[FRC Blog] Kickoff Broadcast and Game Hint Redux

[atucker4072]

Originally Posted by magnets

I agree that the 2012 win-is-as-valuable-as-coopertition-balance system was flawed, and that it has the ability to turn into people saying "I only lost because my opponents were worse than yours", but I do think some sort of cooperating would be nice, especially in the elimination rounds. It shouldn't be the only way of scoring, but I think it could work out nicely, if done right.

Yeah and this brings up a good point. Is it possible to have a good coopertition system so some teams don't end up loosing either way?

There is also the point that maybe teams should have spent too much time trying to coopertate. If they realized it wasn't going to happen they should have gone back to scoring for their own alliance.

[thursam]

Originally Posted by magnets

I agree that the 2012 win-is-as-valuable-as-coopertition-balance system was flawed, and that it has the ability to turn into people saying "I only lost because my opponents were worse than yours", but I do think some sort of cooperating would be nice, especially in the elimination rounds. It shouldn't be the only way of scoring, but I think it could work out nicely, if done right.

Coopertition has actually been a huge part of all the FRC competitions, even if it isn't on field. Last season, my team had a big issue with our programming, and our pit neighbors were more than happy to help us. Though we didn't make it past qualification, we were (and still are) extremely grateful for their help.

The way coopertition ties into the game would be a big part of it, as well. I think the easiest way to tie it in would be in a hockey-esque game. Someone did mention earlier that they make carpet pucks.

[apples000]

Originally Posted by atucker4072

Yeah and this brings up a good point. Is it possible to have a good coopertition system so some teams don't end up loosing either way?

There is also the point that maybe teams should have spent too much time trying to coopertate. If they realized it wasn't going to happen they should have gone back to scoring for their own alliance.

That was the problem with 2012. Teams didn't go back to scoring, because winning would give them 2 qualifying points, balancing would give them 2 qualifying points, but they really needed 4 qualifying points (balance and win) in order to play in elims.

With some tweaking, a coopertition system would work. It's not a flawed concept, in fact, it's a great idea, but 2012 was a flawed implementation.

[atucker4072]

Well back to this year any other things that have to do with assist and any other connections from other small hints?

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by apples000

If teams like 254, 1114, etc... don't do it right, then something is not right with the game.

That's not true at all...

If you went to the bridge with 1:15 left and then ended up losing the match, you didn't have a good enough lead at that point in the match to allow you to attempt the bridge. Winning should've been priority, then the coop bridge.

While the bridge was flawed, I don't think you can go far enough to say "if blank team couldn't do it then there's something wrong." Many teams were able to complete the bridge and win the match.

Plus you have a match schedule with who you're playing against. Why not talk to the opposing teams in advance for true coopertition?

[atucker4072]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

That's not true at all...

If you went to the bridge with 1:15 left and then ended up losing the match, you didn't have a good enough lead at that point in the match to allow you to attempt the bridge. Winning should've been priority, then the coop bridge.

While the bridge was flawed, I don't think you can go far enough to say "if blank team couldn't do it then there's something wrong." Many teams were able to complete the bridge and win the match.

Correct it was a matter of strategy and planning. It wasn't something that you could just be like we are going to try an coopertate with you. It was more than that.

So back to the hint.

[Anthony4004]

I just wanted to state that I am surprised by this for co-op. In michigan, at the regionals we went to last year we never saw any co-op fail.......wow.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by tondogone

I just wanted to state that I am surprised by this for co-op. In michigan, at the regionals we went to last year we never saw any co-op fail.......wow.

I'm going to say this only once:

-In BOTH the years there have been coopertition points that affected the ranking, those ranking systems were almost universally hated, and there was a distinct spike in playing to lose, or playing to deny X. (2010, 2012) I remember hearing that some teams couldn't get a coop balance in 2012 to save their lives, hardly--and some of it was intentional.

-In the year where coopertition points affected barely anything (2011), almost nobody practiced coopertition.

-In 2008, something similar to coopertition was applied, in that blowing out your opponents negatively affected your potential points in your next match. Mixed results in terms of liking. But IF FRC ever goes back to having coopertition points, I'd want to see something like this, where working with your opponent to score/keep the game close gives bonus (and/or coopertition) points and blowouts give negative bonus/coopertition points.

[heisenburger]

Does the 25% weight sign still pop up with the new numbers?

[Anthony4004]

Originally Posted by EricH

I'm going to say this only once:

-In BOTH the years there have been coopertition points that affected the ranking, those ranking systems were almost universally hated, and there was a distinct spike in playing to lose, or playing to deny X. (2010, 2012) I remember hearing that some teams couldn't get a coop balance in 2012 to save their lives, hardly--and some of it was intentional.

-In the year where coopertition points affected barely anything (2011), almost nobody practiced coopertition.

-In 2008, something similar to coopertition was applied, in that blowing out your opponents negatively affected your potential points in your next match. Mixed results in terms of liking. But IF FRC ever goes back to having coopertition points, I'd want to see something like this, where working with your opponent to score/keep the game close gives bonus (and/or coopertition) points and blowouts give negative bonus/coopertition points.

I didn't think it had been that bad. Thanks for the insight. Also, I like that idea of negative co-op.

[Anthony4004]

Originally Posted by heisenburger

Does the 25% weight sign still pop up with the new numbers?

Technically yes, however it was never a strong theory due to the back searching from GDC. After all, Frank said that we got way off track.

[Ryanmiller]

Look at the games section

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRST_...cs_Competition

[Electronica1]

Originally Posted by Ryanmiller

Look at the games section

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRST_...cs_Competition

And the FakeGDC strikes again (according to the edit history)

[roboryan]

anybody could create a wikipedia account though and edit any page it really isn't that hard probably just some person trying to be funny

[Harveythellama]

It's taken down now