Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

After an amazing season, I'd like to share some thoughts and points from a discussion we had on our team regarding coopertition.

Premise:

• Coopertition resulted in an unforeseen outcome, ubiquitously known as 6v0.
• The 6v0 strategy is undesirable (i.e. many people, teams and we believe FIRST itself would like to avoid such a strategy)
• Having taken out a patent on the idea, FIRST is unlikely to revert to the win-lose-tie system.

What coopertition sets out to do:

• in concise terms: avoid un-sportsmanlike blowout matches by combining cooperation with the competition.

The problems:

• the 2010 implementation of coopertition to seeding points resulted in teams being rewarded for scoring self goals.
• A quick fix (the +5 to the winning alliance) mitigated the problem but did not eliminated it.

Possible solutions:

1. revert back to win-lose-tie. this is a competition and let's not try to paint it as anything else.
2. penalize self goals. this will eliminate the problem for breakaway, and a similar rule could be adopted for the 2011 game, depending on it's scoring system.

However:

1. choosing this will obviously bring back to the field the possibility of blowout matches.
2. this will also lead to rewarding blowout matches, with the possibility of no defense being played in order to help maximize the opponent's score.

In summary, some ideas FIRST introduced are simply perfect (alliance selection procedure and elimination match order, for example) but some are simply very flawed: coopertition is a nice idea, but applying it to a game like breakaway simply guts the core game mechanic.

In order to involve coopertition a game would have to be designed with it in mind, and not just slap on the seeding score system.

here are some ideas:

1. for breakaway: teams get the same hanging score which is minimum(red hanged robots, blue hanged robots). this would mean it's in the best interest of both teams to have hangs and would virtually eliminate the need for finale-protection. (interesting for having "defend the goal while allowing to hang" scnerios).
2. for 2011: some sort of huge red hocky puck in a blue-robot-only zone, and a blue one in a red-robot-only zone. teams must give the hocky puck to the opposing alliance, which must each score it in their respective zones. points are awarded if both teams scored the puck.

Your thoughts?
-Leav

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Well thought out. I am hoping that FIRST goes back to the win-loss-tie way of seeding as opposed to the seeding score. The only time that this form of seeding score would be used is if 2+ teams have the same W-L-T record. I do not predict this seeding score to last very long, or at least for the major way of seeding. In regards to coopertition, I believe that FIRST is a controlled competition. It has been stated before, cooperation is meant for the pits, and competition is meant for the field.

My two francs.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Does everyone but me disagree with the second premise? I disagree with pre-arranged matches, but I thought "6v0 or not?" was pretty interesting. I guess I don't see "why" it's automatically undesirable for the loser to score for the winner but the reverse is okay.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

I see both as undesirable.

I neglected to add that in my opinion coopertition is achieving the opposite of it's goal since having the winner scoring for the loser is much more insulting than the blowout scenario.

-Leav

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

I'm going to make some arguments here in support of a coopertition seeding method. Please note that I don't necessarily agree with these arguments, I'm just presenting them here.

1) A Coopertition ranking system builds strength-of-schedule into the ranking. If team A wins 15-3 and team B wins 15-12, then team B's win should be rewarded more since their opponent's were most likely better. All wins are not created equal, and the coopertition method helps incorporate this into the rankings.

2) The Coopertition schedule allows better robots to rise to the top of the rankings. Let's say alliance A (a good alliance) plays alliance C, and alliance B (a GREAT world-beater alliance) also plays alliance C. Alliance A wins 15-4, which is a decent qualifying score. Alliance B is so good that by the time they score 15 points (same as alliance A could score), there is enough time left in the match to score 6 balls for alliance C, which significantly raises their qualifying score. If Alliance C is is good enough to do this, they should be handsomely rewarded with a good qualifying score.

3) The Coorpertition system encourages offensively designed robots. Many people in FIRST would rather see the game played with a offense/defense split around 80%/20%. The Coopertition system rewards high scores, so teams are more likely to develop offensive robots.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Does awarding the losing alliance the winner's score (without penalties) really make sense??

Somehow, having the losing alliance earn more seeding points than the winning alliance in a match just doesn't seem right. This situation was mostly eliminated in Team Update #16 by awarding a 5-point bonus for win (but not always).

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

[speculation] I think the intent of coopertition is to encourage people to talk to their opponents before the match to get the best outcome for both sides. This can relate to the real world because in many cases if two competitive companies work together they might end up producing a better product, or at least reduce bitter tensions between them. I think FIRST is attempting to promote this type of action. [Speculation]

This is what I think, but I have no idea if this is actually the case.

I'm torn on whether I like the coopertition aspect or not. I don't feel as though it hurt competition, and that is good since I had feared that before the season. I'll be honest some 6v0 matches were very fun to watch.

