Effect of Coopertition Points

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Cory

I don't feel like going back further, but it's pretty clear that this is the first year in awhile in which you cannot directly contribute to, or take actions to not reduce your opponent's score.

If you're referring to 2012 by this statement, you can score for your opponent. Nowhere is it disallowed. I also recall a Q&A answer to the effect of "It matters that it goes in, not how it goes in." (The question, IIRC, was something along the lines of "If a ball bounces in off *probable object for stuff to bounce off of*, does it still count?", or it might have been a direct "Can we score for our opponents?")

However, it helps you not one bit in the rankings. The win+coop are the only things that count.

Also, just a minor quibble: I distinctly said "score for your opponent". I made no reference to failing to score points, or not scoring as many points as you could, which has always been on the table. If you take my words as I said them, then 2007 and 2011 are both cases where you could not legally score for your opponent. If, however, you choose to take "score for your opponent" as "take actions to not reduce your opponent's score", then you have to go back to 2001, where you had no opponent but could raise or lower your partner's score (or your own) with some careful maneuvering, or 1991, when FRC had yet to run a single competition.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Cory

It sucks that to seed well you now have to rely on your opponents being good and not just your partners.

And this is bad because...?

Seriously, if you don't like the idea of being handicapped by a deficient opposing alliance, do something about it. Don't just gripe about the situation. What can you do, you ask? The answer should be obvious: help your opponents to be good.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

And this is bad because...?

Seriously, if you don't like the idea of being handicapped by a deficient opposing alliance, do something about it. Don't just gripe about the situation. What can you do, you ask? The answer should be obvious: help your opponents to be good.

Hall of Fame FIRST Team 254 has arguably helped more teams become good than any other team in FIRST. I don't think they need a lecture on helping their opponents.

[Jim Zondag]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Hall of Fame FIRST Team 254 has arguably helped more teams become good than any other team in FIRST. I don't think they need a lecture on helping their opponents.

Amen, Karthik:

To me, the real problem here is that someone at FIRST still misses the key point:

They keep trying to change the motivations of the teams by changing the Qualifying promotion system to depend on something other than winning matches. This goes back for over a decade and keeps coming in and out of the game design. They seem think this will somehow change who wins. This does indeed serve to change how teams will play the game in qualifying. However, all such attempts fail to change anything in the end because we then proceed to play an ELIMINATION series that is ONLY about winning.

So, FIRST's attempts at trying to change what we do on the feild really don't change much after all, since the teams who know how to win invariably end up as the leaders at the end of the tournament anyway. What these attempts do serve to do is:
- Make the game more bimodal and more confusing to the spectators, since the robots do different things on the field depending on what part of the competition you are watching.
- Make the game less sport-like, since bizarre concepts like this are found no where in any main stream sport.
- Drive a lot more 'noise' into the qualifing process, since advancing in the rankings can often be most out of an individual team's control.
- Set up a lot of built in upsets in Eliminations, since the teams best equipped for winning the tournment may not be the qualifying leaders.
- Cause a lot more frustration in the actual execution of the gameplay
- Open the door for attempts to "game" the qualifying system, since the motivations of the opposing alliances may not be the same.

With 3 on 3 alliance play, we already have so many reasons to help and cooperate with other teams that we do not need more deliberately injected into the game design.

I still believe that if we are legitimately trying to make FRC be recognized as a real sport than the GDC must treat it like one. These 'social engineering experiments' do not really belong here and they really don't work anyway. Good atheletes and good sports teams win tournments, and no one seems to have a problem with this. Good Robots should excel at Robotics Competitions.

If FIRST wants to try to level the field, maybe they should create some kind of handicap rankings. This is done in golf and other sports to allow players of different proficiency to play against each other on somewhat equal terms in the same league. I personally do not think this is necessary, but whatever the solution, messing with the Qualifying promotion system has never really worked, and probably never will. The best games are the ones in which the teams with the best execution will rise to the top in both Qualifying AND Eliminations.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

Amen, Karthik:

To me, the real problem here is that someone at FIRST still misses the key point:

They keep trying to change the motivations of the teams by changing the Qualifying promotion system to depend on something other than winning matches. This goes back for over a decade and keeps coming in and out of the game design. They seem think this will somehow change who wins. This does indeed serve to change how teams will play the game in qualifying. However, all such attempts fail to change anything in the end because we then proceed to play an ELIMINATION series that is ONLY about winning.

