Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!

[Mr. Lim]

Below are a few rules/strategy questions and scenarios that I've compiled from our recent experience at the GTR-E.

Even I am not sure anymore where I stand on many of these questions.

But they are offered here for you to discuss.

Please keep it civil!

Meta-Coopertition:

1. This year’s coopertition bridge points gave teams the ability to significantly affect the overall rankings.
2. If teams at a regional agreed to not cooperate with a certain team, it would lower that team’s ranking.
3. If teams at a regional agreed to always cooperate with a certain team, it would increase that team’s ranking.
4. Let’s call this practice “meta-coopertating.” Teams are cooperating as a group, yet competing against others, by selectively agreeing and refusing to balance.
5. Is “meta-coopertition” within the rules/spirit of coopertition points?

Coopertition Bridge Defense:

1. While “meta-coopertating,” teams may want to prevent the coopertition bridge from being balanced.
2. What level of defense on the coopertition bridge is permissible?
   

   Can we prevent other robots from getting to the bridge?
   Can you block the entrance to the bridge to prevent others from getting on?
   Can you drive on to the bridge, and leave it tipped such that no other robot can get on?
   Can you intentionally touch the bridge with an unbalanced robot to negate the balance?
   Can you lift/tip a bridge with robots on it to unbalance it?
   Can you ram a bridge with robots on it to unbalance it?

3. Coopertition bridge BALANCING causes the alliance allegiances to become blurred (Blue and Red are working together). While DEFENDING the coopertition bridge, should Red and Blue allegiances still be respected? i.e. if Red1 wants to balance the bridge to help Blue1, but Red2 does not want to help, can Red2 play defense on Red1?
4. Is it the intent of the GDC that no defense be played on the coopertition bridge? Should we just sit there and watch a successful balance occur, even though it will harm our team’s success?
5. Does coopertition imply that all 6 teams on the field have agreed to balance the bridge, or just a minimum of 2? If all 6 cannot agree, we have not successfully coopertated, thus should any team on any alliance be free to defend it as they wish?
6. There are no explicit rules governing the above scenarios; however, we have made assumptions about the appropriateness of each. I have no idea who is right, and who is wrong. I am hoping the GDC will give us clarification shortly.

Throwing Matches / Forcing Teams Not to Coopertate:

1. Blue alliance is the underdog in a match.
2. Blue alliance agrees to a strategy that requires Blue2 and Blue3 to balance on the alliance bridge for 20 points.
3. Without the 20 bridge points, it is a sure loss.
4. Red alliance approaches Blue3, and tries to convince them not to climb the alliance bridge but to coopertate instead.
5. Is the Red alliance (intentionally or not) asking Blue3 to throw the match?
6. Is it GP for Blue3 to unilaterally accept Red’s offer, knowing they have undermined any chance for the Blue alliance to win?
7. By trying to win, is the Blue alliance forcing Blue3 not to coopertate?
8. If Blue3 breaks from strategy and agrees to coopertate anyways, is the Blue alliance out of line if they defend the coopertition bridge?

6v0:

1. The 6v0 has made a return this year, and there are some compelling reasons to do it.
2. Blue alliance, the overwhelming underdog, is willing to concede the match, as long as they can still guarantee themselves 2 coopertition points by successfully balancing the coopertition bridge.
3. Red alliance, the favourite, includes Red1, a “powerhouse” team that can shoot and balance extremely well.
4. To give both alliances the best chance to balance, Blue alliance asks Red1 to spend the full 2 minutes balancing the coopertition bridge.
5. Since Red1 will be unable to score baskets, the entire Blue alliance agrees to score minimal points, such that the Red alliance will still win the match.
6. Is this 6v0 considered GP?
7. During the match, Blue alliance made a grave mistake – they scored too many points and are winning the match by a few points.
8. Blue1 is balanced on their alliance bridge, and if they get off, the loss of those 10 points will ensure a Red win.
9. Blue alliance pleads with Blue1 to drive off the bridge, and they eventually comply.
10. Blue1 is extremely angry because they wanted to showcase their ability to balance.
11. Who should Blue1 direct their anger at? Blue alliance? Red alliance? Red1? Themselves?