I liked the system overall, awarding seeding points based more or less on goals scored rather than win loss, I think that's fair especially when you don't have a lot of seeding matches. I didn't really like the coopertition bonus, but I could live with it. It didn't turn out as bad as I had feared before the season. I think it could have some tweaks, but its not a bad starting point. The 6v0 didn't ruin anything, but I feel like it could have if it was happening in every match, so in that way the rules had the potential to ruin things, but they didn't

I don't know if I like this but, one way to get rid of a 6v0 but keep coopertition is to give the losers their own raw score, rather than the unpenalized score of their opponents. This way coopertition exists because winning teams gets more of a reward when their opponents score more, but the losers don't benefit from the winners score.


Edit: I realized I accidentally contradicted myself

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

I think so.

With the exception of Overdrive, every FIRST game has a finite number of game pieces or scoring locations (Triple Play/Rack N Roll) that the alliances are competing for in order to score for their alliance. If I have a good scoring alliance but I'm up against a great scoring alliance, my score will be lower than if I were to play a weak alliance simply because my opponent will have scored more balls/goals/spider legs/whatever for himself, leaving fewer for me. So a strong offensive robot with a nightmare schedule would seed lower than the robot's true ability would indicate.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

My main issue with Coopertition is that, similar to Stack Attack in '03, we were playing two different games: one for qualification matches, one for elimination matches. Some will say this makes strategizing more interesting, but some want to see the competition between the alliances, especially the spectators. Let's have just one set of rules...they're hard enough to follow as it is.

As for the inclusion of "strength-of-schedule" into the scoring system, this would be a good idea...if the schedules weren't completely random (or as random as an "algorithm" can make them). Sure, because of the scoring system, I'd love to play against a 469 or an 1114 every match because I know I'll get a lot of points (mostly from their efforts), but that doesn't happen. Sometimes, good teams draw the short straw and get less-than-desirable matches. In this game, it could happen with a bad alliance or with a bad opposing alliance.

Also, I really wasn't too fond of an award created for "earning" the most Coopertition points.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

The Coopertition system this year was not solely there to reduce blowout scores.

Remember: FIRST is aiming to make this a game that is easier to watch. In that vein, shiny flashy offense and slam dunks are a whole lot more interesting than well-coached defensive teams.

The scoring system encouraged teams to SCORE. Either for themselves, or for the other team.

The really, really shocking part of that is just how many teams seemed to have absolutely no idea how to play the game. Even at championships there was a stunning number of teams that were STILL playing defense. It hurt both their own seeding score, their teammate's, and the other alliance. In point of fact, very few of the third picks I saw at the championships were picked for defensive reasons. They were picked as another scoring robot to complement the other teams.

I guess I've slid more into game strategy than coopertition. I'll get back on track.

In 2008, FIRST made all sorts of rules to try to promote scoring. It was a total nightmare. This year they got a bit more clever: rather than trying to punish 'bad' behavior, they tried to reward the good behavior.

It mostly worked.

There is a very simple very easy way to get rid of the 6v0 issues we saw this year. Have the losing team get THEIR score, and not the winning team's score. Now, the losing team has a reason to score for themselves. The winning team, if it's a blowout, still has motivation to help the other team.

That's my solution.

I can handle playing two different games. Professional teams do it all the time, depending on their opponent.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

This seems reasonable, if you want to create an intensive high scoring game where defense is not always a good option than I agree the seeding system this year is a good idea. but in my opinion it must be supplemented by a rule penalizing self-goals.

also in order to promote cooperation on the competition field I propose that the game be designed with an appropriate challenge, for example (in addition to those proposed earlier) here are some changes to previous game which would serve this purpose well:

1. 2007 seeding score bonus for a red-bot on a blue-bot at end of match (or visa versa ofcourse)
2. 2006: points awarded to both alliances according to minimum of robots on ramp at end-of-match

once you get the basic idea rolling, it is easy to supplament each year's game with such a scoring bonus which would have opposing teams cooperate in order to maximize their score.

-Leav

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Even if you disagreed with the removal of win-loss, you do have to admit top performing robots are much more likely to seed. Loosely looking over some events, the only outliers are top robots that weren't reliable in many matches, which explains why they were seeded lower.

I think the way to improve it for both the winners and losers is to give the losers their score. This more or less turns the ranking system into a function of your average score plus a bonus (of a constant plus the losers) if you win. I like that, you get rewarded for high score, regardless of win/loss, and you get rewarded for wins, regardless of score.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

I do not see why so many people are opposed to this system. The purpose of a ranking system is to rank teams in order of who's the best. This system does that better than any other system.

In the W-L-T system a team could get an easy schedule and seed 1st because a win was worth 2 points, regardless of if it was an easy win or a tough win. One or two losses and you'd take a huge hit in the rankings. Think about how many fluke #1 seeds we had in the old W-L-T system.

