Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

So much has been written, well thought out, pro and con, trying to parse GDC intent, effectiveness and outcomes. My thoughts are simple and clear to me, and there are only two:

1. If my alliance wins 19-0, my team seeds less well than if we lose 25-0. At some fundamental level, a system that allows that is grossly defective.

2. Because 2 different games are played in qualifications and eliminations, teams that are solid prospects as a strong elimination robot (for instance a great defender) has to intentionally reduce their demonstration of effectiveness in qualifications and go for high seeding points according to whatever strange scoring strategy makes sense at the moment.

I still believe than winning matches needs to matter and that we each design our robots for specified functions, and that a ranking system that evolves to devalue robust implemntation of conscious design is compromised.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

In both cases the winning alliance has FAILED to help the other alliance have a better showing in those matches. For that failure they are not awarded seeding points purely for their victories. Most of the objectors to the coopertition seeding structure have focused almost solely on the robot performance on the qualification fields. If, before that 19-0 win, some part of the alliance had helped (cooperated to allow) the other one score better, their resulting seeding would be improved, right? That help can be in the form of strategy advice or mechanical design improvement, or both. Argue the impracticality or even impossibility of that level of help, BUT that is closer to the spirit FIRST is trying to incubate, nurture and harvest from the various teams involved.

Instead of picking apart this year's seeding method, I'd rather see some thought devoted to a way to award seeding status to those alliances or teams that can be verified as having positively helped their opponents during qualifications. If everyone in the pits opens their crates and shifts directly into eliminations mindset, we're not so far from the battlebots label being assigned to us by a public that doesn't know better. If a potential alliance partner doubts your ability to play a rock'em sock'em game, just invite them to a personal demo on the practice field to prove your "robothood." Or offer a video showing your robot's abilities. I saw a lot of flat-screen displays in the pits; plenty of opportunity for mechanical boasting via electronics. The need for demonstration during qualifications will not suffer for being moderated by seeding considerations.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

The "coopertition" in FIRST that really counts happens off the field (i.e. in the pits, the off-season, in CD, etc.)

"Helping" weaker alliances by creating clever scoring schemes to promote close, high-scoring matches doesn't have the lasting effect that comes from teams helping each other outside of those two minutes on the field. We do compete on the field, but we want our opponents to play to the best of their ability.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Booo i very much dislike CoOpertition. I find it has little place in the real world, every one is out to make the best product and even the goverment keeps scerets (in regards to sharing desine ideas). The real world dosent shine most often on those who help there oponnets win. Over all i dislike CoOpertition.

My two cents.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

So you reject Dean Kamen's urgings to change the culture? Is the situation you describe the way you want it to be?

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

I totally agree. Point blank. Do other sports say "Hey, let's score some for the other team, in the long run it'll be beneficial right?"

No. I believe I remember Dean and Woodie talking about how they wanted to creat a sports-like game, to get more people to come to the competition. But, a lot of parents that went with our team were confused and frustrated with the 6V0-type system.

It is great that they added the 5 point bonus, but those 5 points are more obnoxious than helpful in my opinion. Wouldn't it be easier for it to be just the way it was?

You win, you win. You lose, you lose.

I know Coopertition is in the spirit of FIRST, trying to level the competition- but creates that whole idea of "playing the system."

It was risky to score goals for the other team, when you weren't sure if you were actually ahead. Sometimes, the score on the screen, wasn't actually the score... at all. How can you decide whether to score for the other team, when you can't even trust that?

I just see, another award like the safety award. How loud can you yell robot? How many goals can you score for the other team?

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

If dean is human he can be wrong I am sure he has been wrong many times and I believe he is wrong here. I would like every one to be united to work under one company and share information and ideas; unfortunately I don’t believe this will happen.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Loser gets loser's score. No more 6v0, along with more of an incentive to win.

Winner still gets W + 2L. Get rid of the 5 point bonus, because the stuff you were trying to mitigate by including that bonus is no longer in the game.