[Duke461]

Not to sound too cynical here, but i think it's valid to prevent a teammate from balancing on a coopertition.
However,:
1. Why not just "try" to balance yourself and fail, instead of looking like a bad alliance partner and pushing your teammates off the bridge (or whatever)?
2. I haven't gone to a regional competition yet this year, so my feelings could definitely change by then.

Just my thoughts,
I will be reading this thread closely though because im not too sure on my opinion yet....
-Duke

[RogerR]

I don't think that I can answer each point individually, but your post did raise a couple questions in my mind.

1) with regards to meta-collaboration: if its considered acceptable to deny a chosen team points toward their ranking by preventing the balancing of the co-op bridge, is it now acceptable to have teams they are allied with start throwing matches?

2) with regards to defense: red v blue alliance defense has many rules and penalties associated with it that dictate what is and isn't acceptable. As far as I can tell, there are no such rules for inter-alliance defense. This worried me, if this sort of thing becomes common. Do I need to worry about my alliance deliberately damaging, tipping, entangling, disabling, etc. my bot to prevent my from balancing a co-op bridge?

3) finally, the human element: while the above questions lean toward the extreme, I think events have shown over the past weekend that they may not be. As much as we work to prevent it, there are clearly very strong negative feelings against some of the top teams. When emotions are running high in mid competition, what may have been start as an objective and strategic execution of meta-co-opertition might turn into a vendetta by jealous teams against a perceived super team.

Just some more thoughts to chew on.

[adam the great]

Unfortunately this is part of the problem that comes up when a game element like this comes into play.
From the regionals that I have seen/ been to so far i have no noticed any deliberate de-scoring yet i have heard of an incident or so other wheres. So at least its not a major developing problem. I think working to stop anyone on your own alliance from doing well is ungracious and unprofessional. And I completely understand where the other side is coming from with not wanting to lose ranking to another team because of the cooperation bridge. But every team has the same opportunity to balance the bridge as every other team and its where scouting and paying attention to what teams simply balanced on the cooperation bridge for the sake of points vs what teams deserve to be ranked as high as they are, becomes important.
I do however believe that come the Championships that the cooperation bridge will most likely be reduced to 1 point just to eliminate the chance that a team loses the match to ensure getting the equivalent 2QP

[kjohnson]

Say my team has the choice to cooperate and we choose not to (or we sabotage attempts by the other members of our alliance). By doing so, we not only keep the opposing alliance from gaining ranking but we potentially hurt our own ranking possibilities. So... why should I sabotage my own ranking ?

Regional competitions are just that: competitions. Do what is best for your team, not what other teams think is best for you. Make your own decisions and your own strategy.

We all talk about "lawyering the rules" and "intent of the rule." What was the intent of the Coopertition Bridge? I'm certain the intent wasn't to have teams plot a conspiracy against each other. IMHO, attempts to unbalance the Co-Op bridge should result in a Red Card for the offending team. I hope today's team update reflects that.

[adam the great]

Originally Posted by nukemknight

Say my team has the choice to cooperate and we choose not to (or we sabotage attempts by the other members of our alliance). By doing so, we not only keep the opposing alliance from gaining ranking but we potentially hurt our own ranking possibilities. So... why should I sabotage my own ranking ?

Regional competitions are just that: competitions. Do what is best for your team, not what other teams think is best for you. Make your own decisions and your own strategy.

We all talk about "lawyering the rules" and "intent of the rule." What was the intent of the Coopertition Bridge? I'm certain the intent wasn't to have teams plot a conspiracy against each other. IMHO, attempts to unbalance the Co-Op bridge should result in a Red Card for the offending team. I hope today's team update reflects that.

