What is your cooperition bridge plan?

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by Dave McLaughlin

Good teams get picked, great teams want to do the picking...

I understand that and your right to a degree, but you are 1 robot on a field of 6 there is only so much YOU can do. You can't force the other 2 robots on your alliance or the other 3 robots on the other alliance to do what you want.

Now I am not saying that the extra 2 or 1 point(s) depending on it being balanced or not isn't very important and that teams should just forget it or not try, it be stupid not to.

But at the same time if every match has a balanced coopertition bridge then the rankings are going to be the same if every match didn't have a balanced bridge.

Its a good strategy to know if the coopertition bridge is a valid option in EACH match, as Madison said its not always going to advantages to do it.

[Dave McLaughlin]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

I understand that and your right to a degree, but you are 1 robot on a field of 6 there is only so much YOU can do. You can't force the other 2 robots on your alliance or the other 3 robots on the other alliance to do what you want.

Now I am not saying that the extra 2 or 1 point(s) depending on it being balanced or not isn't very important and that teams should just forget it or not try, it be stupid not to.

But at the same time if every match has a balanced coopertition bridge then the rankings are going to be the same if every match didn't have a balanced bridge.

Its a good strategy to know if the coopertition bridge is a valid option in EACH match, as Madison said its not always going to advantages to do it.

The fact that I cannot control every aspect of the game to ensure that I rank as high as possible is the most frustrating part of the coopetition bridge and ranking system. If the best robots tend to not rank in the top 8 because less capable teams will not cooperate with them then the ranking system itself is flawed.

If my team is winning a match by a significant margin and we get on the coopetition bridge and tip it for the other alliance and they refuse to even attempt to drive on I have done everything in my power to try and cooperate to assist BOTH alliances in getting more qualification points. I tried to cooperate, I should receive some merit for that as I can not control the other alliance screwing me for spite or for ranking reasons.

This is just like 2010 where it was not always in your best interest to try and win the match.

So, back to the original argument, the coopetition bridge is key for those who want to do well in elims as it is worth the equivalent of winning a match. Good teams will get picked, but a great team as #1 seed will get the second best team, and the only way to be number #1 seed is to use that stinking bridge.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Dave McLaughlin

If the best robots tend to not rank in the top 8 because less capable teams will not cooperate with them then the ranking system itself is flawed.

Dave hits the nail on the head here. This is a robotics competition, and the elimination tournament is based around the ranking system. There is an expectation that the ranking system does the best job possible at ranking the robots at how good they are at playing the game. Right now, the system puts, In my opinion, too big of a weight on the coopertition bridge at the end. If you win and cooperate, you double your qualifying points. If you lose and cooperate, it's the same as if you'd won without the bridge.

Look at the teams who consistently win: 67, 111, 217, 254, 1114 to name a few. The way these teams are able to do so well is because they are able to win matches no matter who their opponents and partners are, and by doing so they put themselves in a position in the rankings to select the best partner. The expectation is that the teams that win matches will rank high.

With this year's ranking system, we have a situation where a powerhouse team that wins every match (10-0-0), but only is able to get their opponents to cooperate with them in 4 matches, will score (4*4)+(6*2) = 28 qualifying points. Another robot, which is able to win 4 matches and goes 4-6-0, but is able to get all of their opponents to cooperate also gets (4*4)+(6*2) = 28 qualifying points.

While this may be an extreme example, it's not a wholly improbable one. We have a situation where a very very good robot was able to go undefeated and should probably be #1 seed by common sense, and yet there is a team who won less than half of their matches, and is in contention for the same ranking spot.


As far as strategy is concerned, I believe it is very simple:

Scenario 1: You are clearly losing the match, and going for the bridge balance is not enough to get the win (or your partners are already balanced on it).
Result: Go for the coopertition bridge. Worst case you get 0 ranking points, same as if you didn't go for it. Best case you get 2.

Scenario 2: You are clearly winning the match, and going for bridge balance points is not necessary to secure the win (or your partners are already balanced on it).
Result: Go for the coopertition bridge. Worst case is you win the match but no bonus, and get 2 points. Best case you get 4.

Scenario 3: The match is close, and going for the alliance bridge could get you the win, while not going for it will likely net you a loss (this assumes that your choice matters, ie that your partners are not balanced and cannot get the coopertition bridge).
Result: Debatable, but I would say go for the alliance bridge. If you win, you get 2 points and your opponents get 0. If you lose, your opponents get 2 and your alliance gets 0. If you go for the bonus and lose the match as a result, you'd get 2 and your opponents would get 4. Loosing the match either way leaves you 2 points behind them, but one has the ability to win you the match. Granted, there may be some situations given your ranking and who you're facing where you would rather get the 2 points no matter the cost, but I believe in general, winning the match is better than losing with the bonus.

[Tetraman]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

but I believe in general, winning the match is better than losing with the bonus.

The first order sort for ranking is Qualification points. Whatever can earn you more of them is always better. If you would get 2 Qualification points all regional long from winning and skipping to coop you will be in first seed... just below all others that received 4 from winning and cooperating all regional long.

Plus what is the point in not cooperating with Powerhouse teams? Are you really going to risk getting 0 points for getting 2 points and a slight legup against that Powerhouse team in seeding? No! You'll want to get that 2 qualifying points so you don't fall behind.

Here is the real question: When will the two cooperating robots get on the bridge to ensure they get those points? 10 seconds left? 30 seconds left? With some, maybe with a whole minute left?

