Coopertition issues

[IronicDeadBird]

Has anyone run into the issue of agreeing to do coopertition and then the other side not contributing or attempting to contribute to it at all?

[Jaywalker1711]

I think that this is actually a rather rare thing, teams are usually very honest about their intentions.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, this happened to us during week 2

After that we came up with a rule; we will go for it if you guys (the other alliance) will do it first. Since our bot was designed around co-op, we have no trouble at all getting totes on an existing step stack. After we had put three down and seen the opposing alliance neglect what was there we came up with our policy.


I wish more teams were able to do co-op well, it's my favorite aspect of the game!

[SousVide]

Were you able to talk to the team or opposing alliance after the match ? It might be that something unforeseen happened during the match and they decided on-the-spot to abandon it. It's happened before.

Have you seen this thread ? 1511 has a rather detailed co-op planning guide/agreement
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135401

[waialua359]

At Inland Empire as more matches were played, teams decided they didn't want to coop to prevent us from being #1. They said it outright and we're honest about the reasons. No hard feelings on our part as we understood why.
On Saturday morning we did 1 coop as we made our own agreement with one team from the opposing alliance, where our own team members were unaware, since they themselves didn't want us to get coop points also.

Personally, I don't care for coop the same reasons as in 2012.

[MrForbes]

I think that this is actually a rather rare thing, teams are usually very honest about their intentions.

My wild guess is that teams are more honest about their intentions, than they are about their abilities. They really want to be able to do what they say they can do. But the darn robot just doesn't cooperate.

But this is just a wild guess. Each situation is different.

[Loose Screw]

This is very reminiscent 2012's co-op bridge, only that was worth much more. For anyone not present in 2012 or doesn't remember, there was a teeter totter "bridge" in the middle of the field, and each alliance had their own along the wall. A robot balancing on their bridge was worth 10 points (20 points for 2).

If you could get one robot from each alliance to balance on it at the end of the match, you would get 2 QP, the same amount of ranking points as a win. This led to some very tough calls, and a lot of controversy. The worth of the coop bridge is its own discussion, so I won't talk about that.

What ended up was that in close games, a 10 point bonus would give a win. These teams then decided to go for a win (2QP) instead of doing the coop and taking a loss (2QP). This led to many hurt feelings as the other alliance that agreed to initiating the coop bridge wasted a lot of time waiting for a team to balance with them. They also felt cheated out of the 2QP they would have got from the coop.

Another issue is that some teams that agreed on cooping ended up dying, causing both sides to try an emergency balance, usually resulting in failure.

So just keep in mind that this could have been much worse than it currently is.

[Tungrus]

yeah it happened in week 1, which we had agreed. We saw week 2 video one of the alliance spent almost 30 seconds to collect yellow totes and then realizing other side they were not attempting. I am not sure if there was any agreement between them. If happened in early matches in week 1 and 2, I will not hold grudge against the other alliance.

[Peyton Yeung]

We got burned 3 times in a row trying to do coop in Indy. Every time we would place our half of the totes and the other side didn't come through. It got to the point where we flat out told the other side that if they want to do coop then they need to initiate first.

[K-Dawg157]

My wild guess is that teams are more honest about their intentions, than they are about their abilities. They really want to be able to do what they say they can do. But the darn robot just doesn't cooperate.

But this is just a wild guess. Each situation is different.

This is exactly what happened to us time and time again. Either the other team couldn't get the stack they made onto the step (if they made a stack at all) or someone on our alliance said would make a stack and could make a stack, but never did.

Teams want to do a co-op stack, but sometimes they try to say they can do more than they actually could.

[IronicDeadBird]

Were you able to talk to the team or opposing alliance after the match ? It might be that something unforeseen happened during the match and they decided on-the-spot to abandon it. It's happened before.

Have you seen this thread ? 1511 has a rather detailed co-op planning guide/agreement
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135401

I did but my concern was if anyone has seen a consistent use of agreeing to co-op to lower the opposing sides score.

[Loose Screw]

I did but my concern was if anyone has seen a consistent use of agreeing to co-op to lower the opposing sides score.

Strategy like that shouldn't happen because if they do that, they'll lower their score as well. That happened in 2012 because teams thought that they could win that match if they abandoned the coop. They tried to get 2QP from a win and give the other side 0QP, as opposed to getting 2QP from a balance and 4QP for the other side.

[Tungrus]

It could happen, but more likely one team will refuse to do coop to edge a team from opposing alliance.

[mrnoble]

In one of our practice matches yesterday we had a specific agreement with an opposing team; we put the three on the step, but it was a waste of time. The other team looked like they totally forgot. Never again.

[prozack19]

At my last competition we ran into this problem so we came up with a plan. If they didn't attempt to grab the yellow totes yet by 120 seconds we bailed. If they didn't show progress by 100 seconds then we bailed as well. this was all on the human player to make the call.

[Ozuru]

We've had some issues, most of them being unintentional although a few became intentional after we started getting higher up in the pick order. Coopertition benefits both sides unless you're #1 and they're #2 and they are confident they can outscore your alliance. Until then I wouldn't worry too much about it being intentional.