Teams are only allowed to score in their own goals. No more 6v0, and no more 2*loser's score padding during a blowout. Winning teams aren't doing this to help and "cooperte" with the loser; the loser doesn't magically become more of a capable machine as a result of this practice; winning teams are doing this only to elevate themselves in the standings, which they will continue to do if the rules permit them to do it. Please get rid of any other tra la la "coopertative" notions that claim otherwise, and close the door on this pointless practice.

But...BUT...since the 2L bonus is still in place, if the better teams want to maximize their seed scores, forcing them to only score in their own goals ALSO incentivizes getting them to help their opponents become more capable BEHIND THE CURTAIN, where true "coopertition" has been demonstrated for years. The only way to get a big 2L bonus is to make sure your opponents are competitive BEFORE THE MATCH and leave them balls to score DURING THE MATCH. What a concept. ;)

Finally, I really like the idea of a mutual "coopertition" objective built into future games - this sounds like the mutual mission that spans the two fields in FLL.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

What I'm about to say can be taken as meanspirited or a jab at someone, but it's just my views on it. Flame me if you will. ::safety::

the biggest problem with the system is not the system itself, but rather you people. the people who question how can we get the most points out of this system... how can we work the system to get the most seeding points, and then blame the system when someone else does the same. Here's the simple solution in MY mind. use the same coopertition system, it works well, rewarding wins with more points than losses, and losses get some points as well, mitigating punishment for a team who's in the first qualification match, and has 2 bots who don't work vs. a full alliance. This system works, if everyone plays the way they say they want the system to work, that is, if everyone play to win. That's the underlying thing here. No matter what system is in place, you can find fault. Someone, somewhere, is not going to like it, and is going to find fault. the coopertition system gives a system that guards against the easy schedule win, and the brickmode disadvantage for the early rounds. The biggest problem is when teams assume they're going to lose, and don't play, so they score for their opponent, trying to get points. Instead, if everyone just plays to win no matter the odds, scores will be higher, closer, and everyone will get points. The 19-0 vs. 25-0 shouldn't happen unless the other alliance just is miserable, or you are miserable in the case of the second. keep the system, play to win, get points if you lose, and lets build some robots.

thats my $3.79, flame me if you will. ::safety::

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

I think this whole "Cooperatition" business is just someone's attempt to advance their own political agenda, but that's just my opinion.

Anyway, applying the concept of Cooperatition to FRC is not beyond reason, because well, we've been doing it since the start. Think of all of the times that teams have helped other teams make it to the field and play matches, think of all of the teams throughout the years that have shared resources throughout build season, the teams that practice with one another until the late hours of the night with the hopes of getting better - this is the spirit of Cooperatition.

IMO, the seeding system this year tried to extend the concept of Cooperatition to the playing field, and had mixed results. In theory, the seeding system was supposed to give an incentive to teams to allow their opponents to score and perform well, because it would help them in the long run. An unforeseen consequence to this system is that in many matches the opposing Alliance couldn't hang with the scores that the better alliance was putting up, so the other "better" alliance chose to score for them.

Perhaps true Cooperatition could be encouraged with the seeding system by adding one simple clause to the rules: "You cannot intentionally score for your opponents. Violation - Yellow Card". This would encourage helping your opponents to compete at their best, while also discouraging and making the concept of a 6 v. 0 illegal. Hopefully this would lead to strategies like feeding your opponents balls that they subsequently score, playing less or no defense against opponents, or not kicking balls out of the opponents scoring zone etc...

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

I, too, liked the extra strategic dimension added by the considerations of 6v0 and self-scoring. From my perspective, I thought the additional options for strategy helped to encourage some "out of the box" thinking.

The "self-scoring" consideration did lead to more communication and planning during qualification matches, which I think is a good thing.

However, a number of times throughout the season, we also encountered teams that were ethically opposed to the entire concept of scoring for the opposition or of having any cooperation with the opposing alliance. Such discussions tended to be difficult, awkward, and probably not in the best interests of any of the competitors. What is a team to do when it is arguably in the best interests of the alliance to maximize their seeding points by scoring for the opposition, yet there is a team that is ethically opposed to doing so because they don't want to do something which might be humiliating to the opponents?