So, FIRST's attempts at trying to change what we do on the feild really don't change much after all, since the teams who know how to win invariably end up as the leaders at the end of the tournament anyway. What these attempts do serve to do is:
- Make the game more bimodal and more confusing to the spectators, since the robots do different things on the field depending on what part of the competition you are watching.
- Make the game less sport-like, since bizarre concepts like this are found no where in any main stream sport.
- Drive a lot more 'noise' into the qualifing process, since advancing in the rankings can often be most out of an individual team's control.
- Set up a lot of built in upsets in Eliminations, since the teams best equipped for winning the tournment may not be the qualifying leaders.
- Cause a lot more frustration in the actual execution of the gameplay
- Open the door for attempts to "game" the qualifying system, since the motivations of the opposing alliances may not be the same.

With 3 on 3 alliance play, we already have so many reasons to help and cooperate with other teams that we do not need more deliberately injected into the game design.

I still believe that if we are legitimately trying to make FRC be recognized as a real sport than the GDC must treat it like one. These 'social engineering experiments' do not really belong here and they really don't work anyway. Good atheletes and good sports teams win tournments, and no one seems to have a problem with this. Good Robots should excel at Robotics Competitions.

If FIRST wants to try to level the field, maybe they should create some kind of handicap rankings. This is done in golf and other sports to allow players of different proficiency to play against each other on somewhat equal terms in the same league. I personally do not think this is necessary, but whatever the solution, messing with the Qualifying promotion system has never really worked, and probably never will. The best games are the ones in which the teams with the best execution will rise to the top in both Qualifying AND Eliminations.

Amen Jim! Well said!

[waialua359]

Jim,
Great explanation and good points!
Once again, you have shown why YOU should be on the GDC. Haha.....

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

Amen, Karthik:

To me, the real problem here is that someone at FIRST still misses the key point:

They keep trying to change the motivations of the teams by changing the Qualifying promotion system to depend on something other than winning matches. This goes back for over a decade and keeps coming in and out of the game design. They seem think this will somehow change who wins. This does indeed serve to change how teams will play the game in qualifying. However, all such attempts fail to change anything in the end because we then proceed to play an ELIMINATION series that is ONLY about winning.

So, FIRST's attempts at trying to change what we do on the feild really don't change much after all, since the teams who know how to win invariably end up as the leaders at the end of the tournament anyway. What these attempts do serve to do is:
- Make the game more bimodal and more confusing to the spectators, since the robots do different things on the field depending on what part of the competition you are watching.
- Make the game less sport-like, since bizarre concepts like this are found no where in any main stream sport.
- Drive a lot more 'noise' into the qualifing process, since advancing in the rankings can often be most out of an individual team's control.
- Set up a lot of built in upsets in Eliminations, since the teams best equipped for winning the tournment may not be the qualifying leaders.
- Cause a lot more frustration in the actual execution of the gameplay
- Open the door for attempts to "game" the qualifying system, since the motivations of the opposing alliances may not be the same.

With 3 on 3 alliance play, we already have so many reasons to help and cooperate with other teams that we do not need more deliberately injected into the game design.

I still believe that if we are legitimately trying to make FRC be recognized as a real sport than the GDC must treat it like one. These 'social engineering experiments' do not really belong here and they really don't work anyway. Good atheletes and good sports teams win tournments, and no one seems to have a problem with this. Good Robots should excel at Robotics Competitions.

If FIRST wants to try to level the field, maybe they should create some kind of handicap rankings. This is done in golf and other sports to allow players of different proficiency to play against each other on somewhat equal terms in the same league. I personally do not think this is necessary, but whatever the solution, messing with the Qualifying promotion system has never really worked, and probably never will. The best games are the ones in which the teams with the best execution will rise to the top in both Qualifying AND Eliminations.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Jim,
Great explanation and good points!
Once again, you have shown why YOU should be on the GDC. Haha.....

