What is your cooperition bridge plan?

[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.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

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

So in a match where one of the robots on my side dies, and the match is very close, you would blacklist me if I said "no thanks" and instead balanced on my own alliance bridge?

Just curious. Because I'd rather go for the win than just give the Thunderchickens QP.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

So in a match where one of the robots on my side dies, and the match is very close, you would blacklist me if I said "no thanks" and instead balanced on my own alliance bridge?

Just curious. Because I'd rather go for the win than just give the Thunderchickens QP.

I can't speak for Paul, but I believe he's talking about pre-match strategy. Before the match, there is no reason not to go for the coopertition bridge unless you don't have 3 robots that are physically capable of getting on a ramp. His other case would be an alliance has 3 functional, able robots and purposely decides during the match not to go for the coopertition bridge. In both cases, the only purpose that it serves is for the opposing alliance to take a QP hit in order to deny the Thunderchickens QP.

The situation you are describing is the same as I mentioned, where you have a choice between going for a win or going for a loss with coopertition, due to a dead or otherwise incapable alliance partner(s). I hope that Paul would not blacklist a team that makes such a decision.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by AndrewWinslow

There the problem lies in communication. While running a mockup we noticed that properly coordinating to balance *quickly* requires effective communication, because you don't know how far each robot has to move to balance with each other, and if you do you have to communicate it with the other team.

Here is how I see it:
1) Bot 1 gets on the bridge
2) Bot 1 tilts the bridge to Bot 2
3) Bot 2 climbs onto the bridge
4) Until Bot 2 is fully on the bridge, Bot 1 does not move unless additional space is needed to permit bot 2 to get onto the bridge.
5) Once bot 2 is on the bridge, it stops.
6) Bot 1 moves away from bot 2
7) when bot 1 gets to the end, it stops
8) bot 2 then moves to the center.
9) if the bridge tips too far, bot 2 moves to the edge.

At some point during steps 6-9, the bridge will balance, and both bots stop moving.

I'm guessing that once the bridge tips to balance, you are done. The double hinge system seems to compensate for a lot of change in the center of gravity when the bots go from tilted to flat (the fulcrum point shifts by 6").

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Ninja_Bait

Well....

Eliminations....

I believe that's the only appropriate response.

[viper196]

One thing my team thought of was that we have a light on our robot that when trying to balance (either on the Co-op bridge or team bridge) it would go green if we wanted them to balance and we would not move or red if we wanted them to stop and let us get balanced. What do you guys think?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

I can't speak for Paul, but I believe he's talking about pre-match strategy. Before the match, there is no reason not to go for the coopertition bridge unless you don't have 3 robots that are physically capable of getting on a ramp. His other case would be an alliance has 3 functional, able robots and purposely decides during the match not to go for the coopertition bridge. In both cases, the only purpose that it serves is for the opposing alliance to take a QP hit in order to deny the Thunderchickens QP.

The situation you are describing is the same as I mentioned, where you have a choice between going for a win or going for a loss with coopertition, due to a dead or otherwise incapable alliance partner(s). I hope that Paul would not blacklist a team that makes such a decision.

Pre-match I would always plan on balancing the co-op bridge. I'd also let my opponent know what we'll do if one of my alliance robots dies (balance my alliance bridge), and that I would (probably) expect them to do the same (with no hard feelings).

Pauls post seemed a bit too ... absolute ... for my tastes. I meant no disrespect.

[Paul Copioli]

Pauls post seemed a bit too ... absolute ... for my tastes. I meant no disrespect.

None taken.

My post was meant to spark a discussion. It was also directed at teams who purposely don't do the coopertition bridge to reduce the amount of QP available in that match, given there are no extenuating circumstances (like dead robots or robots who just can't do it).

This is something that will be pretty obvious to differentiate (in my mind) and teams that do this will have a special place on our list . . .

[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 viper196

One thing my team thought of was that we have a light on our robot that when trying to balance (either on the Co-op bridge or team bridge) it would go green if we wanted them to balance and we would not move or red if we wanted them to stop and let us get balanced. What do you guys think?

I'm in favor of a light signal as long as it can be seen at the opposite alliance side and at the station controlling the bot on the bridge. I'd even go so far as to have an extension appendage with the signal on it to improve it's visibility. Or maybe two of them, one per side, then deploy the one best visible to the other drivers. Be sure to tell them about it while you're Q'd, whichever tactic you have for coordination.

[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?