We also encountered a surprising number of teams that "just didn't get it" with regard to why it was usually in a team's best interests to not play defense during qualifying matches (especially during week 1 before the 5-point winners bonus) or why once our alliance had a big lead, it was better to score for the opposition to maximize our own seeding scores.

We also know that our team's willingness to score for the opposition to help maximize our own seeding score was harmful to our own "OPR" value. At the North Carolina Regional, we probably scored about 30% of our goals during qualification matches for the opposing alliance, which served to bring down our OPR. On Archimedes at Championships, however, where the opposing alliance typically included at least one high-scoring robot, we scored very, very few goals for the opposition, and had a much higher OPR and CCWM as a result.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Maybe it's just me, but I'm actually kind of confused about what the GDC's goals are with this year's scoring system. Perhaps if they were to be more explicit about their goals and to what extent they think they have been achieved it would help everyone.

As far as 6v0 etc is concerned, I can respect the position of teams who say "we play to win and will not discuss the match with the opposition beforehand". I can also understand Andy Grady's argument that 6v0 is not showing GP towards all of the other teams who are not in that match (I think that's roughly what he was saying). Personally, I think that rules have consequences and 6v0 is just one of the consequences (intended or not) of this year's rules. The GDC has redefined "win" as "get the highest total seeding points over your qualifying matches", so teams are going to look for legal ways to accomplish that.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

The Breakaway scoring system is exceptionally simple: one point added for each ball scored in the alliance's goal, one point deducted per penalty (some actions receive a double penalty), two point bonus for elevation, and three points bonus for suspension. The alliance with the highest score at the end of the match is the winner.

Perhaps your confusion is due to the fact that you're calling it a scoring system, when it's actually a seeding points system. The goal of that system seems straightforward to me: encourage teams to win by scoring higher than their opponents, as opposed to preventing the opponents from scoring.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

This is a bit off-the-wall, but I'll put it out anyway.

Let's say there are 10 qualifying matches at a regional. After the first 5 matches, the seeding scores could be used to select red / blue alliance members for the last 5 matches (the 6 teams involved in each match would be predetermined as they are now.) That way, higher scoring bots are more likely to to be on opposite alliances and defensive bots may have a bit better chance to show what they can do.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

I think that this thread has pointed out some key drawbacks and benefits of the current coopertition system.

Hopefuly someone from the GDC will read this and consider the following points:

1. Most people seem to favor a "winning is always better scenario" and several changes to the current have been suggested that enable this (losing alliance get's it's own score, penalizing self goals etc.). they may create other problems (losing alliance getting it's own score does not reward teams who played against a strong alliance) but a solution is there if you work on it (and are willing perhaps to make compromises on your ideas).
2. Blowout matches are perhaps not nice, but scoring for the opponent is down right humiliating for them. this should not be allowed.
3. the spirit behind coopertition, as I and most people I've talked to see it, is not embodied in Breakaway. instead some twisted "do whatever is needed to score high" is needed. I have no beef with teams that play to win, but I expect the people writing the rules to make sure the game remains a competition.
4. Earlier I proposed (and as Travis suggested, I was probably inspired by the FLL cooperation missions) that coopertition would be better displayed and rewarded by designing the game itself to incoporate it as a mission requiring cooperation between the opposing alliances in order to benefit them both. I urge the GDC to consider this for the 2011 game so strongly because I can already visualize the amazing games and stratagies that would follow. (not to mention it would display on the field for the audience that which is so prevelant in the pits)

Like people have already said: the coopertition seeding system has at least one very very strong thing goinng for it: it incorporates the strength of your opponents into the ranking. I think this is great but should not compromise the basic gameplay of play to win.

I am hopeful that the 2011 game will have a revised system which allows teams to play to their full extent and which does not in any way reward 6v0 or similar stratagies.

-Leav