[Madison]

I like the idea, but I think it has potential to make people very angry with one another.

Free wins are too important to let slip by, so I think most matches will see both alliances agree in advance to attempt a coopertition balance. Top-tier teams will have machines that leave little to chance and make this balance -- even among teams that can't communicate well -- very reliable. The idea is that everyone gets a little bit of seeding help from the coopertition bonus.

In reality, though, the team that is losing the match is the one that will determine whether or not the coopertition "bonus" really helps them and whether it's worth pursuing. If you're competing against an alliance that is seeded higher/will seed higher in your estimation and you're losing only by a small margin, I think it'd be wiser to use your third robot to win the match than it will be to attempt a coopertition balance. The end result is that you receive +2 QP and they'll receive +0, closing the gap between you and them.

Am I missing something? Close matches between teams vying for high seeds -- the people most likely to succeed at the task -- disincentivize attempting it because a win with no coopertition bonus (+2 QP gain on your opponent) is better than a loss with a coopertition bonus (-2 QP gain on your opponent).

So, in reality, maybe this means that capable teams will take advantage of less capable opponents to leap even farther ahead in the standings; a bit of a win more situation.

Maybe I'm missing something tremendously important about this. I've been looking at CAD for 10 hours.

Thoughts?