Value of Coopertition

[MARS_James]

I feel that making Cooperation bonus something easy to see and something that you want to do was a nice change (the 2011 borrowed Minibot thing was hard to keep track of and not known to those watching the matches), I feel like they should have the coop score as your first tie breaker and it would have solved the issues or have it be 1 QP for being successful.

I did love explaining to a team that is normally very knowledgeable about the way these games are played how important that bridge was. To put it simply a team that won every match they were in and never did coopertition would rank the exact same as a team that lost all the matches but did coopertition every time.

[GBK]

While I do not disagree with any of the statements, and I want to be clear that I feel that this program is one of the best programs that our kids can be involved in.
I would like to point out that the name of last years game was Rebound Rumble. The graphics for the game were basketballs. The year before was Logo Motion. The challenge is to build a robot to play the game, with the goal of winning.
If you do not attempt to build a robot to play the game are you trying to meet the challenge or are you trying to disrupt others that did attempt to meet the challenge.
I understand that resources limit what a team can do. But I have seen teams with very limited resources do well.
Trying and failing is one thing but not trying is another.

[gyroscopeRaptor]

Originally Posted by GBK

While I do not disagree with any of the statements, and I want to be clear that I feel that this program is one of the best programs that our kids can be involved in.
I would like to point out that the name of last years game was Rebound Rumble. The graphics for the game were basketballs. The year before was Logo Motion. The challenge is to build a robot to play the game, with the goal of winning.
If you do not attempt to build a robot to play the game are you trying to meet the challenge or are you trying to disrupt others that did attempt to meet the challenge.
I understand that resources limit what a team can do. But I have seen teams with very limited resources do well.
Trying and failing is one thing but not trying is another.

3737 met the challenge and I see nothing wrong with their robot.

You may see a problem with undue weight placed on the bridges, but they saw it as an opportunity to perform well. Which they did.

[Kims Robot]

There are two COMPLETELY different discussions here...

1. Was the co-op bridge overvalued this year?
IMO, if FIRST was looking for an exciting basketball game... yes, it was overvalued. You could have built an amazing balancer and did nothing but convinced or brute forced other teams into co-oping with you and climbed your way to the top of the rankings, then been able to triple balance with two long bots, and win the competition. (I dont think I saw anyone really do this, but I think its because no one focused 100% of their effort on this)

If FIRST was aiming to get us to think... and cooperate, perhaps it wasn't overvalued. It gave teams the choice... score baskets, balance/co-op, or do it all. If it hadn't been worth two points, I think a lot fewer teams would have put so much effort into doing it.

2. What is the "right" way to play the game?

• Focus on Strategy to Win Matches
• Focus on Strategy to Win the Event (most teams dont realize this and the prior are different concepts - 2010 week 1 you could get zero points in every match and still rank in the top 3)
• Focus on the "Tele-op" part of the game (usually what the logo & name are based one (this can sometimes win the match/event, but usually not on its own))

Each team is going to have their own opinion in either discussion. The second discussion is a highly personalized and very divided topic. For me, if FIRST got the game completely right, top teams would have to be successful at all 3 to win the event. But its a very very tricky balancing act, and often years a strong analysis of the game points values can lead you to prioritize different features of your robot, and possibly realize that you don't need to do anything in Tele-op if you can score enough in auto or end game.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by GBK

While I do not disagree with any of the statements, and I want to be clear that I feel that this program is one of the best programs that our kids can be involved in.
I would like to point out that the name of last years game was Rebound Rumble. The graphics for the game were basketballs. The year before was Logo Motion. The challenge is to build a robot to play the game, with the goal of winning.
If you do not attempt to build a robot to play the game are you trying to meet the challenge or are you trying to disrupt others that did attempt to meet the challenge.
I understand that resources limit what a team can do. But I have seen teams with very limited resources do well.
Trying and failing is one thing but not trying is another.

The National Football League plays a game called [American] football. The league's logo contains a football. Yet, only three of the twenty-two players on the field at any given point touch the football on a typical play. Eleven of the twenty-two players are actively attempting to disrupt the others. Four of the offensive players (the linemen other than the center) may spend their entire career without ever handling a "live" ball.

[Wayne TenBrink]

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

There are two COMPLETELY different discussions here...

1. Was the co-op bridge overvalued this year?
2. What is the "right" way to play the game?

I Agree.

I don't think there is "right" way to play (other than with GP and within the rules). We play as alliances, not one-vs-one. Every team can contribute in some way to make the alliance stronger than three individual teams - especially during eliminations. IMHO, however, the game/scoring should be designed with a goal that the teams with best and broadest capabilities seed higher than teams with narrow skills.