After the addition of the 5 point rule, the top teams were seeded high regardless of Win-Loss-Tie record. Why? Because the new system quantifies your wins and losses instead of making them worth the same. The good teams will be able to routinely get high scores and therefore get higher seeding points, putting them in a higher seed. Meanwhile the teams that cannot consistently put up big numbers won't get the seeding points and won't seed as high.

I hate it when teams like 1114 get flak because they 'gamed the system' when really, they are using the rules to their advantage. They aren't gaming the system. If they are in a position during the course of a match to score for the other alliance to boost their co-opertition score then that supports the fact that they were the BEST team at that competition.

I think the Co-Opertition Ranking System is one of the best things FIRST has done in a long time. Kudos to FIRST, please keep this system around.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

I completely HATE the coopertition seeding system even if FIRST did "improve" it in mid season. It didn't stop the 6 vs. 0 junk.
I want the teams to play each other not the system.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

The fix, to me at least, is a somewhat simple one. Each team gets their *own* penalized score, winning team gets their opponent's un-penalized score as a coopertition bonus. I do like the idea of a coopertition game piece being built into the game and being worth lots of bonus points to both teams if everyone does what they need to.

If each team gets their own score then it encourages you to score for your team (every point scored goes into your seeding) and encourages you to keep the game close (if you win you also get your opponent's score). If FIRST doesn't want blowouts to be as harsh to seeding perhaps there's a floor of 1/2 the winning alliance's score that the losing team goes away with as seeding points.

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

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

I understand everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I think that making a game in which two alliances work together to achieve a common is goal is quite frankly the worst thing FIRST could possibly do. You learn plenty of cooperation with your own alliance, let's not start a process of removing the competitive aspect and replacing it with something that FIRST has plenty of. People need competition too. I'll bet you can learn just as much from a competition as you can from a cooperation. Right now FIRST has a perfect mix of both. Plenty of cooperation that kids learn how to work together and plenty of competition that kids learn what it's like to not always succeed and get a taste of the real world. The competition is the best part. Making alliances work together may involve some form of competition, but it wouldn't be the same without the competitive aspect. If you were working with your opponents anyway, they wouldn't really be opponents, they would just be people with robots that were in the player station on the opposite side of the field. The cooperation aspect of FIRST is covered fine in the pits and with alliance partners. Let's keep the competition on the field. It's the most fun that way. Having fun is a good way to get inspired, and inspiration is the main goal. I know for me I've learned plenty of cooperation from first as is, if the teams on the field are working together it won't be fun to watch, or play for that matter.

Koko Ed made a good point, "let the teams play each other not the system." If teams are working together towards a common goal, they aren't playing each other they are playing the system. The competition is the inspiring part for me, sure I'm inspired by everything else in first, but if you take out some of the competitive aspects, your losing a lot of the inspirational parts of the events.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

There is at least one other ranking system for sporting events that incorporates the relative strength of the opponents. I'm thinking of the international ranking system for chess players. Each match of each tournament is played between two ranked players and results in the alteration of their rankings based on the outcome. Beating a stronger (higher ranked) player will increase your rating but losing to a weaker player will decrease your rating. The amounts of increase and decrease depend upon the difference in ratings of the participants at the time of play. For a grand-master to win a tournament with all other players as experts means less to his/her ranking than winning a tournament with many closely rated players.

I won't explain the system further, but I can assure you that spectators at a chess match of any significance all understand the process of ranking nearly as well as they appreciate the playing being exhibited. You can appreciate the ratio of complexity between the game of chess and the game of breakaway, I think. It has been pointed out in this thread and elsewhere the widespread lack of understanding about the game of Breakaway among the very people trying to play it. The ranking system component of the game is certainly one of the confusing factors for would-be players but not the only one.

I strongly suspect that beakaway as a game has seen its day. In less than a year, I doubt that there will be even one event featuring it as part of the proceedings. To the extent that my prediction may be true, further study and analysis of the game will only be useful in appreciation for the matches already played and recorded. Such study will only be useful in some general sense as it might possibly apply to some future game. Perhaps its short life expectancy is the very reason those who should study the game decline to do so. However, the seeding system may see some further use for a future game or two or many. That makes it worthy of some study about its workings and utility.

Any commentary about likes and dislikes about the seeding system are largely a waste of time and effort. As are statements and posturing about how I will never enter combat with the intent to lose. Ask any novice chess player about the concept of Queen sacrifice to hear about the utility of such pre-game statements. In fact, making pre-game pronouncements about your style of play may even make it easier for your opponent to defeat you. I only have to know how much my opponent treasures his Queen to chase her all over the board, fortifying my position to the detriment of his.

