 point balance in the qualification matches will really hurt bots that are a long configuration.

[IndySam]

Leave it as is. Adding in the ability to 40 point balance in the qualification matches will really hurt bots that are a long configuration.

Never thought of that Tom, it would significantly change design choices.

Change me to a 3.

[Donovan0217]

Leave it as is. Adding in the ability to 40 point balance in the qualification matches will really hurt bots that are a long configuration.

That is not necesarily true. While it is more difficult to triple in some cases, there are plenty of long bots that are capable of tripling. 217, 1114, 2056 all have their own dinguses to help tripling. Wave 2826 *almost* tripled with HOT in Archimedes, and Robostang has tripled as well, and that is just off the top of my head. There are plenty long bots that can triple.

(Thanks to Adam for correcting me)

[Adam Freeman]

Wave 2826 tripled with HOT in Archimedes...

Unfortunately, Wave has never tripled with HOT in an actual match. That was part of the problem.

Now I will go sit in the corner and cry...


Regarding Triple Balancing in Quals - I agree with Paul...teams can either decide to triple, block it, or attempt to out score it. It just adds another element of strategy to qualification matches.

[Koko Ed]

Chris,

I want option 4: 2 co-op points but not used for anything other than the co-op award. Allow triple balances in qualifications since the robots will be good enough to either triple or defend the triple. Let's make all IRI matches like elimination matches. It will be an insane tournament this way.




I like that idea alot!

[P.J.]

If I may make a comment, while I do like the discussion that is happening, it is kind of irrelevant to the topic. Mr. Fultz gave us three options, and from what it sounds like they have probably narrowed it down to these three from all the other suggestions in the other IRI thread. So I believe that they have decided to not allow triples in quals for whatever their own reasons are.

That said, I like option 3.

[JesseK]

While I won't attend IRI, I agree with Paul. IRI is traditionally all about being competitive on the field the whole time.

The biggest incentive to add in a triple balance is that it will give more opportunities to teams to *try* a triple balance when they've never been on an alliance that had an incentive to do one. More triples = more excitement for the successes and more heartache for the teams who fall off.

Are HP's/BP's still being tracked at IRI? Towards the end of a full set of Qual matches, one would be hard-pressed to find two teams with identical QP's and HP's. Yet if BP's were tracked (much easier) at IRI, then that could be the secondary sort after W-L-T, thus incentivizing the triple balance.

[Andy Baker]

I want option 4: 2 co-op points but not used for anything other than the co-op award.

There will not be a co-op award at IRI.

Andy B.

[AdamHeard]

Triple balance in quals sounds like fun!

[Paul Copioli]

There will not be a co-op award at IRI.

Andy B.

OK, fine. Revised option 4: 2 co-op points for every co-op. It is not used at all in the rankings, but for every co-op point earned at IRI Innovation First will donate $50 to the IRI Scholarship fund. Triple balances count in qualifiers and every robot balanced on the co-op bridge is worth 10 points for that color alliance.

C'mon Andy and Chris, let's breaks some eggs and make Omelets!!

EDIT: By the way, many voting processes in the US have a write in option. I am exercising that right with option 4! Option 4! Option 4! Option 4!

[twetherbee]

How about Option #5: Eliminate co-op points, but make the middle bridge worth 5 points to any robot that balances on it at the end? It would narrow the 7 ball gap, slightly, needed to out score a triple balance with a double balance, which could make for some exciting matches and create some interesting defensive strategies.

[Taylor]

Give a group of engineers the choice of three options, and they'll pick choice number seven.

Having said that,
OK, fine. Revised option 4: 2 co-op points for every co-op. It is not used at all in the rankings, but for every co-op point earned at IRI Innovation First will donate $50 to the IRI Scholarship fund. Triple balances count in qualifiers and every robot balanced on the co-op bridge is worth 10 points for that color alliance.
::stand and applaud::
Although - I could see this becoming a no-holds-barred king-of-the-hill contest for the middle bridge, resulting in more than one broken body upon the white altar.

[Travis Hoffman]

OK, fine. Revised option 4: 2 co-op points for every co-op. It is not used at all in the rankings, but for every co-op point earned at IRI Innovation First will donate $50 to the IRI Scholarship fund. Triple balances count in qualifiers and every robot balanced on the co-op bridge is worth 10 points for that color alliance.

C'mon Andy and Chris, let's breaks some eggs and make Omelets!!

EDIT: By the way, many voting processes in the US have a write in option. I am exercising that right with option 4! Option 4! Option 4! Option 4!

What if the "random" match scheduler puts 3 longs on an alliance? Or 2 longs and a wide that isn't compatible? This option certainly gives some designs an advantage over others, if other rule modifications are not made to level the playing field in such situations.

