What is your cooperition bridge plan?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by wilhitern1

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

No. The idea is that the rookie seeds #1 and breaks up the powerhouse alliance. We're talking two teams that are so powerful, if they get together they WILL win the regional. If they're not together, everyone else has a chance.

At that point, the powerhouses have to go to their #2 choice, who may not be the best option.

[Tetraman]

What is going to make this interesting, is that three robots are on an alliance trying to get as many qualification points as possible.

I can imagine that on one alliance two powerhouses and one decent are against two powerhouses and one decent. The two powerhouse teams on both sides do not want to cooperate to ensure their place in the rankings. However, in the end, both of the decent robots from the two alliances Cooperate because THEY want the boost in points. Do the powerhouse teams bully the decent teams into not cooperating? Bribe them with "If you won't coop we will pick you as are second choice."?

If at all - that is the only problem I see with this ranking system. Otherwise, if you want to ensure that your powerhouse robot is actually as powerhouse you and everyone claims, you will have that robot coop every single match. If a robot that loses a bunch of matches ends up in first seed because they cooperated, that's the reward they get. If a robot can score 60 points in Teleop but can't get on that bridge at the end of the match, how "powerhouse" are they? Plus that helps in splitting the powerhouse teams anyway! I see that part of the ranking system as a Win-win. This is probably the reason Paul is talking about a blacklist, because to not coop for the sake in lowering another team's qualification score can really hurt their chances, so its very easy to say that a team will blacklist you and hurt your chances in the elims. I remember that line in the animation "Team will have to cooperate if they want to be successful." Regardless of winning or losing the match, someone in your alliance needs to cooperate or else 3 teams will have been "Disqualified" and 3 teams will have "lost" in one match.

In previous FIRST games, powerhouse teams just plain won. Sure they had to fight for it, but you could tell from the beginning of the match who would come out on top. In this game, the so-called powerhouse teams will have to prove they are and ensure they can follow the rules of the game by ending up on that bridge with an opposing robot at the end of the match - even if they have to do it 45 seconds left to go. This extra tension will not necessarily "level the playing field", but challenge the otherwise uncontested "powerhouse robots" to reach that number 1 seed.

And I mean come on - If you are a very low seed robot, and some teams like the Thunderchickens could possibly choose you as their second elimination selection simply because of your ability to balance with them on a bridge, why would you say no?

[Bill_B]

What we're seeing is the competitive nature of homo sapiens filtering up through the ranking system. Despite concerted efforts to make a "fair" seeding system, a sort of pre-eliminations contest evolves in which placement in the seeding ladder is the goal. I don't have a solution, just noting the situation, is all. We probably wouldn't like it if seeding were random, or [shudder] judged, would we?

[johnr]

Bully on playground, " Let's cooperate. You give me your lunch money and maybe i won't punch you."

[Chris86]

Another thing I'd like to note about the coopertition bridge.

It's late in the qualifying matches and your robot has been doing decent, but is out of contention for the top 8 spots and possibly on the bubble of being selected for elims.

The Top 8 bots in elims want robots that know how to work together to balance their own bridge, not the coopertition bridge (for elims)

In any of the final matches, I - as a bubble team, would most likely put priority on balancing my own alliance's bridge just to show I can and I'm useful for that purpose.

(Obvious exceptions: playing against teams in top 8 that we want to pick us - don't want to get "blacklisted" by knocking them out of the top 8. And of course, if our alliance has multiple balancing robots, balancing both bridges is not a problem.)

[Puppier]

It would probably be easiest to have a conversation with the opposing alliance prior to the game and agree to cooperate.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by johnr

Bully on playground, " Let's cooperate. You give me your lunch money and maybe i won't punch you."

I would like to think that no FRC team would do that.

[apalrd]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

I can imagine that on one alliance two powerhouses and one decent are against two powerhouses and one decent. The two powerhouse teams on both sides do not want to cooperate to ensure their place in the rankings.

It would be in the best interests of all involved for a coopertition balance to happen during the above match.

Even if one of the powerhouse alliances looses (which one of them will), it's still equiv. to a win (since you still get 2 QP's), and they're still the same distance behind the powerhouses they just played, but they're higher than the rest of the pack.

[wilhitern1]

It's this simple:

If you are ahead and you don't cooperate, then you give everyone who did, a chance to catch up or surpass you.

If you are behind and you don't cooperate, then you give those further behind a chance to catchup or surpass you and those ahead a chance to pull further away.

[Jibsy]

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 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.

^My thoughts exactly. Look at 1114 and 2056. These teams have won at least 10 titles (Regionals, Championship Divisions, Invitationals) together. I could see this happening throughout the seeding matches.

[markbean]

My inclination is that the coopertition bridge should be attempted every time in qualification matches. For seeding purposes, being able to do the coopertition is just as valuable as winning. However, if the coopertition bridge becomes a task too difficult to complete and the probability of success is exceedingly low, then a team's resources would be better utilized scoring points to win the match.

If a team comes up with a method for doing the coopertition bridge that has a high probability of success, then that team would likely be the/a top seed.
(please correct me if my logic is incorrect) The problem then is how do you devise a fool proof method for balancing two robots on the bridge when you are only in control of your robot's actions. That gets me thinking that being 24" or less and having another robot use a bridge as a ramp to drive on top of you as one method. This would also help solve the problem of getting three robots to fit on the bridge in elimination matches. Am I missing a game rule or a law of physics that would prevent this?

[LH Machinist]

Attempt only if we are the first robot on. With certainty someone will have their robot tipped over while getting on a bridge. Imagine this...an inexperienced driver is on the bridge and lowers it so you can get on; you are almost halfway on and the other driver get anxious quickly crosses the center, the bridge becomes a fulcrum and your robot is flung on its back.

[johnr]

Off course alittle. Does G-14, balls can't help or hinder balancing, mean that you better dump your balls or bridge balance won't count?

[LafondaOnFire]

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 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.

Originally Posted by Jibsy

^My thoughts exactly. Look at 1114 and 2056. These teams have won at least 10 titles (Regionals, Championship Divisions, Invitationals) together. I could see this happening throughout the seeding matches.

I see where you're coming from here. Despite the fact that such an action would be entirely out of the spirit of FIRST, 1114 and 2056 have together won every competition at the Waterloo and Greater Toronto Regional since Lunacy - when I joined FIRST. The only different was last year was that we had an East and West field at the GTR. 1114 and 2056 were split up so they aligned themselves with other very impressive second picks, and they both went to win in their fields. As much as powerhouse teams undeniably deserve to win, there has to be some resentment building up in other great teams who cannot stand up to the 1114/2056 alliance - and I would guess that this sort of event happens in the United States as well. I just hope that the competitions don't go to such a low that there is a clear alliance AGAINST powerhouses. Such an idea could be implemented as refusing to use the coopertition bridge with them, but watching it balance in every other match that excludes the powerhouses. They're as much as a team in FIRST as the rest of us are, and a plot to split them up wouldn't be in the spirit of FIRST, any day. Sabotaging teams just to win? Yeah, not so much.

[PayneTrain]

We could also see late close matches where powerhouse teams on opposing alliances go for the coopertition bridge to ensure they both get those two points, and leave the balancing points up to their two other partners.

The coopertition bridge is the closest we'll get to FIRST Roulette.