Etiquette of the coopertition bridge

[LeelandS]

I was crunching some numbers earlier today (a lot of numbers...), and something I thought I'd take a look at was how rankings would have turned out if coopertition points did not effect qualification score. Let me tell you, there was a BIG difference. In fact, none of the top 8 teams would have come up in the same order, and with the exception of 772 at Smoky Mountain, 4161 in San Diego, 247 at Gull Lake, and 341 at Hatboro-Horsham, the number one seeded team would have been different. And teams as far down as the 7th Seed could have become 1st seed (3568 at Kettering). So, given these numbers, it's understandable why some teams would decline. If you can't beat a top seeded team, the best you can do is deny them the top spot. It goes without saying, that's what a lot of teams are willing to do. Simply put, it's not a nice or GP thing.

However, what a lot of teams didn't seem to realize, and this also came from the numbers, the top few spots were rarely determined by more than a hand full of qualification points (2-4, usually). And the tiers (what I've called the clusters 4-5 teams with the same number of qualification points), could easily have been totally changed by just one balance of the coopertition bridge. Teams could have advanced by leaps and bounds if they had chosen to cooperate more.

Yeah, it's understandable why teams would want to not balance. It gives some a better chance to come out on top (especially if the stronger teams have had a run of bad luck and are losing). That being said, you make no friends, and don't guarentee yourself a better finish by turning down balancing.

tl;dr: Just balance. You make more friends, look nicer to teams looking for a good balancer, and you rank higher. Those things come in order of how important I think they are.

[Alpha Beta]

1.Offer to send your best robot to the co-op bridge if the other team will as well. That way both sides agree they are not just trying to slow down the other offense so they can win. Let the opposite alliance pick who they think your best robot is if it helps the negotiations.

2.Set a time to meet with a pre-negotiated time to pull out if the other doesn't show. Make it early enough that success is assured. If you've been burned by this try asking the other team to go first and then meet them promptly. Verbaly acknowledge that both teams have a reputation at stake here when it comes to honoring their commitments.

3.Set a strategy for the bridge so the other alliance feels confident that the time invested will achieve success. (One team gets on and tips the bridge to the other side, allowing the opponent on. Down hill member pushes until bridge starts to tip and then freezes. Uphill person then makes the fine adjustments.)

4.If you invite the other alliance to your key area to get on, tell your partners to avoid fouling them.

If all else fails, try beating the other team by so many points that they realize their only hope for a qualification point is to co-op.

[Lavapicker]

Every match in the Kansas City regional seemed to focus on coopertition points to the detriment of their own team many times. Look, if you are losing by less than 10 points and have single "bridge-bot" you have to try and get on your bridge to secure the 2 QP. Its at least twice as hard to balance two bots from teams on opposite ends of the field and I saw quite a few fail and end up with zero points where their own bridge would have gotten them the win and 2 QP. My instructions are to secure the win first and then go for coopertition points or as someone else already said, if the win is out of hand you go for coopertition points. I can't believe how many times I saw a team down by less than 10 get flipped or not able to pull of a coopertition balance on the middle bridge and walk away with nothing while handing two points to the other alliance. Why?

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Leeland1126

I was crunching some numbers earlier today (a lot of numbers...), and something I thought I'd take a look at was how rankings would have turned out if coopertition points did not effect qualification score. Let me tell you, there was a BIG difference. In fact, none of the top 8 teams would have come up in the same order, and with the exception of 772 at Smoky Mountain, 4161 in San Diego, 247 at Gull Lake, and 341 at Hatboro-Horsham, the number one seeded team would have been different. And teams as far down as the 7th Seed could have become 1st seed (3568 at Kettering).

Keep in mind that had the coopertition bridge not been in play, the win-loss record probably would have been a bit different. Many of the top teams placed a high priority on the coop bridge going into this past weekend. I'm willing to bet that the standings would have been pretty similar if the coop bridge didn't exist.

[LeelandS]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Keep in mind that had the coopertition bridge not been in play, the win-loss record probably would have been a bit different. Many of the top teams placed a high priority on the coop bridge going into this past weekend. I'm willing to bet that the standings would have been pretty similar if the coop bridge didn't exist.

That's absolutely true, and I hadn't particularly thought about that to the extent I should have.

That said, I'm not 100% sure about that. If you have another robot on each alliance that isn't coopertitionating (that's a word now), then you have another robot for each alliance that can score or balance. If teams sent their best balancer/best robot in general to the co-op bridge (which would theoretically be the smart thing to do), then that robot is left to score for their alliance, potentially balancing things out. So, in theory, it would be a wash, or close to one. But that's just my guess. This will require further study

Also, with the 20pt cap on balancing in qualification rounds, the addition of a 3rd robot solely for benefiting the alliance wouldn't be a super drastic change. Depending on the alliance, strategy and robot firepower.

But that's definitely a point I need to consider more next round. Thank you very much for pointing this out to me!

-Leeland

[jyh947]

Even with pre-made plans, my drive team reported to me that my team was ditched from the coopertition bridge in least two separate qualification matches.

[Alpha Beta]

Originally Posted by jyh947

Even with pre-made plans, my drive team reported to me that my team was ditched from the coopertition bridge in least two separate qualification matches.

Who made the plans? I've found that if only the coaches talk to each other it doesn't mean much. If the lead drivers and coaches meet then the decisions made carry more weight.

We've been ditched before too, but it never resulted in the other team winning. We always had time to recover. This has a way of making a lasting impression on a team. Sometimes for years. (Our scouts have a long memory when it comes time for alliance selections.) A reputation is a valuable thing.

A plea to all teams. Don't make an agreement you can't or won't keep. You represent more than just yourself in this endeavor, and the consequences can reach beyond the game.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Leeland1126

That's absolutely true, and I hadn't particularly thought about that to the extent I should have.

That said, I'm not 100% sure about that. If you have another robot on each alliance that isn't coopertitionating (that's a word now), then you have another robot for each alliance that can score or balance. If teams sent their best balancer/best robot in general to the co-op bridge (which would theoretically be the smart thing to do), then that robot is left to score for their alliance, potentially balancing things out. So, in theory, it would be a wash, or close to one. But that's just my guess. This will require further study

Also, with the 20pt cap on balancing in qualification rounds, the addition of a 3rd robot solely for benefiting the alliance wouldn't be a super drastic change. Depending on the alliance, strategy and robot firepower.

But that's definitely a point I need to consider more next round. Thank you very much for pointing this out to me!

-Leeland

From what I noticed on the field at Horsham, teams that consistently offered Co-op were already strong teams without it. A lot of teams, especially after the first few tips, were kind of nervous about the bridge. Most of the initiative came from good teams, as theyyou already understood the system and had confident/compotent drivers and good bridge lowerers. I wouldn't expect huge changes until later weeks.

Looking back, I had 4 agreements to balance in 12 matches (our allies had some as well). We always had to go second as we couldn't lower. 1 ended in the partner robot tipping themselves before we got there, 1 broke down, and 2 didn't go for unclear reasons.