Coopetition Ramp

[Cyberphil]

This idea is a very unique and ingenious way to promote Coopertition that I hope the GDC puts into use for years to come. I think you will see more Coopertition this year than ever.

Last year at the events I attended I only saw a few cases of Coopertition (sharing minibots for those of you who don't know) and in most cases it was in eliminations within an alliance. The problem, in my opinion, with last year was if you shared a minibot with another team who was not on your alliance you risk eventually loosing to them (if you did not take the minibot away from them when you played against them).

This years Coopertition eliminates that problem by making it relatively useless in the finals (unless you are trying to win the award), and only beneficial in the quals.

I see what you did there GDC...

[davidthefat]

Anyone have any answers about the legality of hooking onto alliance member robots on the bridges? Hooking onto opponents are clearly off limits, but never mentioned alliance members.

[NJEchoAlpha]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Anyone have any answers about the legality of hooking onto alliance member robots on the bridges? Hooking onto opponents are clearly off limits, but never mentioned alliance members.

The rule has no exemptions, so hooking onto alliance members wouldn't be permitted as well I guess.

[davidthefat]

Originally Posted by NJEchoAlpha

The rule has no exemptions, so hooking onto alliance members wouldn't be permitted as well I guess.

I guess G26 clears that up... I was just looking at G27

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Anyone have any answers about the legality of hooking onto alliance member robots on the bridges? Hooking onto opponents are clearly off limits, but never mentioned alliance members.

The robot-robot interaction rules (G26-G30) disallow extending within an opponent's frame perimeter:

[G27]
Deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent Robot inside its Frame Perimeter is not allowed.

They say nothing about deliberate contact with an alliance robot inside its frame perimeter.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by ZehP

The robot-robot interaction rules (G26-G30) disallow extending within an opponent's frame perimeter...

They say nothing about deliberate contact with an alliance robot inside its frame perimeter.

Nor about deliberate contact with a opponent's robot outside its frame perimeter. So maybe opponents can interlock with each others' extended hooks while attempting to balance on the center bridge? Hmm....

[davidthefat]

[G26]
Strategies aimed at the destruction, attachment, damage, tipping or entanglement of Robots are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed.

[the man]

Is coopertition worth to much? Do you guys think the 2 seeding points awarded it too much? I think one would be more reasonable. If you end up matched against teams that cant balance, unlikely but possible, you would be out a lot of seeding points.

[JaneYoung]

From the fans in the stands point of view, this is going to provide one of the most exciting moments in FRC's history. The first time they see the two alliances attempt this, there will probably be confusion and quiet. The first time they see it accomplished, there will be a deafening roar. The roar will be one of awe and inspiration with, perhaps, an aha moment or two thrown in. The term, bridge, is a beauty.

It will be like this throughout the season and off-season. I can only imagine what the Championship event will be like. Or IRI.

Love it.

Jane

[Apeace]

I know it says you can't attach robots to others, but what if you extended a ramp they could drive onto?

[Ninja_Bait]

I think the ramp is legal, if you can extend a 14" ramp that will make it easy for robots to drive up over your bumpers and onto the bridge.

[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?

[davidthefat]

Originally Posted by 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 -- are disincentivized from 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?

Exact same idea was brought up at our meeting. I think that would be more prevalent during the last half of the matches and not during the first.

[DjMaddius]

How about touching the ground while you are still on the ramp at the end of the match, is this allowed? Having something touching the ground yet still being within 5 degrees. Or would we not get our points?

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Madison

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).

Assuming the other four robots are capable of balancing on their bridges, there's no downside to attempting the Coopertition Bridge that I can see.

If you win without the bonus, the delta is +2 QP over the opposing alliance. (You get 2, they get 0.)
If you win with the bonus, the delta is +2 QP over the opposing alliance. (You get 4, they get 2.)
If you lose without the bonus, the delta is -2 QP over the opposing alliance. (They get 2, you get 0.)
If you lose with the bonus, the delta is -2 QP over the opposing alliance. (They get 4, you get 2.)

With the bonus, you are both +2 over All Those Other Teams Not In That Match.

Put your top two balancers on getting your alliance bridge balanced, let the third get Coopertition. Done.