He already is... just for another competition.

[martin417]

This weekend, at the NC regional alliance selections, for the first time I can remember, the first four selections were teams not in the top eight.

[rsisk]

Originally Posted by martin417

This weekend, at the NC regional alliance selections, for the first time I can remember, the first four selections were teams not in the top eight.

If I remember right, in San Diego, all alliances selections came from the pool, no alliance captains were selected.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by rsisk

If I remember right, in San Diego, all alliances selections came from the pool, no alliance captains were selected.

2 picked 3

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by rsisk

If I remember right, in San Diego, all alliances selections came from the pool, no alliance captains were selected.

1662 (#2) took 599 (#3).

[JABot67]

Whether or not the Coop bridge is a "social engineering experiment", I pretend it's not and instead interpret it as just another aspect of the game. It is just another challenge - you have to cooperate with a drive team ~60 feet away from you in order to get an extra 2 qualification points. It makes the qualifications matches exciting.

I've anxiously watched numerous matches, rooting for either a non-balance or a balance on the Coop bridge depending on what would help my team. I've watched webcasts where it seemed like in every match there would be an attempted Coop bridge balance that failed at the last second, a heart wrenching way to end each match.

The Coop bridge is a GREAT addition to the game this year. Let's face it - it might be confusing for outside spectators to watch, but the vast majority of the people watching a qualification match are going to be familiar with the great power of the Coop bridge balance. What an amazing thrill it is to watch a Coop balance attempt.

Many people in this thread have complained that FIRST always tries to introduce elements of the game that are out of an individual team's control:

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

- Drive a lot more 'noise' into the qualifing process, since advancing in the rankings can often be most out of an individual team's control.

Originally Posted by Cory

It sucks that to seed well you now have to rely on your opponents being good and not just your partners.

In any FRC game there is going to be an element of luck, and that is directly built into the competition structure. That's what makes it great, in my opinion. If the BEST teams at an event always won, then my team should go to MSC with absolutely no hope of winning. Yes, our robot is good, but to be honest the improvements we are making to our robot and code are not good enough to be better than 67 and 469's entries at the event.

Yet I still have hope for winning. The competition structure might provide us with a little bit of luck, and what will make it interesting will be the elements of the game that are beyond my team's control. I'm not ready to give the state championship to 67 and 469 just because their robots are plainly better than my team's. And from the perspective of someone on a powerhouse team (I used to be on 67), I would still find it very boring to go to a competition knowing for a fact that my team will win. I am a fan of the "noise" at the competitions.

[qzrrbz]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

Amen, Karthik:

...

If FIRST wants to try to level the field, maybe they should create some kind of handicap rankings. This is done in golf and other sports to allow players of different proficiency to play against each other on somewhat equal terms in the same league. I personally do not think this is necessary, but whatever the solution, messing with the Qualifying promotion system has never really worked, and probably never will. The best games are the ones in which the teams with the best execution will rise to the top in both Qualifying AND Eliminations.

The sports with handicaps don't change the game every year, and the handicap stays with a player, not a team! That makes this seemingly attractive idea a non-starter, imho.

[JaneYoung]

I think a part of this discussion is that not everyone cares about recognizing FRC as a real sport. I also think that there are those who want to celebrate the "social engineering experiment." The bridge (and how it is used) on the field and in discussions off the field, shows that there is a lot of work for the participants to do in order to balance it.

That doesn't make the situation black and white. It doesn't make it right or wrong. It provides opportunities for members of FRC to implement healthy discussions regarding strengthening the program and its positive impact.

Jane

[rick.oliver]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

To me, the real problem here is that someone at FIRST still misses the key point:

They keep trying to change the motivations of the teams by changing the Qualifying promotion system to depend on something other than winning matches. ...

"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders."

Dean Kamen, Founder

Mission

Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

Perhaps someone at FIRST is not missing the key point; rather, they are striving to fulfill their stated mission.