What is your cooperition bridge plan?

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by LafondaOnFire

I see where you're coming from here. Despite the fact that such an action would be entirely out of the spirit of FIRST... 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.

I'm not sure such an action would be entirely out of the spirit of FIRST. We're told to 'compete like crazy' and FRC is a competition. FIRST even allowed 6v0 matches in 2010 where teams would throw matchs just get gain more seeding points (and essentially a lower seeding points for your opponent that match). I view the situation I described above as very similar to the 6v0 strategy. Additionally, FIRST has done nothing to prevent teams from breaking up powerhouse alliances in alliance selections, either. It happens atleast once or twice a year.

I think we all agree that not cooperating with 1114/2056/217/111 in a match JUST because they always win and you don't want to see them win is wrong. But, in my example your not cooperating because you want whats best for your team, not that you want to stick it to the elite team. It doesn't matter if the other team has won 100 competitions or just a rookie team that build a great robot.

[aspiece]

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

Well said Paul...

[Craig Roys]

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

I'm trying to decide if the "no thanks" is within GP...while I agree that declining a team during alliance selection is a perfectly legitimate part of the game, it seems to me that declining an opportunity to go on the coopertition bridge is on the same footing at purposely losing a match to affect the outcomes of the final rankings. To me, part of GP is going out in every match and doing your best to win and gain as many ranking points as possible, and let the final rankings fall where they may. Admittedly though, part of my reasoning is that I just hate to lose even if it may be in my best interest to do so.

[lemiant]

Here's a further complication, let's say you are in a match where you've decided it's in your best interests to not balance, it would also be beneficial to convince the other alliance that you will balance but their robot has to go first. This would cause them to waste precious time and increase your chances of winning the match. In my opinion this is pretty far into the black part of our gray area, but it is just as defensible from a "compete like crazy" standpoint.

[Paul Copioli]

Originally Posted by lemiant

Here's a further complication, let's say you are in a match where you've decided it's in your best interests to not balance, it would also be beneficial to convince the other alliance that you will balance but their robot has to go first. This would cause them to waste precious time and increase your chances of winning the match. In my opinion this is pretty far into the black part of our gray area, but it is just as defensible from a "compete like crazy" standpoint.

Blacklist for sure ...

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Blacklist for sure ...

I agree. There is a distinct difference between lying and strategy. Lying is one line I just don't cross in pick lists. A team intentionally withholding information is perhaps not ideal for me, but understood in a competitive setting. Deliberately spreading false information is blacklist material to me though. It's self serving and arrogant - two things you DON'T want in an alliance partner, ever.

[BJC]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I agree. There is a distinct difference between lying and strategy. Lying is one line I just don't cross in pick lists. A team intentionally withholding information is perhaps not ideal for me, but understood in a competitive setting. Deliberately spreading false information is blacklist material to me though. It's self serving and arrogant - two things you DON'T want in an alliance partner, ever.

I also agree, and will add:

I don't want lying to become an accepted part of FIRST culture. I would like to be able to have an agreement with the other alliance so that if they say they are going to balance the Cooperitition bridge with us, they better actually make a serious effort to be at that ramp when we agreed. If there are going to be challenges of this sort in the future, we need to set the standard for what is acceptable this year so things like lying to the other teams does not become an accepted practice within FIRST.

Regards, Bryan

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Blacklist for sure ...

That would put them on my "permanent" blacklist. I wouldn't reconsider a team that would intentionally misrepresent themselves until every student and mentor on that team was no longer was associated with them. A culture like that poisons the whole organization.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by SteveGPage

That would put them on my "permanent" blacklist. I wouldn't reconsider a team that would intentionally misrepresent themselves until every student and mentor on that team was no longer was associated with them. A culture like that poisons the whole organization.

Sometimes one or two key new influences can change a whole team around. I wouldn't hold a grudge after the season is over.

[Mr. Lim]

There is at least one situation where a team could say "no thanks" to me, and I would definitely still consider them for an alliance pick list:

If a team came up to me, and told me to my face that:

1) their own win/loss/ranking made little difference towards alliance selections
2) were trying to manipulate the top 8 standings to give themselves the best chance to win, by denying us 2 qualifying points

(i.e. helping a really weak team maintain the #1 spot, so that powerhouses at the top will be broken up)

I would say they're playing smart, and really understand the game. Teams that put this much thought into the process are extremely rare, and if they're the best team available, I'd say this is MORE of a reason to pick them.