I couldn't agree with you more.

[gr8dragon]

First of all, Mr.Lim those are some tremendous points and have clearly raised huge controversy so the GDC should most definitely revisit them.

To address the point of "Why should I hurt my own ranking" well that's a matter of how you see the regional playing out. If you can only see that you are an alliance captain and want to seed as high as possible you would always cooperate. However the interesting situation when a team in in a regional where the remaining matches even with 4 QS each match only results in the highest seed of 2 or 3, and where the first seed can from a "powerhouse alliance" things change. By NOT cooperating in the remaining matches you hurt your own "ranking" but in the process allow for certain teams to drop low enough to change the course of alliance selection in the favour of just your team or maybe even a few other at the regional.

Of course now the argument is the "don't play to make a team lose, but to make your team win." But my rebuttal is that the 6v0 in past years is similar, because you would be requiring at least 1 or 2 teams involved to not play for themselves, and thus not benefit their own ranking.

In my opinion, the reason this years strategy seems much less GP than previous years just because the CP is just a much more defensive game. In previous game the decision for a team to "score" for another team was still "positive display for getting picked." This year the ability to affect the rankings relies on both using the CP and preventing them which comes across as a much more negative display of game-play.

Ultimately its the opinions of those who feel that the strategy was useful, versus that of those who see no place for it. This discussion may last forever but I am not so sure that a red card is making it easier for any teams to do well at a regional where inferior robots who lose a lot of matches can place high enough even with the CP bonus.

*NOTE: The opinions expressed in my post are of my own, and in no way express the opinions of my team or any other members associated with FRC TEAM 188 in any way. Its just what I feel, and should not be attached to any judgement of my team.*

[Lil' Lavery]

Would your grandmother be proud of you?

[gr8dragon]

My grandmother would be proud of me if we won, yes. However she isn't the ends justify the means kind of person so I can't be too sure. However I do believe you missed the point of my post, or at least the note at the end which clearly states these are my own opinions. I understand if you don't completely agree with my point of view, and I am not saying that some of the things that occurred are excusable but there are just as many reason for a team to not cooperate as there are for another team to cooperate.

[iVanDuzer]

I think a clear line has to be drawn between competition and match strategy. The distinction is that competition strategy is the strategy your team decides to go with over the course of the weekend, while match strategy is the agreed strategy of each alliance on a match-to-match basis.

Meta Coopertition
In my opinion, the coopertition bridge is solely a match strategy item. This is because the incentive to use the bridge changes from match to match. Furthermore, each robot on the field should be acting in their own best interests. If those interests include not coopertating, then all power to them. But what should NOT happen is having the vested interests of a team that is not playing in the match be a strategic factor. If you aren't on the field, you should have no say whether or not the teams that are coopertate.

If you are selectively choosing which teams to balance with, then that's fine. But the line is crossed when you try to convince other teams not to balance. To balance or not to balance is each individual alliance's concern, not teams'.

Coopertition Bridge Defense
Should not be allowed. There are inherent risks to defending a robot on that sort of playing surface. What if you're a rookie team that agrees to coopertate, but your alliance partner doesn't like that, so they tip the bridge while you're on it. In this situation, you fall off the bridge and your robot, which is not as robust as it should be (but hey, you're a rookie, how could you know?) is damaged and prevents you from using your shooter for the rest of the weekend.

As for less violent defense, the answer is still no. When you're on the field, you are an ALLIANCE, and therefore must act in the ALLIANCE's best interest. I'll talk more about this below.

Throwing Matches
In your scenario, Red is not asking Blue to throw the match. Red is asking to coopertate. How could they know that Blue's strategy depends on the robot they just asked to balance? It's Blue's decision whether or not to coopertate or not. What should happen is a Blue alliance meeting, where the idea of coopertating is presented. If the alliance decides to coopertate, then they coopertate. If they decide not to, then they don't. No hard feelings. Like I said, the value of the coopertition bridge changes from match to match. If an alliance feels that a win is better than a coopertition balance, then power to them.