What we really need to do is to convince the team members that they need to understand the game completely to play it well. We could make a "perfect" robot that would surely perform miserably at the hand of incomplete game understanding. Six weeks to make a robot should be accompanied by six weeks of concentrated thought about how the game should and will be played. We can also hope for some preliminary game understanding that will guide the robots' construction. Else, we'd end up with the proverbial one-legged players in an a$$-kicking contest.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Sgreco, I think you took my comment to far. I was only proposing one mission (for example the end game mission) to be cooperative between the alliances.

This will make for an interesting game, in my opinion, without sacrificing the core competitive nature of the game.

Bill,
That is a very interesting idea which deserves further thought.
Are there any critics of the international ranking system for chess players?
what are it's disadvantages?
do you think it scales down well to 80 participants?

-Leav

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Actually, my confusion is about whether 6v0, scoring for the opposition when you're winning big etc are behaviors the GDC wanted as part of this year's game and if so, why. Were they intentional or unintentional consequences of the way the rules were written? More disclosure of purpose and intent would be a good thing.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Suggestion - opposing alliances must complete a mutual objective that unlocks access to super-dee-duper high scoring bonus game pieces that EITHER team can then score. They can call it "Pandora's Box", for once you open it, all heck will break loose as the teams scramble to acquire and then score the bonus objects. Sounds fun to me - perhaps not so much for the engineering staff that has to design the field structures that implement this objective, but that's why they pay them the mediocre bucks.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

perhaps like the ball release in '04?

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Similar, only that one alliance would not be able to trigger it by themselves.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

I think one of the main problems with the 6v0 concept is that the GDC never imagined it would be used in their wildest dreams. I think in many ways, teams keep pushing the envelope in how far they taken their analysis (a good thing) and how far they take their willingness to show the GDC that they've found a fatal flaw in the game (sometimes also a good thing!)

Even allowing for such a thing to happen truly set a slight damper on the first weeks competitions, thought I was impressed that a complete 6v0 match was run. It took guts.

Coopertition, I think, it's safe to say, is here to stay. It's been a mainstay of FIRST for many years, and I think that for them to suddenly drop it and move to a purely competitive style is very unlikely. I am among the oldschool. I started when it was every robot for itself, and I loved it. I also love the coopertition system. It provides for "greater greatness" - and I think it promotes Dean's mantra that everyone's a winner - Less of the ordered rank, more of the shared success. There isn't 1 world champ. There are 3. That's a huge difference. It builds teamwork, it builds camaraderie, it better advances the goals of FIRST.

All that mush aside, I do think the GDC needs to be more proactive in their solution to the issue - they need to not build in a breakable seeding system.

Winners should win. Losers should win. Winners should win more. Always.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Regardless of its effects on coopertition, this year's seeding system did a better job of accurately ranking teams than W-L-T has every come close to. In W-L-T, all of the following situations have the exact same effect on qualifying points:

• Losing a high-scoring match by one penalty
• Losing a blowout because of an unlucky schedule
• Losing a low-scoring match after a fair fight
• Losing an easy match because your robot/alliance partner's robot tipped over

The new system accounts for each of these and ranks accordingly. I've never seen more accurate top eights before.

I personally do not like 6v0, and I'm pretty much neutral on scoring for your opponent when you're ahead. I do like how this system discourages defense and encourages scoring. If FIRST must fix 6v0 and other issues, I hope they don't change too much, because the way this seeding system accurately ranked teams was amazing.

It is difficult for me to tell whether 6v0 and scoring for the opponent were strategies the GDC simply didn't think of, or strategies they deliberately put into the game to teach the reasonable lessons that helping out your opponent when you are very far ahead, or giving up and joining your opponent when you are very far behind, are both courses of action that are sometimes beneficial for everyone involved (including you).

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

There's one problem that I see with using the chess ranking system:

A new player in chess gets to go up against established players that are already ranked, so it's easy to see where they slot into the rankings after a number of matches. The problem with FIRST is that all teams start with a clean slate at the beginning of the year. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the chess system somewhat depends on a number of players already having rankings. I don't know how it would work when everyone comes to the party unranked.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Systems like Glicko2 take more than 10 matches to accurately rank people, and the systems are more flawed than our current system since they don't take point differentials into account. A 10-0 blowout against the #1 seed because they didn't move should be worth less than a 10 / 9 match

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

An amusing aside.
Watching the Sprint Cup race at Talledaga I heard Darrell Waltrip use the word CoOpertition to explain Bump Drafting.
That's a bit of a different perspective on the subject.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

In my opinion, CoOpertition was a huge step back for FIRST.

FIRST, in Dean's words, is trying to make a "sport" out of a science, technology, engineering and mathematics competition.

Go to your TV. Turn on the Red Sox, Celtics, Bruins or sports team of your choice, the Yankees if need be.

Do you see David Ortiz hitting a home run for the Washington Nationals because the Red Sox are winning?

Do you see Kevin Garnett or Paul Pierce take the ball to an undefended Celtics net to score for the Wizards because the Celtics are "winning by too much"?

