IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

[ratdude747]

Originally Posted by Libby K

I think you meant "I don't like the Coopertition bridge."

Coopertition is not just a game element, it's not just a bridge, it's not just a ranking point. It's part of the core values of FIRST.

Coopertition is the teams who see their opponent in the finals is broken... and then walk over with the part they need.

It's the spirit of the FIRST Community. It's how we do things here.

If you don't like the Coopertition bridge, that's fine. Quite a few people don't. However, Coopertition itself should certainly have a place at all FIRST events.

I'd argue that gracious professionism is the core value and the spirit of the FIRST community.

Coopertition is a game concept. Not a core value.

Gracious professionalism does belong at all FIRST events. IRI has always had it.

Coopertition, not so much. The whole concept is the opposite of IRI. IRI is about being GP off the field but performing the best on the field.

Think back to 2008 when coopertition didn't exist... to rank well for seeding you had to play your best. Alliance seedings were more accurate and helped ensure that the best robots were the ones driving on saturday afternoon. There still was GP and off the field teams were just as helpful to eachother as ever.

Compare that to now, where some of the alliance captains, well, to be blunt, are not best teams on the field, in some cases "boxes on wheels." It isn't fair to the teams who didn't get picked because the elite 24 was crowded with lesser performing robots, the teams that get picked by such captains and are more or less "doomed" (or have to burn the backup coupon), and to the spectators that are cheated out of seeing the best quality matches.

I see no need for coopertition in the first place. This is FRC: FIRST Robotics Competition. While it is more than a simple "robotics competition", there still is a robotics competition as part of it, and I think that is how it needs to be. We have plenty of non-robot awards; two of them are higher than winning the competition and are highly regarded in the community.

[Chi Meson]

All of my wonderful ideas have been stated by others already! So here's my vote:

Coop points deleted! Instead, during quals and elims, make the center bridge worth another 10-points if balanced. A robot may only contact the bridge from their own side of the field. Preventing balance of center bridge is allowed, but only from home side of the bump.

Autonomous: 6 balls placed anywhere the alliance wants.

Moneyball may be "hail maried" in final 30 s or introduced by human player through feeder station to robot; extra rule: moneyball may not hit the floor, if it does it becomes a normal ball ("dead money"). Once scored, opposing alliance may either feed to robot or try a hail mary.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by ratdude747

I'd argue that gracious professionism is the core value and the spirit of the FIRST community.

Coopertition is a game concept. Not a core value.

I think FIRST would beg to differ.
http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/gracious-professionalism

Under the header of "Core Values"...

Originally Posted by The FIRST Website

CoopertitionTM produces innovation. At FIRST, Coopertition is displaying unqualified kindness and respect in the face of fierce competition. Coopertition is founded on the concept and a philosophy that teams can and should help and cooperate with each other even as they compete.

Coopertition involves learning from teammates. It is teaching teammates. It is learning from Mentors. And it is managing and being managed. Coopertition means competing always, but assisting and enabling others when you can.

As do I.
Just because this year's game involves Coopertition does not mean it's just a game element.
FIRST kind of says it for me, but that's how I see it too. Kindness and respect in the face of fierce competition.

EDIT: Also, Coopertition was coined in the late 90s (as far as its use in the FIRST world), and the 2000 game was called Coopertition:FIRST. Coopertition has been a value long before its use this year.

[gyroscopeRaptor]

Originally Posted by Chi Meson

Moneyball may be [...] introduced by human player through feeder station to robot; extra rule: moneyball may not hit the floor, if it does it becomes a normal ball ("dead money"). Once scored, opposing alliance may either feed to robot or try a hail mary.

This right here. It encourages movement from one side of the field to the other, quick aim and accuracy, defense on the money robot, and communication.

Would the moneyball be one for each team or awarded to the best scoring team in hybrid like scoring periods in Aim High?

[Chi Meson]

I would give one moneyball to each alliance, kept behind the wall, like the Lunacy supercell.

[Tetraman]

[IRI 01] The hybrid mode does not end until all basketballs that have been launched by robots during the hybrid mode have either landed on the court or settled into the corral. (This will mean all basketballs that landed into the hoops during hybrid mode but after the buzzer will score the additional 3 points.)

[IRI 02] Any basketballs that are shot over the player station wall will be put into that player station's corral, rather than being put back into the field. Teams that intentionally shoot basketballs over the player station wall will receive a Technical Foul and possible Red Card for repeated violations.

The Moneyball

[IRI 03] In the last 30 seconds of each qualification and elimination match, a Moneyball may be entered into the corral of the alliance whom scored the most amount of points in the Hybrid Mode. The Moneyball will be entered by either IRI field crew or referee.

