Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

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:

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

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

:)

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

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.

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

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.

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

Agreed and seconded.

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

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.

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

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

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

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

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

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.

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

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.

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

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.

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

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.

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

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

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

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.