Even as a longbot, I'm potentially ok with allowing triples in qualifying (we've got a stinger, we can hang off the bridge - we're game), and I agree that all triples all the time sounds more exciting (maybe not for pit crews dealing with agony of defeat moments), but "Option 4" is a definite non-starter for me, UNLESS...

...IRI relaxes the namby-pamby bridge defense rules implemented at the championship - no penalties of death if triples are attempted on the alliance's basket side of the field. If defenders want to park over to block, and they are pushed into the bridge - tough. No 40-point penalties. Nothing. You widebot stinger boys want to triple - get ready to do it by fighting through some pain, break away from scoring and line up earlier, or cross the bump and get your butts lined up in the protected area where ye belong. :)

Option 4 is too much reward for a certain subset of robots, with not enough risk.

I do like some kind of co-op bridge charitable incentive option, especially if Copioli is writing the check. :-P

[lemiant]

Given a free choice I'd be up for triples in quals. It will make the rankings the most accurate possible by making the game the same between qualifications and elminations, while also giving people more practice and better scouting for triples resulting in more exciting finals.
If forced into the three I'd pick option 1

[Travis Hoffman]

Give a group of engineers the choice of three options, and they'll pick choice number seven.

Having said that,

::stand and applaud::
Although - I could see this becoming a no-holds-barred king-of-the-hill contest for the middle bridge, resulting in more than one broken body upon the white altar.

You want a bloody altar? Let the team with the most co-op points at the end of qualifying get to bestow the accumulated funds to one of their seniors, their discretion. :p

[rick.oliver]

Option 4 is too much reward for a certain subset of robots, with not enough risk.



I see your point. So, perhaps the committee would consider relaxing all of defense-inhibiting rules, I mean why draw the line at bridges :yikes:

But seriously, Chris explained their intent around game play and their philosophy about rules changes. I agree that Paul's suggestion has merit. I also think that it is outside of the box that they chose to work in.

That said, if they do add that option and we are fortunate enough to be invited, we, being among that certain subset, would be inclined to support it :D

[Clayton Yocom]

...IRI relaxes the namby-pamby bridge defense rules implemented at the championship

This isn't without precident, especially after last year's changes.

I vote option #4, because it takes co-op bridge out of the rankings. (And no bias either, we made it up to 11th with co-op points and ended up winning the regional.) I feel co-op is really pointless at IRI where either everyone tries to co-op or nobody does. If I have to vote within the 3, it'd be option #3. Again, get co-op out of the rankings at such a high competition event.

[artdutra04]

Here's a sample analysis of how teams would have ranked differently when going by the three different options above. I chose the 2012 Archimedes division and followed the above three options. In cases where there was still a tie after the conditions set about in the options above, I then went by the manual and used hybrid and then bridge points as the tiebreakers. Here are the results:

Rank Opt 1 Opt 2 Opt 3
1 2826 2826 2826
2 2056 2056 2056
3 2648 3481 3481
4 781 2648 67
5 3481 67 245
6 2590 245 1676
7 195 781 1218
8 67 1676 3997
9 245 1218 839
10 973 2590 2512
11 1676 195 1311
12 1218 3997 359
13 2557 973 1458
14 1403 839 1736
15 4082 2512 2815
16 4334 1403 2648
17 2898 2898 781
18 3997 1311 2590
19 1014 359 195
20 2974 2557 973
21 1756 1736 1403
22 839 1458 2898
23 2512 4082 2415
24 1868 2415 2996
25 1736 2996 1504
26 587 1504 190
27 2415 2974 1796
28 2996 1756 3015
29 1504 190 272
30 1311 2815 692
31 2395 4334 3008
32 359 1868 3947
33 2603 1796 1987
34 190 3015 2557
35 1458 1014 4082
36 956 2395 2974
37 2403 2603 1756
38 2815 587 2395
39 1796 272 2603
40 3015 692 2949
41 2949 2949 2046
42 2046 2046 128
43 2614 1987 1592
44 716 3008 4001
45 272 2403 3927
46 692 128 3476
47 3158 716 1868
48 1875 956 587
49 126 1875 1114
50 2085 3947 4143
51 1987 1592 4334
52 2851 126 1014
53 3008 4001 2403
54 1902 2085 716
55 128 1114 1875
56 234 3927 126
57 4256 2614 2085
58 4403 4143 234
59 1261 234 1261
60 1592 3158 2022
61 3747 1261 1
62 4218 2022 3968
63 4001 2851 236
64 2022 1 4300
65 246 1902 2851
66 1114 3476 1647
67 4143 4256 144
68 1710 4403 247
69 3927 3747 956
70 1 246 2614
71 369 1647 3158
72 1816 1710 1902
73 3947 3968 4256
74 20 236 4403
75 4206 369 3747
76 2638 1816 246
77 3335 4206 1710
78 4356 144 369
79 3410 4218 1816
80 3999 3335 4206
81 1647 4356 3335
82 144 3410 4356
83 2809 4300 3410
84 3968 3999 3999
85 236 1642 1642
86 1306 20 2410
87 3476 2809 1058
88 1642 2410 2809
89 100 2638 4218
90 2410 1058 20
91 4300 247 2638
92 3634 1306 1306
93 1058 100 100
94 3081 3634 3634
95 75 3081 3081
96 3128 75 75
97 1018 3128 3128
98 247 1018 1018
99 3456 3456 3456
100 3585 3585 3585