Do you see the Bruins pulling their goalie in the first period because they are winning?

The answer for all these cases is no. That is because it is a SPORT! A competition based on the skills of the teams involved.

Seeding for finals should be based on wins/losses/ties, or develop some type of point system like in hockey or something if you don't like saying that one alliance wins, while another alliance loses. Like if your alliance wins, you get say 3 points. Losses are worth 1, while ties are worth 2 for both sides. Or if you want really close matches, make ties worth more than wins.

All I am trying to say is make it a sport, like its supposed to be. Give some incentive to do well.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

They just change the definition of "doing well", forcing teams to think. Doing well relies on technical proficiency more now than ever before.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

If we want spectators, fans, and the common plebian masses (he said with tongue firmly implanted in cheek) to really enjoy and root for teams, it needs to be a competitive sport. Cooperatition in general is fine -- as implemented this year was not, in my mind, a way to achieve the goal of getting fans to come and watch FIRST.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

There are teams that are good, and there are teams that are bad.

Often times, people on "bad" teams think their process was right (they couldn't have worked harder, smarter, faster, with more resources, etc...) and therefore anyone who somehow achieves more is flawed; They must be cheating, they must have 100 NASA engineerins, GM gives them $100k a year, etc...

It's far easier to blame the other people for being better, than to take a step back and evaluate why your team performs the way it does, and how it could be improved. It may also be useful to get to know one of these good teams, and learn at least at a basic level what they do right (at a bare minimum, I'd put money down that they work at least twice as many hours).

So, if you're unhappy with how you did, and how well the good teams did; decide to do better, make a plan and make it happen.

This is slightly off topic, but as someone pointed out to me, people only really complain when good teams do these things (6v0, 469's strategy...), but when someone else does it, it's just part of the game.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Now why didn't anyone else think of that?

GDC *facepalm*

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

I think you are right.....if Dean wanted it to be like other sports. My take, based on the years he spent on the patent and theory, is that he absolutely did not want it to be like other sports (speaking only of the qualifying matches). I agree that is somewhat in conflict with his statement about making it a spectator sport but if you look long range and think that people might actually understand this system then you could possibly imagine they might enjoy watching this strategy game as much, or more, than a "win-loss" game.

Dean looks long range....and he is also about change. Changing the "win-loss" mindset. I think that he has expressed that in a lot of ways through FIRST.

Imagine a robot like the HOT BOT, a robot that can easily score from the mid-zone. It's early in the game, score 4-2, HOT BOT grabs a ball and turns to shoot. At its own goal, of course. Late in the same game, HOT alliance up 10-4, HOT BOT grabs a ball and turns to shoot. Where? In a "win-loss" game, there is no question. In Dean's game, its a strategy decision for HOT and its alliance.

I'm not advocating right or wrong. I will say that I enjoy all the discussion and opinions about the system. It makes me look forward to next year's game (which will be different) and next year's scoring rules (which may or may not be different) and watching how teams play the new game and score using the new rules (if present).

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

There are some limitations on the coopertition system that restricts the modes of scoring for games.

What comes to mind is the different ways of scoring for Breakaway versus VRC Clean Sweep.

In clean sweep, there are already a set amount of balls on the field. Your seeding score will be high, or higher, depending on the proximity between winning and losing scores. Any object on the field is worth points. If playing an poor team, a top team and a good team will be limited in score by the number of objects on the field--many good alliances have found themselves having completely cleared the field about a minute from the end of the match. An alliance that can "clean sweep" with a minute left is not distinguished from an alliance that can "clean sweep" with 5 seconds left.

This is not the case in breakaway, with points only coming from robot performance. No moving robots = no score. This allows much greater variation in seeding score not fixed by the # of game objects on the field, and enables scoring to distinguish the top teams from the good teams. There is no cap to the score; it is limited only by the time.

I won't say I'm disappointed though, because it gives good robots that face excellent robots a better chance in ranking regardless. Losing close matches isn't as devastating if there's no distinct point systems for winning and for scoring. We were frustrated at VRC championships because a clawbot with lucky alliances managed to pull off being 8th alliance captain, while our robot, having played multiple 1v2 matches due to no-show, lost close matches that led to devastation due to W-L-T ranking.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

I liked the seeding system used this year. I don't pretend to know the intent of the GDC. I liked it because it encouraged and rewarded offensive play in the qualification matches. I also liked that the elimination rounds created a different strategy.

I agree with sentiments like "play the game, not the system." I think that the 6 vs 0 strategy, while allowed in the rules, is not in the spirit of gracious professionalism; I owe it to my competitors and my alliance partners to always give my best effort.

I agree that alliances should be awarded seeding points based upon their performance and "quality" wins should be rewarded, too.