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

Plus what is the point in not cooperating with Powerhouse teams? Are you really going to risk getting 0 points for getting 2 points and a slight legup against that Powerhouse team in seeding? No! You'll want to get that 2 qualifying points so you don't fall behind.

I think it's less about you beating them and more about somebody else beating them. If you have a favorite for some reason (someone you know will pick you, etc), stacking the Top 8 the way you want them to fall can have huge advantages in the elimination bracket.

Note: I am not advocating this strategy, nor do I have any intention of implementing it. Just doesn't sit right with me. That said, it's certainly not illegal.

If you're trying to beat them, then no, it's not a very intelligent plan.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

The first order sort for ranking is Qualification points. Whatever can earn you more of them is always better. If you would get 2 Qualification points all regional long from winning and skipping to coop you will be in first seed... just below all others that received 4 from winning and cooperating all regional long.

Plus what is the point in not cooperating with Powerhouse teams? Are you really going to risk getting 0 points for getting 2 points and a slight legup against that Powerhouse team in seeding? No! You'll want to get that 2 qualifying points so you don't fall behind.

You do make a good point, but maybe I can clarify on my thinking. I'm not saying not to cooperate with powerhouse teams at all. My points is that, in a close match, I am not going to concede the match by going for the coopertition ramp if I think I can win by going for the alliance ramp. The scenario that my logic applies to ONLY occurs with I have to chose one or the other.

No good team is going to say "I could probably win, but I'd rather not risk it and get my 2 points for the loss". If that's the mentality needed to seed well, than the ranking system is even more broken that I originally imagined. I am going to try my hardest every single match to win, because I believe my team and robot is good enough to do so. Sometimes that means taking reasonable risks. In a hard fought match that's down to the wire, I'm going to take that risk unless I have a very good reason not to (ie last match and I need 2 points to get into top 8, and my opponents will not overtake me if I let them get the 4).

[pfreivald]

I'm with Paul 100% on this.

There is one and only one situation where a decision not to go for the coopertition bridge makes sense, and that is if you are forced into a situation where doing something else will likely win you the game instead of losing it. That's it, that's the only one.

[Ninja_Bait]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I'm with Paul 100% on this.

There is one and only one situation where a decision not to go for the coopertition bridge makes sense, and that is if you are forced into a situation where doing something else will likely win you the game instead of losing it. That's it, that's the only one.

Well....

Eliminations....

[EricLeifermann]

As I've already stated there is nothing wrong with not doing the coopertition bridge. However my goal is to be #1 at every competition I go to and to do that I'm probably going to need to rely on the coopertition bridge at least 75% of qualification matches..

[Doug G]

All this talk of blacklisting teams who don't cooperate should encourage all of us to educate the other teams at each competition! That's the GP thing to do and FIRST is counting on us to do just that. I know week 1 regionals will be quite interesting, but I hope by week 2 or 3, people get it, every qualification match has to have a balanced bridge, then the best teams will rise to the top and the coop points are a non issue. I know week 5 and 6 regionals will see the most coopertition and by worlds, it will be almost standard to see the coop bridge balanced at the end of every qualification match.

Also, if you haven't built your bridge yet, you better this weekend. Don't assume you know how the dynamics will work when two robots try and balance in a matter of 15 sec or less. While its definitely doable, it is a bit more complicated than I thought.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Ninja_Bait

Well....

Eliminations....

I believe that's the only appropriate response.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

Plus what is the point in not cooperating with Powerhouse teams? Are you really going to risk getting 0 points for getting 2 points and a slight legup against that Powerhouse team in seeding? No! You'll want to get that 2 qualifying points so you don't fall behind.

What if your at a regional with two 'powerhouse' robots that are clearly better than all the other teams at your regional. Last match on Saturday, your playing one of the powerhouse teams, who is 2nd place and 3 points behind a rookie team box bot in 1st place. It's in your best interest that the rookie team seeds 1st and breaks up the ultimate alliance of the two powerhouse teams. Thus, similar to the 6v0 strategy in 2010, I would not go for the cooperation bridge to give myself the best chance at winning the regional. If I were the powerhouse team, I would be upset, but would understand and respect the team's motivation and would not put them on a blacklist.

[Bill_B]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

What if your at a regional with two 'powerhouse' robots that are clearly better than all the other teams at your regional. Last match on Saturday, your playing one of the powerhouse teams, who is 2nd place and 3 points behind a rookie team in 1st place. It's in your best interest that the rookie team seeds 1st and breaks up the ultimate alliance of the two powerhouse teams. Thus, similar to the 6v0 strategy in 2010, I would not go for the cooperation bridge to give myself the best chance at winning the regional. If I were the powerhouse team, I would be upset, but would understand and respect the team's motivation and would not put them on a blacklist.

With the expectation that the rookie, as #1 seed, would choose one of those powerhouses, right?

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Bill_B

With the expectation that the rookie, as #1 seed, would choose one of those powerhouses, right?

Correct.

I just edited my previous post to be 'rookie team box bot' instead of just 'rookie team'. Not hatin' on all rookie teams, just rookie team box bots

I do agree with Paul on the overal feeling that if your not willing to cooperate with a powerhouse team JUST because they are a powerhouse team and you don't want to see them win, I have no problem putting them on a blacklist or 'no pick list'. Who would want to play with a team who doesn't want you to win?

[wilhitern1]

Originally Posted by Bill_B

With the expectation that the rookie, as #1 seed, would choose one of those powerhouses, right?

So I guess you are saying that the powerhouse doesn't know what scouting is?