[IRI 04] The Moneyball will give a 1 point Coopertition bonus to the first alliance that scores it during qualification matches. In Elimination matches, the Moneyball will score a bonus 9 points to the first alliance that scores it in a hoop. After the Moneyball has been scored for the first time in either case, it no longer provides the additional Coopertition point nor bonus points but may still be scored as a normal basketball.

[IRI 05] During Qualification matches, if both alliances score the same amount of points in hybrid mode, the Moneyball will not be entered into either alliance's corral and skipped for that match.

[IRI 06] During Elimination matches, if both alliances score the same amount of points in hybrid mode, the Moneyball will be entered into the corral of the alliance with the highest combined total of Coopertition points earned in the qualification matches. If this is also a tie, the moneyball will be entered into the corral of the lower seeded alliance's corral. (In this way, the Moneyball will be used in every Elimination match, either to the alliance whom scored the most hybrid points, or to the alliance that has the better tiebreaker. Scoring the Moneyball in Qualification matches will increase the odds of being given the Moneyball in elimination matches if a Hybrid Mode tie occurs.)


EDIT:

I was also thinking, it would be interesting to set up an additional field, or at least half of one. Set up a series of basketballs on one or two bridges and all over the court in certain places. You put one robot on the field on the key with a basketball and have it try to pick up and shoot as many of the basketballs as it can within, say, 30 seconds. Enforce a 1 Basketball hold limit, give additional points for ending the 30 seconds on the bridge and maybe something with a Moneyball. Teams can attempt the challenge only 3 times during the day, and the team who scored the most points within that 30 seconds earns a special award. Basically, the 3-point shooting contest the NBA does, in FIRST terms.

[ratdude747]

Originally Posted by Libby K

I think FIRST would beg to differ.
http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/gracious-professionalism

Under the header of "Core Values"...



As do I.
Just because this year's game involves Coopertition does not mean it's just a game element.
FIRST kind of says it for me, but that's how I see it too. Kindness and respect in the face of fierce competition.

EDIT: Also, Coopertition was coined in the late 90s (as far as its use in the FIRST world), and the 2000 game was called Coopertition:FIRST. Coopertition has been a value long before its use this year.

Well, let me rephrase. Coopertition shouldn't be a core value of FIRST.

Kindness and respect already exist off the field. Its called gracious professionalism.

Kindness and respect already exist on the field... It's called sportsmanship, the field version of gracious professionalism.

I do not see coopertition as either of the two. I see it as a concept that basically says that if you play on the field to win, even in a fair and just manner, and you happen to achive a much higher score than the opponent, you deserve be penalized since you didn't choose to intentionally lower your performance to make the opposition look better.

In addition, coopertition makes things hard for teams that do good "cooperative" things for the sake of truly caring... As soon as you put a price tag on something, yes, there will be more of it, but for the wrong reasons. Such acts should be done out of true kindness, not out of desire for an award or a higher ranking.

Don't get me wrong; I still think GP is a valuable things... But It isn't coopertition.

IMHO, It should be like this:

1. Off the field, everybody is friends and when somebody needs help, somebody else will unconditionally be there to give help. GP is de-facto, not de-jure. Similar to how it is is off the field.
2. On the field, play field, act responsible, exhibit good sportsmanship, and let the best playing alliance win.



I understand coopertition existed long ago but not to the degree it is now... It wasn't as heavily weighted as it is now. It was at a more manageable level where it had little effect on rankings. Back then, you EARNED your rank by playing well and having a good robot, not by intentionally cutting points or by repeatedly performing a basic task that any drivable robot could perform...

Bottom line; the Path to success on the field should solely be through a good robot and well played matches.

[Chris Hibner]

Larry,

In many ways, I really agree with you. I grew up playing a lot of sports and good sportsmanship was ingrained in me from the start. Unlike a lot of people, I know that being extremely competitive and being a good sport are not mutually exclusive.

However, coopertition is a life lesson that FIRST is trying to teach that isn't well understood in a lot of American life. The fact is, in real life you can be very competitive yet still benefit by working with your competitors in certain areas.

This is a very foreign concept in the US, but a lot of examples are out there. The best example is the "Group of 5" - the alliance of German auto companies. I was introduced to this when I worked for an automotive supplier that had a decent presence in Europe - I even attended a Group of 5 meeting at Porsche's headquarters one summer.

The Group of 5 was highly competitive with each other in their market, but they realized that they could gain a competitive advantage over the rest of the world by cooperating on certain advancements that helped reduce costs among them, but didn't really make for a competitive performance advantage. Basically, they collaborated on things that made life easier for all of them.

Many of the things that started out as Group of 5 collaboration efforts have become world-wide standards since then, such as CAN and CCP. Virtually every control system in the world now uses CCP as the standard method of calibration and data collection.