I wonder how the following would play out:

Winner gets their score less penalties. Loser gets their score less penalties. Coopertition bonus points are defined as the sum of the scores before penalties. Each alliance gets 50% of the bonus points.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Two separate questions are being discussed in this thread.
1) What is coopertition supposed to be, and did the 2010 system reward it properly?
2) Did the 2010 seeding system do an accurate job of ranking (seeding) the teams?

Coopertition is a lot like friendship - It is priceless and cherished, but any system to measure it or put a price on it will create ulterior motives that can cheapen or destroy it. I view Coopertition as the "rising tide that lifts all boats". It is an aspect of Gracious Professionalism that happens off the field (pits, CD, mentoring, etc, etc.). FIRST always fostered that sort of coopertition with the system of random and shifting alliance partnerships. Strategies that resulted from the 2010 coopertition bonus were all about improving ones own standing. I would prefer to see coopertition rewarded by the judges.

I support the idea of a seeding system that rewards victory and scoring (sorry all you defense bots, but your recognition comes during alliance selection). I would like to see the winners receive their own score plus the losers score, and the losers receive their own score. Perhaps there could be a guaranteed minimum seeding score for the winners (eg: 10 points) instead of a fixed bonus (5 points) for winning (values would be scaled to fit the game). This way, even a 2-1 victory is well rewarded, a 15-14 loser still does better than the 2-1 winner, the 15-14 winners and losers do better than the 15-1 winners and losers, and nobody benefits from 6v0.

But then, I don't know what the GDC's goals were for coopertition, so I could be way off base.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Jon,
I have to agree with you on your points. Helping the students develop strategies was very fun. The students and teams that think outside the box (i.e. 6v0) is the innovative thinking we need for our students. The seeding system really brought another level of strategy to the game besides just having the best robot out there. Some of the teams that did well in the qualifications also had the best strategy and used the seeding system to their advantage. Congrats to the teams that read and understood the rules.

One element of this year's game that I really liked was that your alliance had to cooperate much more to win the game. A team that played just in their near zone was not effective without a mid-fielder and a far zone player. In eliminations, defense became more of a factor and definitely was a key to the Einstein winning alliance.

So I add my Kudos to the GDC!

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Travis you have GREAT ideas!! You need to be on the GDC!!

I have mulled this over for a long time.
It really isn't coopertition that we discussing it is SEEDING....(as mentioned by many before this post)

I really miss the old days (read... before this year...) when coopertition meant giving selflessly....by helping another team with no regard for your own stature in seeding.

Now it seems that we get 'rewards' for doing it...
To me... that takes away the valuable lessons that coopertition provides to us all...

I can remember competing in Atlanta in our first year and helping a team fix a lifting mechanism and then turning around and having them competing against us in the next match.... it was wonderful...we couldn't lose that match....

But then again...maybe I am confusing gracious professionalism with coopertition...or are they both the same thing?

I see gracious professionalism occurring in real life.... but I guarantee you that when competing for a contract.... two companies don't intentionally help each other....to make the result a close contest...

So what is Coopertition then really?
If it is what I saw on the field this year.... that is... intentionally scoring for the other team BECAUSE it would enhance our own seeding score.... then I don't like it....
If that is what it is... it is nothing more than undisguised self promotion......
What is that teaching?

If coopertition is .... helping an opposing robot right itself... in the middle of competition....or intentionally allowing the other team to succeed on the field... no matter what that means....
then I am all for it....not taking advantage of a team's obvious weaknesses on the field when your alliance is much stronger....

These are the marks of the Coopertition that I would like to see manifested in FIRST and in life.

coopertition as we have seen it is akin to playing a basketball game between the Lakers and a high school team.... with the Lakers scoring all of the points ....the opposing team needn't even come on the floor....how is that really helping a team...

A sign hangs over the door to the tunnel at the Notre Dame stadium....
It states: "Play like a champion today....."

in my FIRST world... it would read: "Help everyone to play like champions today...."

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Oh, I bet certain people would just LOVE that. Thanks for the laugh. :cool:

That still happens behind the curtain in a number of different ways. Some teams spend hours with other teams helping them get up and running. Others bring additional parts with them that are just what other teams need to add a new feature to their robot, or correct an emergency situation. I don't believe what's happening on the field this year has impacted that practice.

The behind the scenes coopertition is just so unfortunately overshadowed this year by the overemphasis of this contrived brand of "coopertition" on the field. If they would keep the seeding system (save for whatever changes it took to eliminate 6v0 and de-incentivize scoring for the other team) and ditch the artificial connotations they're trying to attach to it, I think people would accept it better.

I still like the idea of 1 + (L*constant) for the winner, only teams are NOT allowed to score for the losing team. I also like the idea of somehow getting the match schedule in the hands of teams earlier in the competition - say mid-day Thursday. If you want maximum incentive for the better-functioning teams to help ALL the struggling teams behind the curtain prepare for competition, then this combination would certainly go a long way toward achieving that.

