Coopetition Ramp

[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.

[sanddrag]

If I'm interpreting the rules correctly, cooperation is HUGE in this game. If balanced, it's as good for your rankings as playing and winning a whole additional match.

[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.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

If I'm interpreting the rules correctly, cooperation is HUGE in this game. If balanced, it's as good for your rankings as playing and winning a whole additional match.

There are two end results to this: We see a lot of lower level teams, but those who can balance, end up high in the rankings.

Or the high end teams realize the importance and get really got at it.

[Cyberphil]

5.3.3 Qualification Score (QS)
Qualification Points are awarded to each team at the completion of each Qualification Match and are dependant on the final score:

Each team on the winning Alliance will receive two (2) Qualification Points.
Each team on the losing Alliance will receive zero (0) Qualification Points.
In the event of a tied score, all six teams will receive one (1) Qualification Point.
Additional Qualification Points will be awarded to each team on an Alliance equal to any Coopertition Points earned.

The total number of Qualification Points earned by a team throughout their Qualification Matches will be their Qualification Score.

[G41]
If a Robot from each Alliance is balanced on the Coopertition Bridge when the final score for a Qualification Match is assessed per Rule [G37], each Alliance earns 2 Coopertition Points. If the Coopertition Bridge is not balanced, but a Robot from each Alliance is fully supported by the Coopertition Bridge, each Alliance will earn 1 Coopertition Point.

I figured this would be useful to the people here. This means that 2 coopertition points is equal to winning an additional match, and 1 is equal to tying an additional match. To say the least, it is extremely significant! Also considering the score is added to every team on both alliances it might be worthwhile to send a not-so-great team to the coopertition bridge at the 45 second or 30 second mark. It is just that important in quals.

[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?

[Hallry]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

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

Especially if the GDC imposes the G40 clause that would allow them to change the value of the bridges between 5 and 15 points (per robot) for Champs. Of course, the IRI planning committee can change it however much they want =P.

[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.