(Although, if the chances of winning were so slim that you need a double balance to even have a shot at winning, then I'd go with the coopertition. 2 guaranteed points are better than none if you mess up a balance.)

6v0
Your scenario should never happen. If Blue decides to hand Red the win, then why take any shots at all? Why even run autonomous? Or if autonomous has to be run every time, turn your robot around so they shoot away from Blue's nets. OR if you still want to show you can score, pull a 2010 and score on the Red hoops.

----------

Remember, coopertition requires cooperation. Not just between alliances, but between teams on your alliance. If a team doesn't want to balance because doing so would hurt their seeding then fine, BUT if another team on that alliance wants to balance, is it your place to stop them? NO! This is where the good of the many vs the good of the few comes in. Maybe your seeding chances would be hurt because of a coopertition bonus. But if the other teams on your alliance would benefit from an extra 2 CP/QP, then you should support their choice to balance. You don't have to balance yourself, you just need to agree not to stop them from balancing. You don't need to be happy about it. But, it's the gracious thing to do.

Just my $0.02

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by gr8dragon

My grandmother would be proud of me if we won, yes. However she isn't the ends justify the means kind of person so I can't be too sure. However I do believe you missed the point of my post, or at least the note at the end which clearly states these are my own opinions. I understand if you don't completely agree with my point of view, and I am not saying that some of the things that occurred are excusable but there are just as many reason for a team to not cooperate as there are for another team to cooperate.

My post wasn't targeted at you specifically. In fact, your post hadn't appeared by the point I opened the thread, so I didn't read your post before I made your response. Not that it makes your response any less valid.

[Bongle]

Say my team has the choice to cooperate and we choose not to (or we sabotage attempts by the other members of our alliance). By doing so, we not only keep the opposing alliance from gaining ranking but we potentially hurt our own ranking possibilities. So... why should I sabotage my own ranking ?

It may be something unique to Ontario, where regional results are very predictable despite the high quality of local robots.

In Ontario, there is a widely held belief (including being held by myself) that if either 1114 or 2056 seed on top, one picks the other and the competition is effectively over once alliance selection concludes**. As Looking Forward pointed out in his week 2 predictions, these two teams haven't lost a regional in Ontario since 2005 (and 2056 hasn't lost a regional ever).

If you're playing to win the regional, then there's an argument to be made that your seed doesn't matter if 1114 or 2056 are going to end up on top.

Put another way, if you hold certain axioms:
a) 1114 or 2056 on top implies you lose the regional, unless you're their lucky 3rd robot (which I've been once )
b) 1114 and 2056 split up means you have a better chance of winning
c) You're aiming to win the regional, not just seed high
d) Your team will likely be drafted in eliminations before the 24th pick (that is, you don't expect to be the final bot on 1114/2046's team)

Then it makes sense to try to deny 1114 and 2056 CP points, even at the expensive of your own seeding position, since your winning chances go from 0% (or near-0%) up to something nonzero*. I'm not sure how common this dynamic of the same two teams winning over and over is across the other regions, so I don't know how often teams will be doing this kind of CP-strategizing. The strategy is further motivated by the fact that Waterloo and GTR-east are both small regionals where teams have a >50% chance of getting drafted, so seeding low doesn't perturb a team with a decently-functional robot since they can be confident of getting drafted anyway. They lose a little control over their destiny, but since their destiny in one scenario is a near-guaranteed loss and in the other scenario is a mostly-guaranteed loss, I'd think it would be rational to choose the slightly higher chance of victory.

*Though nobody knows for sure, since I don't believe the two teams have ever been split at a regional that they both attended.
**This year will prove an interesting test of that theory, since both 1114 and 2056 are attending all 3 Ontario regionals. GTR-east came down to the last match seeding-wise, so perhaps Waterloo or GTR-west will have them split.