Thank you for introducing an NBA reference into this thread, because it leads nicely into my next example. Consider the first two rounds of the NBA playoffs as equivalent to FRC qualifying. Last season, the Cleveland Cavs faced two absolute duds in Detroit and Atlanta. One team was old and didn't care. The other team was injured. Neither team provided a true challenge to Cleveland. The Cavs swept both teams. Fun times for the team with the best record in the NBA, no? WRONG. The Cavs finally met a tough test against the Magic in the conference finals, and promptly got their butts kicked. They got complacent. They weren't PREPARED for the eliminations, because their matchups during "qualifying" weren't of elimination round intensity.

Fast forward to this year. The Bulls were the Eastern Conference's playoff doormat this year. They gave the Cavs everything they could handle, including on the defensive side of the ball. The Cavs now face a Celtics team that will be an even greater test. If they survive that battle, they will be much more seasoned, hardened, and ready to face the elite teams in the league.

Why do I offer this NBA parallel? Because many have attempted to use the existence of the coopertition model as a "mandate from above" to suggest that regardless of your team's abilities at the time, playing defense within this model is akin to "tearing teams down", "not reading/understanding the rules", etc. And soccer is played without goalies, right? This coopertition model is blinding many people to notion that regardless of the seeding rules, the elimination round style of gameplay - the most heralded style of gameplay - could be the way this game is played all the time! Einstein matches are hailed as the best thing ever witnessed, while qualifying matches either go without discussion or are publicly excoriated. Unfortunately, which matches are the ones spectators must bear witness to the majority of the competition?

Many are sacrificing the quality and appeal of this awesome game design due to their worship of this seeding system and its various quirks and exploits.

While I totally feel that you should always strive to improve your robot to play the offensive aspects of the game better, the reality is, at any given time, during many of the matches at an event, there are going to be teams who CAN'T play the game that way, for whatever reason. We were one such team this year - many of our continuous improvement efforts did not pan out on the field, save for improving our drivetrain reliability, but we look forward to the additional time in the offseason we have to keep trying to improve the other systems. Why is it honorable for top-performing teams to "gently bully" the lesser robots into "trying their best" (this is also equivalent to "helping us seed higher at your expense" in the current system) and "not tear down other teams by playing d", when in fact they have alternate strategies available to them that would make the match MORE competitive and MORE of a preparatory challenge for the good teams and MORE interesting to spectators? If I am a team on an extremely weak alliance that would have no chance of winning the match in a straight up you-score we-score offensive fight, how in the heck is it doing ANYONE any good to just go through the motions and let the better alliance receive a huge seeding score?

Also in defense of the appropriate use of qualifying defense, what if you are on an alliance whose offensive strength is a level below that of whom you are facing. Are you just going to hope the better alliance chokes, or are you going to go out there and provide some defensive resistance to help swing the result in your favor?

I can tell you that we and our alliance partners elected to use defense within the alliance strategy several times when severely outgunned by quality opposition.

I can tell you that in our alliance with 175, we arranged to play defense against 111's alliance when we felt outgunned, but not out of it. We won the match in a close struggle, contributing to one of Wildstang's two losses (I think they did pretty well after that match :) - maybe it lit a fire under them?).

I also can say we pursued traditional offensive strategies (herding well and kicking...poorly) in the remaining matches where we felt the matchups were balanced.

If I'm strategizing with an alliance before a match, and I can't score well, but I can at least drive well, does it not benefit both me AND the great teams I face to go out and give the competition a more elimination round level of defensive effort? Will their seed score be hurt by a more defensive tilt? Possibly - but if they are TRULY an elite team, they will find a way to overcome it. More importantly, will that team's drive team have received a better test of their skills that is more like what they will face in the elimination rounds? Sure thing. I'd rather be honorable in promoting my robot's best abilities and giving my opponents a true test of executing through defensive pressure than playing dead and giving them a FAKE sense of accomplishment.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

I understand that FIRST uses a sports model and creates a game to play. However, FIRST is about equipping students to succeed in life and inspiring them to change our culture.

This year's seeding points system encouraged and rewarded offense more than defense in the elimination rounds. I liked it.

It would apprear intentional, much like the NFL has intentionally modified or created rules to promote offensive play.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Agreed; however, I fail to see how promoting the freedom of choice of gameplay style on the field adversely impacts that vision.

I think you meant qualifying rounds. And you have a right to like it. I see promise in the system as well. But people should take care not to use this system as a platform to horde more of the power for the already powerful and exploit the less capable into giving even more of the relatively little they have up. The majority must be vigilant in ensuring their best interests are truly being served by whatever "system" is presented to them by the governing body.