[Chris Fultz]

and i thought i asked a simple "choose one" question ...

:)

[Justin Montois]

I guess I'll be the outsider and say leave it alone. This is the game that was given to us. I want to see it played, the way it was designed, at the highest level.

[Joon Park]

I say leave it alone as well. I honestly thing that the coopertition is what makes Rebound Rumble one of the best games in recent years.

The GDC have always been trying to integrate coopertition into the game in a way that makes coopertition crucial to a winning strategy. I realize the point of this poll is to see what we think, not the GDC, but I fully agree with the system they have created. I believe in the tired and true spirit of coopertition, and I think that spirit is greatly emphasized by this point system.

Also, perhaps this argument is biased coming from me, as our team always seems to be better at the end game than the actual scoring game, but it allows less capable teams more of a chance against powerhouse teams or favored teams. And even if I was on a different team, I think I'd rather see more flexible and unpredictable matches, as that makes competition more fun.

[ratdude747]

Chris,

I want option 4: 2 co-op points but not used for anything other than the co-op award. Allow triple balances in qualifications since the robots will be good enough to either triple or defend the triple. Let's make all IRI matches like elimination matches. It will be an insane tournament this way.

To me, all of the other options are bad for IRI. It may have worked fine for a competition season where 90% of the robots were OK or bad, but at a competition that will have the top 2ish% robots participating, what will the co-op bridge achieve? It will just be another strategic option for teams to use to manipulate rankings.

Paul

Agreed and seconded.

[CalTran]

Here's a sample analysis of how teams would have ranked differently when going by the three different options above. I chose the 2012 Archimedes division and followed the above three options. In cases where there was still a tie after the conditions set about in the options above, I then went by the manual and used hybrid and then bridge points as the tiebreakers. Here are the results:

Rank Opt 1 Opt 2 Opt 3
1 2826 2826 2826
2 2056 2056 2056
3 2648 3481 3481
4 781 2648 67
5 3481 67 245
6 2590 245 1676
7 195 781 1218
8 67 1676 3997
9 245 1218 839
10 973 2590 2512
11 1676 195 1311
12 1218 3997 359
13 2557 973 1458
14 1403 839 1736
15 4082 2512 2815
16 4334 1403 2648
17 2898 2898 781
18 3997 1311 2590
19 1014 359 195
20 2974 2557 973
21 1756 1736 1403
22 839 1458 2898
23 2512 4082 2415
24 1868 2415 2996
25 1736 2996 1504
26 587 1504 190
27 2415 2974 1796
28 2996 1756 3015
29 1504 190 272
30 1311 2815 692
31 2395 4334 3008
32 359 1868 3947
33 2603 1796 1987
34 190 3015 2557
35 1458 1014 4082
36 956 2395 2974
37 2403 2603 1756
38 2815 587 2395
39 1796 272 2603
40 3015 692 2949
41 2949 2949 2046
42 2046 2046 128
43 2614 1987 1592
44 716 3008 4001
45 272 2403 3927
46 692 128 3476
47 3158 716 1868
48 1875 956 587
49 126 1875 1114
50 2085 3947 4143
51 1987 1592 4334
52 2851 126 1014
53 3008 4001 2403
54 1902 2085 716
55 128 1114 1875
56 234 3927 126
57 4256 2614 2085
58 4403 4143 234
59 1261 234 1261
60 1592 3158 2022
61 3747 1261 1
62 4218 2022 3968
63 4001 2851 236
64 2022 1 4300
65 246 1902 2851
66 1114 3476 1647
67 4143 4256 144
68 1710 4403 247
69 3927 3747 956
70 1 246 2614
71 369 1647 3158
72 1816 1710 1902
73 3947 3968 4256
74 20 236 4403
75 4206 369 3747
76 2638 1816 246
77 3335 4206 1710
78 4356 144 369
79 3410 4218 1816
80 3999 3335 4206
81 1647 4356 3335
82 144 3410 4356
83 2809 4300 3410
84 3968 3999 3999
85 236 1642 1642
86 1306 20 2410
87 3476 2809 1058
88 1642 2410 2809
89 100 2638 4218
90 2410 1058 20
91 4300 247 2638
92 3634 1306 1306
93 1058 100 100
94 3081 3634 3634
95 75 3081 3081
96 3128 75 75
97 1018 3128 3128
98 247 1018 1018
99 3456 3456 3456
100 3585 3585 3585

I really like option 3 now, especially since it shot us up 4 ranks! ;) In all seriousness, from the data posted, the top 8 in any scenario does not like it has shifted much. The top 2 are still the top 2, and really, if those two don't change, then the alliances eating each other don't shift too much either.