Disclaimer: Though I support strategies using the CP bridge to affect tournament seeding, if someone on your alliance wants the CP bridge for their own strategies (maybe they think they can form a solid alliance or make a run for #1 seed, or they simply consider seeding high to be good enough for them), then you should let them, or at least have a decision made pre-match. Don't coerce people, don't try to unbalance CP bridge, and don't throw matches (that really shouldn't have to be said).

[Don Wright]

This year we have the interesting experience that teams really have two opportunities to affect the ranking of the other teams at the event.

The first is traditional: to win matches. This has a negative affect on the opposing alliance and a positive affect on you.

The second is non-traditional: to mess up their chance at the co-op bridge. This has a negative affect on both the opposing alliance, and your alliance.

By choosing to do the second, you accept the negative affect on you to bring down the other alliance. I don't think this is similar to the 6-0 of the past because when the opposing team choose to score for the other team, they were actually scoring for themselves (taking the loss, but raising their ranking score). In this case, it's just a net loss for you (and them) when you screw up the co-op bridge on purpose. It only brings everyone involved down.

IMHO...and maybe not of my team, this discussion is solely to try and justify actions of a few select teams in FIRST who would go to this length to try and stop certain "powerhouse" teams from teaming up at a competition because they know they can't beat them otherwise (and won't be picked by them). I honestly believe that there are only a handful of teams in FIRST that have used tactics such as these and I believe that the FIRST community for the most part knows who these teams are and have reflective opinions of them.

If you can't beat them, you can either keep reaching higher or try and bring them down to your level. How would you rather be known?

[Taylor]

Preface: When discussing non-violent, non-destructive methods, Gracious Professionalism has nothing to do with team, alliance, or meta strategy. Put the GP measuring stick away. This isn't BattleBots - in fact, BB is expressly disallowed by 3.1.5.

Meta-Coopertition:

1. This year’s coopertition bridge points gave teams the ability to significantly affect the overall rankings.
2. If teams at a regional agreed to not cooperate with a certain team, it would lower that team’s ranking.
3. If teams at a regional agreed to always cooperate with a certain team, it would increase that team’s ranking.
4. Let’s call this practice “meta-coopertating.” Teams are cooperating as a group, yet competing against others, by selectively agreeing and refusing to balance.
5. Is “meta-coopertition” within the rules/spirit of coopertition points?

It's not explicitly disallowed. To me, this is analogous to "icing the kicker" or "icing the free-throw shooter" - not illegal, certainly prevalent, but to my mind not ethical and I would not want to associate with a team that employs these methods.
My greater FRC-view is that I know how hard our team works - at design, at fabrication and assembly, at strategy, at scouting, at practice. If another team bests us in any or all of those realms, and is on the opposing alliance, I will certainly do my best to win the match, but if the strategy allows it, I will work with that team given the win-win situation presented by the CB.

Coopertition Bridge Defense:

1. While “meta-coopertating,” teams may want to prevent the coopertition bridge from being balanced.
2. What level of defense on the coopertition bridge is permissible?
   

   Can we prevent other robots from getting to the bridge?
   Can you block the entrance to the bridge to prevent others from getting on?
   Can you drive on to the bridge, and leave it tipped such that no other robot can get on?
   Can you intentionally touch the bridge with an unbalanced robot to negate the balance?
   Can you lift/tip a bridge with robots on it to unbalance it?
   Can you ram a bridge with robots on it to unbalance it?

1. Alliance strategy should be known before the match begins. Drive teams are literally standing next to each other - they can communicate easily. If one team exhibits this behavior against a fellow alliance member, I will assume one of those teams are going against alliance strategy for that match, and I will seek out the coaches after to determine why this behavior was used.
   

   Coopertition bridge BALANCING causes the alliance allegiances to become blurred (Blue and Red are working together). While DEFENDING the coopertition bridge, should Red and Blue allegiances still be respected? i.e. if Red1 wants to balance the bridge to help Blue1, but Red2 does not want to help, can Red2 play defense on Red1?