And, if true (I think player safety is also one of the key factors), there's certainly nothing wrong with that. However, that doesn't stop the Steelers from drafting a bunch of linebackers when they have other glaring needs on offense. Teams are still free to hang their hat on defense, if they so choose. Even if the NFL Rules Committee thinks otherwise. ;)

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

That is correct, qualifying rounds, of course.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Here is how Coopertition is defined on the FIRST website; it is listed among FIRST Values along with Gracious ProfessionalismTM:

"CoopertitionTM

CoopertitionTM produces innovation. At FIRST, Coopertition is displaying unqualified kindness and respect in the face of fierce competition. Coopertition is founded on the concept and a philosophy that teams can and should help and cooperate with each other even as they compete.

Coopertition involves learning from teammates. It is teaching teammates. It is learning from mentors. And it is managing and being managed. Coopertition means competing always, but assisting and enabling others when you can."

For as long as I've been involved with FIRST (eight seasons now), it has been made clear that the desire is to promote high-scoring close matches. This year's seeding points system would appear to be an attempt to promote high-scoring close matches. I agree that the (likely unintended) consequence of 6 vs 0 matches and the actual impact of scoring for your opponents detracted from the game.

But here is why I liked the seeding points system:

I believe that FIRST creates a game designed around a "challenge" and that teams are expected to compete by developing creative solutions to the "challenge". This seeding points system, I believe, rewards teams that have successfully conquered the "challenge". I think that it also seeded those teams the highest who best solved the "challenge".

Many of us (certainly not excluding myself) get caught up in playing the game and the objective becomes winning the game versus conquering the "challenge". We choose to out-score our opponents by better inhibiting their ability to score, either as an over-arching strategy or a situational strategy.

Under the current system, defense in the qualifying rounds remains a viable strategy. I understand the value of winning a high scoring match. I don't see the value of winning a low scoring match versus loosing a high scoring match.

Travis made a point that I hadn't considered. I am inferring from his comments, perhaps incorrectly, teams that unsuccessfully or less efficiently solve the "challenge" are having their experience diminished by discouraging defensive play. He also points out (and I agree) that there is value in being tested by defensive play during the qualification matches.

I offer another perspective. We have always decided to build a machine that plays all aspects of the game. We have enjoyed moderate success some years; however, we are certainly not among the most successful. While I have always accepted it as part of the game, I have also been disappointed when we have been unable to demonstrate our machine's ability to accomplish the intended task because we have been impeded by a strategy aimed solely at inhibiting our scoring. To be clear, in past years, we have not shied away from using exactly that strategy when overmatched or simply to ensure a win. And we used it in elimination rounds this year. However, this year, I consistently encouraged an all offensive strategy during qualification matches. I wasn't always successful in convincing all of our alliance partners, but it was based on my belief that it was in the best interest of our alliance and met the intent of FIRST (high scoring close matches).

Net, I support Coopertition, on and off the field. I like this year's seeding system because it promotes the opportunity to compete against the "challenge" more than against each other and rewards those with the best solutions to the "challenge". It is a good system for Qualification.

For Eliminations - nothing is more exciting than win-lose with good, solid defensive strategies and counter-offensives, etc.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

You infer correctly.

The long term goal should always be to get better at completing the offensive challenges, but if the short term reality for a team is that their robot is better suited to play defense, then they should stand up for their right to play it in a match, taking full consideration of their partner and opponent strengths before making the decision.

Just because the seeding rules mathematically dictate that sitting there twiddling your thumbs after pressing the e-stop button or struggling to score with a malfunctioning or nonexistent system will *benefit* your seed rank; it doesn't mean that is the most enjoyable and satisfying activity for that team to tackle for a given match; regardless of what anyone else thinks they should do.

I find it odd that if the qualifying seeding system is indeed effective in determining which teams best execute the *full* game "challenge", it seems contradictory that they give out the Champion and Finalist Awards to those who successfully complete the *elimination* round game challenge, where the seeding system is thrown out the window in exchange for additional gameplay mechanics which showcase all aspects of the robot design challenge - elegance and scoring efficiency, yes, but also robustness, toughness, and the ability to remain elegant and efficient in offensive performance even under duress, when real-time strategizing and communicating among teammates becomes even more critical to a team's success.

To me, keeping the seeding system, while getting rid of 6v0 and scoring for opponent scenarios, combined with the notion that injecting more elimination-style matchups into qualifying is not the end of the world, would do well to synchronize the disconnect between qualifying and elims, and make the whole shebang a lot more sensible and enjoyable affair for all teams in the field, top to bottom, as well as the people in the seats.

Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
 

Perhaps. Teams are recognized for Quality and Design; of course those awards do not qualify them for the Championship ...

Agree, the incentive to play 6 versus 0 and scoring for opponents needs to go. I don't think that rules prohibiting such game play should be installed; I think that would only create headaches for referees. That is why I suggested the change in the seeding system a few posts earlier. If you want to include an incentive to play some defense, keep the winner bonus points.