I thought the seeding value of the co-op bridge placed too much value on an action that was more of a "choice" than a "skill". Co-Op was normally easier to achieve than an alliance double balance, because it usually involved the best balancer from each alliance, rather than the best 2 from a single alliance.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by GBK

While I do not disagree with any of the statements, and I want to be clear that I feel that this program is one of the best programs that our kids can be involved in.
I would like to point out that the name of last years game was Rebound Rumble. The graphics for the game were basketballs. The year before was Logo Motion. The challenge is to build a robot to play the game, with the goal of winning.
If you do not attempt to build a robot to play the game are you trying to meet the challenge or are you trying to disrupt others that did attempt to meet the challenge.
I understand that resources limit what a team can do. But I have seen teams with very limited resources do well.
Trying and failing is one thing but not trying is another.

What part of ignoring the baskets to focus on defense or the bridge is not a strategy to play the game to win?

[theun4gven]

Originally Posted by GBK

I would like to point out that the name of last years game was Rebound Rumble. The graphics for the game were basketballs. The year before was Logo Motion. The challenge is to build a robot to play the game, with the goal of winning.
If you do not attempt to build a robot to play the game are you trying to meet the challenge or are you trying to disrupt others that did attempt to meet the challenge.
I understand that resources limit what a team can do. But I have seen teams with very limited resources do well.
Trying and failing is one thing but not trying is another.

I would like to point out that there are many excellent defensivemen in the NBA who rarely put up points. These players would not meet your definition of meeting the challenge as they are actively attempting to disrupt the other team from meeting their challenge. It would be easy to get nitpicky and point out that, according to the name of the game, the challenge of the game is to recover missed shots, not to make them. This could lead one to the conclusion that the point of the game was defense.

The problem with your statement, as others have also noted above, is that your are defining what is important and what constitutes the challenge. First you say that the point is "to play the game, with the goal of winning." Then you are essentially defining "meeting the challenge" as scoring baskets. That statement does not follow the previous. Playing the game constitutes much more than just scoring baskets. To win the scoring portion your team needs to score more than the other team. This does not in any way imply that all robots must attempt to only score as many as possible. Scoring one basket and keeping your opponent from scoring any is a viable strategy and I don't believe you can argue that this is not playing the game.

This year FIRST decided that winning would be worth 2 points with balancing also worth up to 2 points. I would argue that this statement can be seen as showing coopertition is equally as important as winning the scoring portion.

Essentially FIRST told you how match scoring would work, how ranking would work, and what needed to be accomplished to obtain these scores. It is up to the teams to decide how they want to accomplish these goals. Meeting the challenge is whatever the team determines it to be.

[GBK]

Interesting points. The way I see it FIRST has been discouraging defense for the last few years. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with using defense as part of a strategy. It is also good to see that there are rookie teams that are able to get robots on the field and do something to contribute to the game.

As far as the house analogy, if I am looking for someone to build me a house and you come to me with a plumbing design, I will refer you to the company that gets the contract for the job I am looking for (building my house)

The most important thing in this program is what the students learn and take away from it. I have heard Dean say more than once, If you think you are in a robot competition, you missed the point. (not a direct quote but you know the line) These students are learning things that they do not know they are learning.
I hope that none of them are coming away from the program thinking that that they will be rewarded for not attempting what is presented to them.
How we measure success is very different from team to team and person to person.
There are many teams out there that we all strive to have a portion of the real success that they have achieved. That can only be done by trying, and learning from those teams around us, not only in what they do well, but if we are lucky by learning from their mistakes as well as ours.

[IKE]

GBK,
Ultimately the GDC gives us a game with rules about scoring and qualifying and ranking. Adding the constraint "this is the primary objective, therefore teams should do this" is adding an artificial constraint.

In 2011, you could win most matches with a minibot. In 2010, the mere act of hanging regularly was worth about 2x the average team score. Ramps in 2007, Human players scoring over 50% of moonrocks at the championship in 2009... Pretty much every year has an aspect were excelling at a less prominent task is more valuable than poorly scoring at the main objective.

Now back to your original question if the Co-Op bridge was overvalued, I think the Co-Op had some distinct issues.
1. If you opponents chose to not Co-Op, you would loose ranking.
2. At events where the Co-Ops were over 50% (Troy, MSC, and Championship) strange things occurred where teams got giant Co-Op scores without Co-Oping themselves.
3. Co-Oping dissappeared in Elims, which made the game a bit odd as it changed gears from qualifying to Elims. (some people like this, but I think it confuses spectators and many teams).