The point is, FIRST wants to point out that you can be competitive, yet still find ways to improve your standing AND someone else's standing at the same time. Personally, I think the coopertition bridge this year has been by far the best example of showing this concept.

Yes, it's just a robot competition, but FIRST's greater mission is to get people thinking of bigger picture things along the way.

On a final point, I don't really think the seeding has been out of whack this year. If you look at the standings from the vast majority of competitions, you see the usual suspects.

And by the way, it was nice meeting you at dinner in St. Louis last year.

[ratdude747]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Larry,

In many ways, I really agree with you. I grew up playing a lot of sports and good sportsmanship was ingrained in me from the start. Unlike a lot of people, I know that being extremely competitive and being a good sport are not mutually exclusive.

However, coopertition is a life lesson that FIRST is trying to teach that isn't well understood in a lot of American life. The fact is, in real life you can be very competitive yet still benefit by working with your competitors in certain areas.

This is a very foreign concept in the US, but a lot of examples are out there. The best example is the "Group of 5" - the alliance of German auto companies. I was introduced to this when I worked for an automotive supplier that had a decent presence in Europe - I even attended a Group of 5 meeting at Porsche's headquarters one summer.

The Group of 5 was highly competitive with each other in their market, but they realized that they could gain a competitive advantage over the rest of the world by cooperating on certain advancements that helped reduce costs among them, but didn't really make for a competitive performance advantage. Basically, they collaborated on things that made life easier for all of them.

Many of the things that started out as Group of 5 collaboration efforts have become world-wide standards since then, such as CAN and CCP. Virtually every control system in the world now uses CCP as the standard method of calibration and data collection.

The point is, FIRST wants to point out that you can be competitive, yet still find ways to improve your standing AND someone else's standing at the same time. Personally, I think the coopertition bridge this year has been by far the best example of showing this concept.

Yes, it's just a robot competition, but FIRST's greater mission is to get people thinking of bigger picture things along the way.

On a final point, I don't really think the seeding has been out of whack this year. If you look at the standings from the vast majority of competitions, you see the usual suspects.

And by the way, it was nice meeting you at dinner in St. Louis last year.

First, I think it's cool that you remember me from then...

(Long post ahead)

My beef with co-opertiton is that sometimes it gets manipulated too easily... like 6 vs 0 in 2010 or this year, where boxes on wheels are becoming alliance captains:


Where the co-op bridge bit falls short is this common scenario:

We have an alliance in Qualification XXX:

1 Shootbot
2 Boxbot
3 Shootbot

What usually happens is the alliance decides that they will send #2 to try to balance on the co-op bridge, since there is little else productive that they foresee #2 doing. The opposing alliance on the other hand doesn't care, since as long as they can push it or be pushed by it up the bridge, it's valid.

This is a shortcoming because of how the co-op rules work. just attempting to balance is a guaranteed point, and a balance is 2 guaranteed points.

In addition, the odds are in favor of the box-bots, since unlike non-box teams that will only have a box alliance member only some of the time, box teams will ALWAYS have a partner that is boxed, that being themselves. Therefore, the chances of getting at least the one point of attempt points are much, much greater and far more consistent for box bots than non-box bots.

With co-op points so valuable, this occurs:

(% of maximum possible)

1.

Wins: 0%
Balances: 0%
Failed Attempts: 100%
Seeding points: 25%

2.


Wins: 0%
Balances: 50%
Failed Attempts: 50%
Seeding points: 37.5%

3.


Wins: 25%
Balances: 50%
Failed Attempts: 50%
Seeding points: 50%

4.

Wins: 0%
Balances: 100%
Failed Attempts: 0%
Seeding points: 50%

5.

Wins: 50%
Balances: 50%
Failed Attempts: 0%
Seeding points: 50%

Cases 1-4 were common Boxbot occurrances. Case 5 was a common average bot occurance. As one can see, all a boxbot would need would be a few lucky pairing to get some win points tossed in and all of the sudden they are picking alliances.

IIRC there have been regionals where the #1 seed actually WAS a boxbot... they used the above effect to rack up massive amounts of seeding points.

The reason this is such a problem is that while co-op balancing is fruitful in Qualification, in eliminations it is useless. The only things boxbots can do in eliminations is either balance or play defense, which most non-box bots can also do. What that means is trhat if you get picked by a boxbot captain, you have in a way been given a large hurdle if not a kiss of death. IMHO this is not good game design and this needs to be fixed for IRI.

[CalTran]

I may be wrong here, but imo Larry, I think that by virtue of it being IRI then the competition might be a bit stiffer than box bots. As far as I can tell, the "elite" robots always seed higher because they consistently do both rack up points via baskets and bridge points by balancing. Which, at IRI, the best of the best robots are a dime a dozen.