   When on an alliance, it is each team's duty to play as an alliance partner. Each team has an obligation to do what is best for their alliance in that match. In my view, that includes gaining as many QPs as possible, whether via a match win or CPs.
   

   Is it the intent of the GDC that no defense be played on the coopertition bridge? Should we just sit there and watch a successful balance occur, even though it will harm our team’s success?

   I may be proven wrong when the Tuesday Update comes out, but I tend to think the GDC doesn't really care. Each year the game is laced with strategies and substrategies and that's what makes coaching fun. I loved Lunacy from a coaching/strategy standpoint. It's part of the challenge.
   That being said, if a local news station chooses to air footage gathered from an event of a robot exhibiting aggressive behavior (and I wouldn't begrudge them that), it would seriously undermine a lot of elevator speeches given to sponsors and partners who may have caught the evening news.
   

   Does coopertition imply that all 6 teams on the field have agreed to balance the bridge, or just a minimum of 2? If all 6 cannot agree, we have not successfully coopertated, thus should any team on any alliance be free to defend it as they wish?

   In a match, there are not six teams. There are two alliances. Teams that choose not to comply with alliance strategy, I would classify as rogue and they are responsible for their own behavior.
   If an alliance strategy includes the CB, then great. If it's a tight match and an alliance would rather shoot those last three balls for a 2QP-0QP win vs. 2QP-4QP loss, they're entitled to that. Alliance strategy is certainly fluid and pragmatic given the game situation.
   

   There are no explicit rules governing the above scenarios; however, we have made assumptions about the appropriateness of each. I have no idea who is right, and who is wrong. I am hoping the GDC will give us clarification shortly.

I hope the opposite. This is a level of strategy and gamesmanship not seen before in FRC play - I hope the GDC allows us to compete as we see fit.

Throwing Matches / Forcing Teams Not to Coopertate:

Is never valid. End of story. Unethical behavior and coercion have no place in sports - or life.

Caveat: In the early stages of 2010, 6v0 was not throwing matches. 6v0 was a valid strategy that used the tournament rules to everybody's benefit.

ps. Mr. Wright absolutely lives up to his name.

[Jared Russell]

There are very real scenarios where choosing the outcome of "0 QS for me, 2 QS for you" is preferable to "2 QS for me, 4 QS for you" in the meta-game. I don't think there is a reasonable person that will argue that breaking up 1114 and 2056 increases everybody else's chances of winning the event. And I see no inherent problem with that analysis being acted upon by teams.

For that matter, at the Chestnut Hill District Event we had a situation where an opposing team came up to 1218 and said that their alliance did not plan on coopertating in that match (to increase the odds of breaking up the 341/1218 pairing that won together the prior week). I have no problem whatsoever with that.

I personally draw the line in two places:

1. In Qualification rounds, you are part of a THREE team alliance. You should all get on the same page. Maybe one of you needs the win, the other wants to showcase their new manipulator, and the third wants to deny the opponent Coopertition Points. Regardless, you need to come up with a common understanding of what you will do during the match - and try to honor it as best as you can. Hopefully it is done through consensus. Worst case, take a vote (or do Rock, Paper, Scissors). But I am disgusted when I see teams who absolutely refuse to compromise with their partners because of their own self interests (and I have seen World Champions do this more than once). Knocking your partner off the Coopertition Bridge is reprehensible for this reason. You can try to convince them not to co-op balance beforehand, but once the match starts, you need to honor whatever you decided to do as an ALLIANCE.

2. Lying to your partners or to your opponents is not honorable. You don't need to divulge every detail of your strategy, but don't say you want me to get on the Coopertition Bridge at 45 seconds and then go try to double balance on your Alliance Bridge. I would have to think long and hard about ever wanting to work with a team like this in the playoffs.