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by GBK

In Michigan we saw teams that did not even have a shooter on their robot seed in the top 5 and were in a picking position.
In the real world if someone comes to you and says I need you to design something that will do X and if it can also do Y and you do not even attempt to do X but do Y very well, will you get the contract???

If you attempt to do something, and do it to the best of your abilities, what ever your result, is one thing. But when you don't even attempt it that is quite another.

It's entirely possible to win that contract, my company has. We just finished re-scoping a 2-year contract we won because our proposal caused the awarder to re-focus what was important to them based on slight suggestions in our proposal.

I agree with the sentiment that the primary objective is to build a robot that plays the game well, not necessarily every challenge or task contained within the game.

Good example being Zone Zeal. We made a robot that was arguably one of the best ball collectors/scorers that year, but we had goals full of balls stripped from us routinely. We completed the flashiest, and ostensibly the 'main challenge' of the game VERY well. The robot was not very successful in elimination matches because the outcome of the Game rested on holding those goals in your scoring zone, which we couldn't do.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

Good example being Zone Zeal. We made a robot that was arguably one of the best ball collectors/scorers that year, but we had goals full of balls stripped from us routinely. We completed the flashiest, and ostensibly the 'main challenge' of the game VERY well. The robot was not very successful in elimination matches because the outcome of the Game rested on holding those goals in your scoring zone, which we couldn't do.

One of my favorite robots ever, purely from a wow factor. Watching that thing take a run at the balls along the edge of the field and just INHALING them. Inspirational thing for a high school freshman to see.

-Brando

[Justin Montois]

I usually don't like to pile on when my view has been so well covered by those who have posted before me, but I think it's important to say that if you want your team to be successful, design a robot that dominates a strategy. I'm of the view that it doesn't really matter what the strategy is. As long as you do it the best, you have a shot to win events. The "main challenge" or what FIRST may want teams to do is meaningless.

Some teams didn't even bother building the middle or low goals this past season. I think that was a mistake. If you don't even look at all of your options and get a true feel for the size of the game elements and the heights of the goals then you are doing your team a disservice.

We decided to forego 1 point per ball by scoring in the middle hoop in favor of nearly 100% accuracy. Not a lot of teams respected us for it, but if you look at the data we outscored several "good" shooters. I've overheard people in the stands saying about shooters "Wow, they are good they make 2 out of 3 in the top hoop every time" and later hearing from other people that during our matches people would say "They don't miss but they are only scoring in the middle hoop" All the while both robots just scored the same amount of points.

I believe that a team that scored in the lowest hoop but never missed would have made the elimination rounds at any regional.

TL;DR

Pick a strategy, ANY strategy, be the best at it and you will have a shot to win events.

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

I usually don't like to pile on when my view has been so well covered by those who have posted before me, but I think it's important to say that if you want your team to be successful, design a robot that dominates a strategy. I'm of the view that it doesn't really matter what the strategy is. As long as you do it the best, you have a shot to win events. The "main challenge" or what FIRST may want teams to do is meaningless.

Some teams didn't even bother building the middle or low goals this past season. I think that was a mistake. If you don't even look at all of your options and get a true feel for the size of the game elements and the heights of the goals then you are doing your team a disservice.

We decided to forego 1 point per ball by scoring in the middle hoop in favor of nearly 100% accuracy. Not a lot of teams respected us for it, but if you look at the data we outscored several "good" shooters. I've overheard people in the stands saying about shooters "Wow, they are good they make 2 out of 3 in the top hoop every time" and later hearing from other people that during our matches people would say "They don't miss but they are only scoring in the middle hoop" All the while both robots just scored the same amount of points.

I believe that a team that scored in the lowest hoop but never missed would have made the elimination rounds at any regional.

TL;DR

Pick a strategy, ANY strategy, be the best at it and you will have a shot to win events.

Team 61 at GSR did that this year. They made a robot that neatly scored in the bottom hoop reliably. They had a respectable 7-3 seeding record, but their alliance was quickly eliminated in the quarters.

885 on the other hand scored reliably on the 2nd level hoops and was the sole scoring robot for a finalist alliance.

I guess the trick is hitting that sweet spot.

[MARS_James]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

I believe that a team that scored in the lowest hoop but never missed would have made the elimination rounds at any regional.

1557 did that and was not selected in Orlando..... just saying