I've seen some of the best teams in the world do this by playing defense-only late in quals against powerhouse teams gunning for the #1 spot. It denied the powerhouse team precious ranking points, and kept a weak #1 seed in place that ultimately was declined by the other top powerhouses, thus breaking them up.

Honestly, a team that has the forethought to do this moves up on my list CONSIDERABLY.

Now how many teams do I expect to say "no thanks" for these types of reasons?

not many... and that's too bad.

[Alex.q]

Well, my plan would be to tell the other alliance that one our robots would try to balance with them, but I would not tell them which one. Additionally, if one of my alliance's robots tipped over/broke down, I would not go out of my way to cooperate, especially if it meant i might lose. My reasoning here is that we did not lie,it was our full intent to balance the middle bridge, but we were forced to change plans when one of our robots malfunctioned. I haven't considered whether I would say no or just not say, but if I did say I would not lie and say I would balance.

What if:
My alliance decides not to balance, even though I kind of want to, but I follow along and say no. Do you blacklist me, or all three of us?

My alliance says we will balance, not specifying a robot. All of our robots function correctly, and we fully intended to cooperate, but the team that we told to balance ignored us and didn't cooperate. Do you blackmail all of us? (what if I made up that story after the match)?

My alliance had full intent to send a robot to the coopertition bridge, but we miscommunicated and nobody went there, thinking that it was someone else's responsibility on the alliance. Who gets blacklisted?

Seems to me blacklisting will be a touchy subject and hard to implement.

[one4robots]

You folks seem to be not considering the possibility of a robot that can balance itself (and others)...now THAT will be a valuable trait for a robot to have!

[jblay]

I'm going to try and revive this thread to see how teams approached the coopertition bridge strategy during week 1.

When did you talk to the opposing alliance? Was this before after or during when you talked to your own alliance?

Did teams try to pull anything like balancing with another robot instead of the one they agreed upon prematch, not even trying to balance even though they said that they would, or teams going way later than they said that they would?

Did you struggle to convince the other alliance too coopertate in some matches?

[Bill_B]

The major difficulty in this balancing negotiation is finding the people with whom you can reliably negotiate. This may only happen while you are queued for a match. Other times you may be able to find members of your opposing or alliance teams BUT they are not able to discuss or commit to any strategy decision anyway. By the time your own team throws up its hands when they find this "too difficult" it may have already happened for one or more of those teams you want to consult.

As with any difficult activity, you have to be convinced that the effort you're using to do it is justified. I think a thorough explanation of the value of bridge balancing in both flavors should happen for all teams* before the robots are even un-bagged. If not done by then, I predict that those teams will be at a disadvantage and unresponsive to suggestions made by their eventual partners or opponents. It may even be a good scouting question that can distinguish those teams who have a good understanding of the value of balanced bridges. Eventually you will know which teams are bridge-savvy by their seeding ranks.

*and the more team members that know about this topic the better.

[Bob Steele]

I really see that coopertition balancing is a way for any team to show a potential elim partner that they can balance with them. Our scouts would look favorably on a team that can balance with another robot It is an essential skill to show if you want to get picked. What better way to show that skill than by balancing with a robot from the other alliance?

Coop balancing is a great opportunity for a lower ranked team to show that they can do this.

I agree that teams could try to exploit this and put a high ranked team out of the top spot but I think that this is something that most teams would not choose to do.. they want to win... they want to score points...

That being said, our drive team will ALWAYS tell the other alliance that if the choice has to be made to win the match by an alliance balance or going for the coop... we will go for the win...

The reason for this is that the WIN is worth 2 points... and your are in control... your alliance is in control...

Yes you can get 2 points for the coop (or 1) but it requires loss of alliance control... you have to get cooperation..

We intend to go for the coop balance every time unless we MUST do an alliance balance to insure the win.

Our method... we will go to the side where the other alliance is and go to the side of the bridge...we will tip it from the side and hold it down so an opposing robot can get on it... when they are safely on the bridge we will let go and get behind them and push them up the bridge to a balance point.
the key is that they MUST not move up the bridge... they have to let us push them up...

If they go up too quickly we can get tipped over backwards before we are on the bridge...so this must be very clear...they have to let us push them up

Good luck to everyone!!!