[BJC]

FIRST did the Co-op bridge to foster coperation between teams. However, I contend that working in alliances is already doing this and is extremely successful. In no other sport do you see teams working together on the field to beat other teams. This is awesome. I believe that because this has now become the "norm" FIRST (and many FIRSTers) have lost sight of the amount of cooperation and teamwork that goes into each alliance, it's now taken for granted. Maybe we should start celabrating that instead of forming new ways to colaborate with other teams.

The above said I would like to play matches where we totally and completely play to win. I hate relying on my opponents for half of my seeding points. (An issue which has been brought up on CD enough already.) I would like to completely get rid of the co-op bridge. However, because that is not an option I voted for #3.

Please consider eliminating the Co-op bridge entirely, you would not be sorry.
Regards, Bryan

[A_Reed]

Keep it the way it is. I thought this was one of the greatest games to come out of Manchester, from top to bottom. I like to see a little parity and the luck of the co-op balance play into the final rankings. I find it interesting to see the pressure to pick on the first seed and when ego or scouting get to them it makes the upsets that much more interesting.

I would also find it interesting to encourage the co-op behavior deep into qualification matches by keeping the sponsor system. Get sponsors, big and small to pledge $x.xx per co-op point, pennies to bills and give to cancer research, food bank, scholarship fund etc. Guilt people into using the white bridge for every match in the spirit of charity. :D

[Bjenks548]

I would still love to see triples throughout qualifications, but some alliances simply not be able to perform this. Giving extra coopertition points to a alliances that puts 3 on the coop bridge poses the same problem. What if a balanced coop bridge was worth 2 coopertition points to both alliances, but if there were 3 robots the alliance with 2 on the bridge gets 20 points. Would make some very interesting fights over who gets to triple with who as its worth an extra 10 point than going to your alliance bridge. Also now you have to do it with a semi-unwilling partner.

[Joon Park]

FIRST did the Co-op bridge to foster coperation between teams. However, I contend that working in alliances is already doing this and is extremely successful. In no other sport do you see teams working together on the field to beat other teams. This is awesome. I believe that because this has now become the "norm" FIRST (and many FIRSTers) have lost sight of the amount of cooperation and teamwork that goes into each alliance, it's now taken for granted. Maybe we should start celabrating that instead of forming new ways to colaborate with other teams.

Perhaps you are right in that many are overlooking the alliance cooperation. Since Rebound Rumble is only my third FRC game, it's not my call to make. However, I do think that coopertating with the opposing alliance is quite different than cooperating with your own alliance partners. And the difference is what makes FRC so cool.

[badger3.14]

Chris,

I want option 4: 2 co-op points but not used for anything other than the co-op award. Allow triple balances in qualifications since the robots will be good enough to either triple or defend the triple. Let's make all IRI matches like elimination matches. It will be an insane tournament this way.

To me, all of the other options are bad for IRI. It may have worked fine for a competition season where 90% of the robots were OK or bad, but at a competition that will have the top 2ish% robots participating, what will the co-op bridge achieve? It will just be another strategic option for teams to use to manipulate rankings.

Paul

This or number 3. I hate when I am waiting on a bridge for a good 40-50 seconds only to have the opposing robot not attempt to balance or attempt and fail at the coop bridge.

Basically I don't want team's rankings hurt just because of the opposing robots inability to balance.

[Mark Sheridan]

Has anyone considered counting a robot balanced robot on the co-op bridge as a phantom robot for their own alliance bridge? It would help out 3 long robot alliances so one bot would balance to co-op by itself and the other two go for their own alliance bridge. The end result is the alliance bridge would count for 3 robots.

I don't think this should be used in eliminations. This also may backfire as teams try to do king of the hill on the center bridge.

[Chris Fultz]

This also may backfire as teams try to do king of the hill on the center bridge.

I am afraid Raul would bring back the 111 "wedges" from 2003 Stack Attack.

[GaryVoshol]

How does 3 work? Is it WLT/CP/Points, or WLT/Points/CP?

If the first, it changes very little.

If the second, CP becomes nearly irrelevant.

Keep it the same. I vote for #1.