Coopertition issues

[IronicDeadBird]

Has anyone run into the issue of agreeing to do coopertition and then the other side not contributing or attempting to contribute to it at all?

[Jaywalker1711]

I think that this is actually a rather rare thing, teams are usually very honest about their intentions.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, this happened to us during week 2

After that we came up with a rule; we will go for it if you guys (the other alliance) will do it first. Since our bot was designed around co-op, we have no trouble at all getting totes on an existing step stack. After we had put three down and seen the opposing alliance neglect what was there we came up with our policy.


I wish more teams were able to do co-op well, it's my favorite aspect of the game!

[SousVide]

Were you able to talk to the team or opposing alliance after the match ? It might be that something unforeseen happened during the match and they decided on-the-spot to abandon it. It's happened before.

Have you seen this thread ? 1511 has a rather detailed co-op planning guide/agreement
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=135401

[waialua359]

At Inland Empire as more matches were played, teams decided they didn't want to coop to prevent us from being #1. They said it outright and we're honest about the reasons. No hard feelings on our part as we understood why.
On Saturday morning we did 1 coop as we made our own agreement with one team from the opposing alliance, where our own team members were unaware, since they themselves didn't want us to get coop points also.

Personally, I don't care for coop the same reasons as in 2012.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Jaywalker1711

I think that this is actually a rather rare thing, teams are usually very honest about their intentions.

My wild guess is that teams are more honest about their intentions, than they are about their abilities. They really want to be able to do what they say they can do. But the darn robot just doesn't cooperate.

But this is just a wild guess. Each situation is different.

[Loose Screw]

This is very reminiscent 2012's co-op bridge, only that was worth much more. For anyone not present in 2012 or doesn't remember, there was a teeter totter "bridge" in the middle of the field, and each alliance had their own along the wall. A robot balancing on their bridge was worth 10 points (20 points for 2).

If you could get one robot from each alliance to balance on it at the end of the match, you would get 2 QP, the same amount of ranking points as a win. This led to some very tough calls, and a lot of controversy. The worth of the coop bridge is its own discussion, so I won't talk about that.

What ended up was that in close games, a 10 point bonus would give a win. These teams then decided to go for a win (2QP) instead of doing the coop and taking a loss (2QP). This led to many hurt feelings as the other alliance that agreed to initiating the coop bridge wasted a lot of time waiting for a team to balance with them. They also felt cheated out of the 2QP they would have got from the coop.

Another issue is that some teams that agreed on cooping ended up dying, causing both sides to try an emergency balance, usually resulting in failure.

So just keep in mind that this could have been much worse than it currently is.

[Tungrus]

yeah it happened in week 1, which we had agreed. We saw week 2 video one of the alliance spent almost 30 seconds to collect yellow totes and then realizing other side they were not attempting. I am not sure if there was any agreement between them. If happened in early matches in week 1 and 2, I will not hold grudge against the other alliance.

[Peyton Yeung]

We got burned 3 times in a row trying to do coop in Indy. Every time we would place our half of the totes and the other side didn't come through. It got to the point where we flat out told the other side that if they want to do coop then they need to initiate first.

[K-Dawg157]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

My wild guess is that teams are more honest about their intentions, than they are about their abilities. They really want to be able to do what they say they can do. But the darn robot just doesn't cooperate.

But this is just a wild guess. Each situation is different.

This is exactly what happened to us time and time again. Either the other team couldn't get the stack they made onto the step (if they made a stack at all) or someone on our alliance said would make a stack and could make a stack, but never did.

Teams want to do a co-op stack, but sometimes they try to say they can do more than they actually could.

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by SousVide

Were you able to talk to the team or opposing alliance after the match ? It might be that something unforeseen happened during the match and they decided on-the-spot to abandon it. It's happened before.

Have you seen this thread ? 1511 has a rather detailed co-op planning guide/agreement
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=135401

I did but my concern was if anyone has seen a consistent use of agreeing to co-op to lower the opposing sides score.

[Loose Screw]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

I did but my concern was if anyone has seen a consistent use of agreeing to co-op to lower the opposing sides score.

Strategy like that shouldn't happen because if they do that, they'll lower their score as well. That happened in 2012 because teams thought that they could win that match if they abandoned the coop. They tried to get 2QP from a win and give the other side 0QP, as opposed to getting 2QP from a balance and 4QP for the other side.

[Tungrus]

It could happen, but more likely one team will refuse to do coop to edge a team from opposing alliance.

[mrnoble]

In one of our practice matches yesterday we had a specific agreement with an opposing team; we put the three on the step, but it was a waste of time. The other team looked like they totally forgot. Never again.

[prozack19]

At my last competition we ran into this problem so we came up with a plan. If they didn't attempt to grab the yellow totes yet by 120 seconds we bailed. If they didn't show progress by 100 seconds then we bailed as well. this was all on the human player to make the call.

[Ozuru]

We've had some issues, most of them being unintentional although a few became intentional after we started getting higher up in the pick order. Coopertition benefits both sides unless you're #1 and they're #2 and they are confident they can outscore your alliance. Until then I wouldn't worry too much about it being intentional.