Re: MARC 2012
 

I'm pretty positive that we will be attending. :]

Looking forward to playing again
Regards, Bryan

Re: MARC 2012
 

While I agree 100%, that doesn't mean that if the point value was reduced it would make it more likely that teams would decide not to coop at an off-season event. Even if they don't lie or breakup a coop, a team deciding to not coop is not a very pleasant event for the other alliance.

I am fine with leaving it as 2pts. That makes it worthwhile to stop playing for the win and going to coop. If it's worth less, then which do you go for when you see you are losing the match, but agreed to coop? Win the match for 2pts or do what you said you would do for 1pt?

I can tell you that even when it was worth 2pts, teams continued to score way past the agreed upon time, just to rush the coop balance and end up failing.

Re: MARC 2012
 

I vote for 1 point for a co-op balance to give more weight to your win-loss record. I still think teams would opt for the co-op balance because you basically get credit for 1/2 a win. We had the second best win loss record at MSC but ended up in 16th place after quals. We had a solid performance but did not have good luck when it came to the co-op bridge whether it was us or our alliance partners.

Re: MARC 2012
 

I agree. The co-op bridge should be 2 pts or 0 pts.

Now if you decide on 0 pts, then question becomes whether or not you allow triple balances in quals. I'd say no because of the random pairings.

Would make strategy interesting at the end of the match knowing most of the time that the best shooter on an alliance will continue to shoot until the end. And would have some 'ammo' with the inbounders throwing balls to their side.

Re: MARC 2012
 

Team Cosmos is excited to be at MARC this year :D

We hope to meet some old friends and make new ones, as usual!

Re: MARC 2012
 

If the coop is worth 0 points, I would say you make the qualifications points as follows:

- Triple Balance = 40 Points
- Double Balance = 20 Points
- Single (Coop or Alliance Bridge) Balance = 10 Points

This would allow for teams to still perform the triple balance but if you have a match with 3 long bots you could still get 30 points. Two bots on the alliance bridge and 1 bot on the coop bridge.

-Clinton-

Re: MARC 2012
 

If coop is worth 0, then I think the coop bridge and barriers should be removed. This would allow for higher teleop scoring, and the possibility of triple balancing during qualification matches.

Re: MARC 2012
 

I like this! So, once one team goes to the co-op bridge, would it be off limits for the other? Or, would a double co-op just provide the same points to both teams?

Re: MARC 2012
 

I would say that they can coop together to get the same points, but you can not try to tip the bridge in order to unbalance the bridge.

Maybe as a bonus for cooping together you give each team like 12 more points for Hybrid because it is the tiebreaker after Qualification Score.

Some of these might be hard to do depending on the FMS and the scoring system.

-Clinton-

Re: MARC 2012
 

My vote would be to leave it as is @ 2 points.

Re: MARC 2012
 

Instead of coop bridge with 0 or 1 coop points and therefore 0 or 1 qualification points but this requires a robot from each alliance to balance, how about if one robot goes to coop bridge and get a single balance, the robot will get 1 coop point and therefore 1 qualification point. This way, if the other alliance will not come to the coop bridge to balance, you can still get 1 more qualification point for seeding and the other alliance have less power to mess with your seeding. If there is a rule like that, it will give more incentive for both alliances to go to the coop bridge which is what FIRST wants to encourage teams to do.

I also like what Clinton proposed. It may comes down to what is feasible in the scoring system to accomodate the rule change.

Re: MARC 2012
 

I like a combination of what Clinton and Ed proposed. However seeing a bunch of triples in the quals would be awesome. If the coop bridge is going to have value, allowing just one balance to get a qual point would make for some interesting decisions by teams, rather to do a triple of coop.

Re: MARC 2012
 

I really like this idea! It gives incentive for teams to do the co-op if they know that 1 alliance will get at least 1 point if they don't show. The only drawback is that one team may say they were coming .. so you would probably have to put a time limit on when you could single it. .. other than that.. I like it..

I also like the idea of having more opportunities to try triples.

Re: MARC 2012
 

Unfortunately in the scoring system there's no easy way to individually assign QP to teams. (That I can think of).

It is much easier to manipulate game scores for bridges, hybrid, etc though for Clint's idea.

Re: MARC 2012
 

How about:
- 2 QP for a triple balance on the co-op bridge, regardless of which alliance the 3 bots came from. All 6 bots on the field get the points.
- 1 QP for a double balance on the co-op bridge. Bots must be from opposite alliances. All 6 get the points.
- 10 alliance scoring points each alliance robot on a bridge (co-op or alliance).

That would encourage a lot of triple balancing (just for the fun of it) without penalizing a team for sending 2 or 3 of their bots to the co-op bridge. It would incentivise everybody to be helpful whether or not they are on the bridge. It wouldn't penalize a traditional co-op balance too much, while encouraging triples. Since any bot on the field can be part of the triple, it maximizes the chances of making it happen.