[IronicDeadBird]

Sometimes it feels less like coopertition and more like "leave the bacon in the bag in the park and we will leave the tricycle in the subway next to the fire extinguisher"

[wesbass23]

My wild guess is that teams are more honest about their intentions, than they are about their abilities. They really want to be able to do what they say they can do. But the darn robot just doesn't cooperate.

But this is just a wild guess. Each situation is different.

I agree completely. In many of the matches I watched where no coop points were scored it was because the teams tried and failed. A huge part of the issue is that not all teams can deal with game pieces being in their way when they are already in possession of the yellow totes. Let that be a warning to all human players, please don't clog up the area by the step with noodles before the coop points are scored. It is not worth losing 40 points.

While I do not like the idea of relying on the other alliance for such a large amount of points, I like this years version of coopertition far better than 2012. This year you can do you part of coop and be done with it. In 2012 there were many matches where we would waste the last 30 seconds of the match setting up of the bridge to allow for the other alliance to join us and they would not follow up on their agreement.

[The other Gabe]

we had this problem many times because the other team's robots couldnt transfer a single tote to the center for us to put our 3 on. sometimes it was because the robot's claw couldn't hold it, sometimes there were noodles in the way, sometimes they accidentally flipped the tote on its side. other teams, for whatever reason, had way less issues than we did (2907, I'm looking at you... how did you even do that well?). We need to know their secrets.

[RonnieS]

I think I saw more of the, "Hey, we wont throw noodles until coop is done" but as soon as the match starts they instantly go at it. I think I saw more messed up from noodles blocking the path and not allowing one side to get there.

That being said, I did multiple times at our event tell our alliance member that was doing coop, " Don't attempt coop until they have set their totes on the step." Not because we didn't want the points, but because the opposite alliance team would always talk up their ability to complete it but our scouting said something completely different.

We made the decision to stop doing it (our bot, not alliance) because we could score way more points by doing out own thing...and the one time we attempted it, the team put the totes on the step in the wrong orientation(something we stressed before the match.)

-Ronnie

[philso]

At my last competition we ran into this problem so we came up with a plan. If they didn't attempt to grab the yellow totes yet by 120 seconds we bailed. If they didn't show progress by 100 seconds then we bailed as well. this was all on the human player to make the call.

I recall seeing some of the teams in Dallas that were collecting the three yellow totes in Autonomous Mode set them at the side of the field, near the Landfill Zone at the beginning of Teleop Mode. It seemed that they did not always pick those totes up again, probably because they did not see the positive progress towards a successful CoOp.

[Thad House]

The thing about coop this year that is different from 2012 is that it is possible to outscore coop points with a good enough robot. Lets say you expect coop from about half your matches. Thats an average of 20 points per match, assuming 12 matches. Its not that difficult for a good robot to put up more then 20 points per match, in the time they would be taking to do coop anyway. Since it was basically a win in 2012, only counted for 50% of your ranking. This year its probably similar for most teams, but it you can outscore it your time is better spent just making your own stacks.

[MrTechCenter]

While we didn't have an agreement issue, we had an issue with one of our co-op attempts. Our bot couldn't get the totes on the step very well and one of our alliance parteners said that if we could stack our three totes for them, they could put it on the step because they said that's all they've been trying to get their bot to do and they could do it well. We setup the stack for them in the first 20 seconds of teleop. They couldn't get the stack on the step...

[Ozuru]

Sometimes it feels less like coopertition and more like "leave the bacon in the bag in the park and we will leave the tricycle in the subway next to the fire extinguisher"

I can confidently say that I've never heard, seen, or written that and can also confidently say that I will probably never see, hear, or write that in the future.

[Loose Screw]

In 2012 there were many matches where we would waste the last 30 seconds of the match setting up of the bridge to allow for the other alliance to join us and they would not follow up on their agreement.

30 seconds? We didn't want to risk losing those QP at all so we always agreed with the other alliance to drop whatever you're doing at 60 seconds and balance with us.

[wesbass23]

30 seconds? We didn't want to risk losing those QP at all so we always agreed with the other alliance to drop whatever you're doing at 60 seconds and balance with us.

I suppose it depended on the match and what teams you were working with (some were far faster at getting up on the bridge than others). But I am sure there were matches where we wasted more than 30 seconds waiting for the other alliance to join us and they never made an effort.

[MrJohnston]

....., but it you can outscore it your time is better spent just making your own stacks.

Very much so... It really depends on your (and your alliance's) robot's capabilities. We put too much effort into working with the other side in our first event to make the coopertition points happen and it ended up costing us a lot of time - and points. If you have a strong stacking robot (like yours), it makes a whole lot of sense to have a weaker partner handle the coopertition. Of course, that creates a certain level of unreliability in the creation of that stack. This is where we got burned a little last time: We were relying on the other side to do teh job and, in the meantime, our path got blocked by noodles, totes, etc. and/or the other side couldn't do it, etc.

However, because we have a nice autonomous stack (should be very reliable at our next event), the totes will be sitting right in front of us at the beginning of teleop and the first thing we have to do anyhow is move them out of the way. It will take less than 15 seconds to put them on the step - which is well faster than we can build a stack... Moreover, if a weaker partner were to come and retrieve them, they'd likely interfere with our stacking anyhow, slowing us down. This will make it well worth it for us to do the coopertition for our team...