What is your cooperition bridge plan?

[scotishjake]

Originally Posted by AndrewWinslow

The issue I'm seeing here is the size of the robots. When you have a large piece of machinery with 120 pound max (and I just KNOW we're going to have a lot of robots approach that limit) that is 28"x38", the balancing problem increases.
Simple communication with the team across the field will be difficult, but the largest problem is how would you pull down the bridge? You can't push down with the greater-than-120 pound force needed to push the other robot up, because your own bot would lift off the ground from the force of the mechanism. So unless you can coordinate driving, simply getting two bots on there won't happen.

Well some teams are going to make their robot small enough that all they do is try to score on the balencing part which could be a good stratigie in the finals for that extra 40 points if u balence 3

[Paul Copioli]

I feel like stirring up the pot a bit this evening ....

If we are competing against an alliance and they say, "no thanks" to the coopertition bridge, or they make no attempt to do the coopertition bridge in a match with us, they will go on our blacklist for eliminations selection.

I am not saying it is not GP, as I believe saying, "no thanks" is a perfectly legitimate part of the game. However, putting someone on the blacklist for saying, "no thanks" is also a perfectly legitimate part of the game. The reason you would say no thanks is mainly due to strategic seeding to give you the best chance to make / win in the elimination rounds. Just know this: if you say, "no thanks" to us, then you won't be in the elimination rounds as our partner

Paul

[Tetraman]

Our plan is when we enter the place before beginning of the match before us, we ask each of our opponents who wants to cooperate with us on the bridge. Whichever team wants to join we will then discuss the times and places we will be at and how to get up there. We want to work with teams to earn this bonus whether we win the match or not.

We want to the THE team that cooperates, we want to be THE team that is on that bridge at the end of the match with an opposing alliance robot to show our FIRST coopertion and want to be the team that ends up in the top seed.

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Just know this: if you say, "no thanks" to us, then you won't be in the elimination rounds as our partner

Aww man, please come back to FLR! We will never say no to you! haha

[Dave McLaughlin]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

I feel like stirring up the pot a bit this evening ....

If we are competing against an alliance and they say, "no thanks" to the coopertition bridge, or they make no attempt to do the coopertition bridge in a match with us, they will go on our blacklist for eliminations selection.

I am not saying it is not GP, as I believe saying, "no thanks" is a perfectly legitimate part of the game. However, putting someone on the blacklist for saying, "no thanks" is also a perfectly legitimate part of the game. The reason you would say no thanks is mainly due to strategic seeding to give you the best chance to make / win in the elimination rounds. Just know this: if you say, "no thanks" to us, then you won't be in the elimination rounds as our partner

Paul

You seem to share our sentiment entirely. Although, I do think that teams deciding to go for the bridge just for the sake of making sure high power teams don't cold shoulder them during picking is far from what the GDC envisioned the goal of the coopetition bridge being.

[Tetraman]

While it may not be a "blacklist", we will have a "List of discouragement" that lists the teams that did turn us down more than once. It can be one thing for an alliance to turn down cooperating for the sake of having our team or another team on our alliance to take on less Qualifying points, but its another thing if we find out there isn't any interest in it match after match.

In the Elims, you want to not just get with the best robots available, but also with teams that you can work well with. I'd (and this is me speaking) rather pick a team that shoots 50% less basketballs but has 50% more connection between drive teams than a team that shoots like crazy but doesn't work well between drive teams.

[earlybird]

Our team was thinking about making a 3 sided sign on a long pole to communicate with the other team trying to balance with us on the coopertition bridge. One side would say stop one side would say forward and one side would say back if we needed the other robot to move. We were also thinking about getting one robot to center on their side of the bridge the best they can and the other to move back and forth until the bridge becomes balanced.

[Ninja_Bait]

Or an LED message board could work too....

[jblay]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

If we are competing against an alliance and they say, "no thanks" to the coopertition bridge, or they make no attempt to do the coopertition bridge in a match with us, they will go on our blacklist for eliminations selection.

I think it could be a slippery slope with this idea though because there are cases where it is in the best interest of that team to not cooperate with you and that needs to be taken into consideration in those cases but for the most part I do agree that teams should be aware when they say no to cooperating that they are removing themselves from the picklist of the team that is requesting cooperation.

Originally Posted by Dave McLaughlin

I do think that teams deciding to go for the bridge just for the sake of making sure high power teams don't cold shoulder them during picking is far from what the GDC envisioned the goal of the coopetition bridge being.

I just don't understand why the GDC does these things. It doesn't help with the spirit of FIRST, it does the opposite. In 2010 when teams scored on themselves during a blowout to help their ranking scores, the result wasn't teams thinking to themselves that at least they had the points on the board that their opponents put up for them, it was embarrassing for their opponent to have scored more points for their alliance than they did.

[Tetraman]

Originally Posted by jblay

I just don't understand why the GDC does these things. It doesn't help with the spirit of FIRST, it does the opposite. In 2010 when teams scored on themselves during a blowout to help their ranking scores, the result wasn't teams thinking to themselves that at least they had the points on the board that their opponents put up for them, it was embarrassing for their opponent to have scored more points for their alliance than they did.

At least this year you aren't scoring more points, you are getting more ranking points and your opponents get a bonus along with you. The 2010 scenario helped only one alliance in the end - this year, both teams get a boost.

[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.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

I feel like stirring up the pot a bit this evening ....

If we are competing against an alliance and they say, "no thanks" to the coopertition bridge, or they make no attempt to do the coopertition bridge in a match with us, they will go on our blacklist for eliminations selection.

I am not saying it is not GP, as I believe saying, "no thanks" is a perfectly legitimate part of the game. However, putting someone on the blacklist for saying, "no thanks" is also a perfectly legitimate part of the game. The reason you would say no thanks is mainly due to strategic seeding to give you the best chance to make / win in the elimination rounds. Just know this: if you say, "no thanks" to us, then you won't be in the elimination rounds as our partner

Paul

Good point. I'm definitely on board with blacklisting a team that makes no attempt, especially if they said they would. In fact, if they didn't have a very good explanation after the match, I'd plan on having a long memory. As for a "no thanks" answer, can you clarify your rationale? It's certainly legitimate and I don't know that I disagree, but on the other hand, I'd like an elimination alliance that's conscious of the intricacies of strategy. Either way it doesn't seem very...Coopertit-ative...since they're either saying no to deny our alliance points or saying yes to gain their own or stay off the blacklist.

The GDC is so odd sometimes. At least this method encourages us to talk with our opponents, as opposed to the "no blowout" embarrassment that just happens.

[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.