2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

(Besides, what you say is not entirely true... The coopertition bonus had nothing to do with how much you beat your opponent by, only how many points they scored... So a 10-9 victory was just as good as a 20-9 victory in that regard.)

Oops. It was the ranking sort that was based on the difference in scoring IIRC.

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

The Coopertition Award needs serious review. One of the major problems this year was that Coopertiton points were assessed as an alliance, not as individual teams. In many events, the team that won the award never actually participated in the act of balancing (or even attempting) to balance the Coopertiton Bridge. At one event, the award would have gone to a team that left at the end of the first day... Not really cooperating nor competing. It is difficult to inspire with an award that has such criteria.

If the award were given to teams that attempted the Co-op Balance the most, that would be more appropriate. Hopefully the GDC will make adjustments to next year's game.

For those keeping score, I think the Coopertition Bridge itself is one of the best things about a fantastic game this year.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

Yes I agree that the basis for winning the Coopertition award this year wasn't the best but it does change from year to year. As I stated earlier in this thread they way it was done last year was the best in the 4 seasons I've been involved with FRC. 2010 was worse since it was easily gamed by scoring points for your opponent, as were the rankings.

Which reminds me having the Hybrid points being the second order of sort for the rankings was the best since I've been involved as it encouraged teams to have an autonomous routine or two. The bonus for "Hybrid" was also the best yet as it encouraged having an autonomous routine and allowed the 2 pt dumpers to score almost as much or even more than the 3pt shooters in Hybrid.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Oops. It was the ranking sort that was based on the difference in scoring IIRC.

Also not quite true:

"All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to the penalized score (the score with any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE plus 5 additional points for winning the match.
All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE."

I think where you're getting confused is that in general, you'd rather have won a game 10-9 than 10-1, but 15-9 was still better than 10-9. (For you and your opponents!)

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Also not quite true:

"All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to the penalized score (the score with any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE plus 5 additional points for winning the match.
All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE."

I think where you're getting confused is that in general, you'd rather have won a game 10-9 than 10-1, but 15-9 was still better than 10-9. (For you and your opponents!)

That was almost certainly the worst seeding system in FRC history... it was the only one where the losing alliance got points based on the winning alliance's score, which really doesn't make any sense.

[Solidstate89]

Originally Posted by bduddy

That was almost certainly the worst seeding system in FRC history... it was the only one where the losing alliance got points based on the winning alliance's score, which really doesn't make any sense.

It really was. And due to the extreme rule changes that year, you could see the drop in registrations for 1st week regionals the proceeding season. It's why we skipped FLR last year because it was a first week. Thankfully they switched to a second week so we went again this year.