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

[IRI 01] The hybrid mode does not end until all basketballs that have been launched by robots during the hybrid mode have either landed on the court or settled into the corral. (This will mean all basketballs that landed into the hoops during hybrid mode but after the buzzer will score the additional 3 points.)

[IRI 02] Any basketballs that are shot over the player station wall will be put into that player station's corral, rather than being put back into the field. Teams that intentionally shoot basketballs over the player station wall will receive a Technical Foul and possible Red Card for repeated violations.

The Moneyball

[IRI 03] In the last 30 seconds of each qualification and elimination match, a Moneyball may be entered into the corral of the alliance whom scored the most amount of points in the Hybrid Mode. The Moneyball will be entered by either IRI field crew or referee.

[IRI 04] The Moneyball will give a 1 point Coopertition bonus to the first alliance that scores it during qualification matches. In Elimination matches, the Moneyball will score a bonus 9 points to the first alliance that scores it in a hoop. After the Moneyball has been scored for the first time in either case, it no longer provides the additional Coopertition point nor bonus points but may still be scored as a normal basketball.

[IRI 05] During Qualification matches, if both alliances score the same amount of points in hybrid mode, the Moneyball will not be entered into either alliance's corral and skipped for that match.

[IRI 06] During Elimination matches, if both alliances score the same amount of points in hybrid mode, the Moneyball will be entered into the corral of the alliance with the highest combined total of Coopertition points earned in the qualification matches. If this is also a tie, the moneyball will be entered into the corral of the lower seeded alliance's corral. (In this way, the Moneyball will be used in every Elimination match, either to the alliance whom scored the most hybrid points, or to the alliance that has the better tiebreaker. Scoring the Moneyball in Qualification matches will increase the odds of being given the Moneyball in elimination matches if a Hybrid Mode tie occurs.)


EDIT:

I was also thinking, it would be interesting to set up an additional field, or at least half of one. Set up a series of basketballs on one or two bridges and all over the court in certain places. You put one robot on the field on the key with a basketball and have it try to pick up and shoot as many of the basketballs as it can within, say, 30 seconds. Enforce a 1 Basketball hold limit, give additional points for ending the 30 seconds on the bridge and maybe something with a Moneyball. Teams can attempt the challenge only 3 times during the day, and the team who scored the most points within that 30 seconds earns a special award. Basically, the 3-point shooting contest the NBA does, in FIRST terms.

are we pausing matches to sit down and figure out who gets the money ball in each match? Because that's looking like a long process.

Why not just say "whoever's got the lower score at the moment gets the ball", then it serves to even the score instead of give the winning alliance (Because the ones with more auto is probably winning) more points

[Tetraman]

Originally Posted by animenerdjohn

are we pausing matches to sit down and figure out who gets the money ball in each match? Because that's looking like a long process.

Why not just say "whoever's got the lower score at the moment gets the ball", then it serves to even the score instead of give the winning alliance (Because the ones with more auto is probably winning) more points

Not if you plan ahead. Spend a few minutes after alliance selection to add up the cooperititon points and write them down next to each alliance on a sheet of paper, and you'll have instant confirmation.

Points change rapidly. If you see one alliance down 6 points and you head over to their side, ready to put the moneyball in, and then they nail 9 points, you'd have to run over to the other side to get the moneyball in. And even if you had one person on both sides with a moneyball in hand to drop it in, what happens if one of them sees the 6 less score and gives it to them prematurely and the other sees the 9 points scored and gives it to the other team? The easier it is to determine the point which something is to be given, the better.

[Dave Scheck]

Why not just make it simple and have a jump ball? Have the referee toss the moneyball down the middle of the field with a best effort of having it bounce on the coop bridge? Then it becomes a mad dash to pick up a single ball that could bounce either way. You could even make a stipulation about robots having to not being in the area between the bridges before the ref tosses the ball to give it a fair chance of going either way.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Dave Scheck

Why not just make it simple and have a jump ball? Have the referee toss the moneyball down the middle of the field with a best effort of having it bounce on the coop bridge? Then it becomes a mad dash to pick up a single ball that could bounce either way. You could even make a stipulation about robots having to not being in the area between the bridges before the ref tosses the ball to give it a fair chance of going either way.

I imagine it would be pretty easy to make a "fair" catapult/slingshot at the side of the field to enter the moneyball consistently.

[ratdude747]

Originally Posted by CalTran

I may be wrong here, but imo Larry, I think that by virtue of it being IRI then the competition might be a bit stiffer than box bots. As far as I can tell, the "elite" robots always seed higher because they consistently do both rack up points via baskets and bridge points by balancing. Which, at IRI, the best of the best robots are a dime a dozen.

True, but the issue could come into play... if one bot is consistently down on shooting ability and other teams who shoot better consistently put them on bridge duty, they are essentially a boxbot.

IMHO a bad rule is a bad rule.