Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Off-Season Events (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106213)

Chris Fultz 02-05-2012 09:15
Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
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 02-05-2012 09:28
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
I'd vote for a bonus for 3 robots on the co-op bridge. :D

Peyton Yeung 02-05-2012 09:34
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 02-05-2012 09:38
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
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/sh...7&postcount=55

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Freeman (Post 1164667)
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 02-05-2012 09:44
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
We posted three options.

Taylor 02-05-2012 09:54
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
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.

[disclaimer]opinion of a likely non-participating but interested third party[/disclaimer]

Adam Freeman 02-05-2012 10:12
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Fultz (Post 1165728)
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 02-05-2012 10:58
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
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 02-05-2012 11:37
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
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 02-05-2012 11:40
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli (Post 1165810)
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 02-05-2012 12:15
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
I'm also with Paul but if we can't have triple balances then option 3.

Richard Wallace 02-05-2012 12:34
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Fultz (Post 1165728)
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 02-05-2012 12:40
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
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 02-05-2012 12:50
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
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 02-05-2012 12:57
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Line (Post 1165875)
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 02-05-2012 12:58
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Line (Post 1165875)
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 02-05-2012 13:14
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donovan0217 (Post 1165883)
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 02-05-2012 13:17
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli (Post 1165810)
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. 02-05-2012 13:18
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
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 02-05-2012 13:23
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
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 02-05-2012 13:30
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli (Post 1165810)
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 02-05-2012 13:48
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
Triple balance in quals sounds like fun!

Paul Copioli 02-05-2012 13:55
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Baker (Post 1165911)
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 02-05-2012 13:59
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
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 02-05-2012 14:03
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
Give a group of engineers the choice of three options, and they'll pick choice number seven.

Having said that,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli (Post 1165926)
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 02-05-2012 14:32
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli (Post 1165926)
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 02-05-2012 14:42
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
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 02-05-2012 14:48
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor (Post 1165934)
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 02-05-2012 15:04
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman (Post 1165950)

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 02-05-2012 17:48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman (Post 1165950)
...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 02-05-2012 18:06
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:

Code:
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 02-05-2012 18:12
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
and i thought i asked a simple "choose one" question ...

:)

Justin Montois 02-05-2012 18:22
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.

Joon Park 02-05-2012 19:06
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.

ratdude747 02-05-2012 19:08
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli (Post 1165810)
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 02-05-2012 19:14
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by artdutra04 (Post 1166078)
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:

Code:
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 02-05-2012 19:20
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

A_Reed 02-05-2012 19:53
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

Bjenks548 02-05-2012 20:00
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.

Joon Park 02-05-2012 21:17
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BJC (Post 1166120)
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 02-05-2012 21:31
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli (Post 1165810)
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 02-05-2012 21:49
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.

Chris Fultz 02-05-2012 22:02
Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Sheridan (Post 1166199)
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 02-05-2012 22:06
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 20:14.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi