Thoughts on CoOpertition

[Tom Line]

The Coopertition system this year was not solely there to reduce blowout scores.

Remember: FIRST is aiming to make this a game that is easier to watch. In that vein, shiny flashy offense and slam dunks are a whole lot more interesting than well-coached defensive teams.

The scoring system encouraged teams to SCORE. Either for themselves, or for the other team.

The really, really shocking part of that is just how many teams seemed to have absolutely no idea how to play the game. Even at championships there was a stunning number of teams that were STILL playing defense. It hurt both their own seeding score, their teammate's, and the other alliance. In point of fact, very few of the third picks I saw at the championships were picked for defensive reasons. They were picked as another scoring robot to complement the other teams.

I guess I've slid more into game strategy than coopertition. I'll get back on track.

In 2008, FIRST made all sorts of rules to try to promote scoring. It was a total nightmare. This year they got a bit more clever: rather than trying to punish 'bad' behavior, they tried to reward the good behavior.

It mostly worked.

There is a very simple very easy way to get rid of the 6v0 issues we saw this year. Have the losing team get THEIR score, and not the winning team's score. Now, the losing team has a reason to score for themselves. The winning team, if it's a blowout, still has motivation to help the other team.

That's my solution.

I can handle playing two different games. Professional teams do it all the time, depending on their opponent.

[Leav]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

The Coopertition system this year was not solely there to reduce blowout scores.

...

The scoring system encouraged teams to SCORE. Either for themselves, or for the other team.

...

I can handle playing two different games. Professional teams do it all the time, depending on their opponent.

This seems reasonable, if you want to create an intensive high scoring game where defense is not always a good option than I agree the seeding system this year is a good idea. but in my opinion it must be supplemented by a rule penalizing self-goals.

also in order to promote cooperation on the competition field I propose that the game be designed with an appropriate challenge, for example (in addition to those proposed earlier) here are some changes to previous game which would serve this purpose well:

1. 2007 seeding score bonus for a red-bot on a blue-bot at end of match (or visa versa ofcourse)
2. 2006: points awarded to both alliances according to minimum of robots on ramp at end-of-match

once you get the basic idea rolling, it is easy to supplament each year's game with such a scoring bonus which would have opposing teams cooperate in order to maximize their score.

-Leav

[AdamHeard]

Even if you disagreed with the removal of win-loss, you do have to admit top performing robots are much more likely to seed. Loosely looking over some events, the only outliers are top robots that weren't reliable in many matches, which explains why they were seeded lower.

I think the way to improve it for both the winners and losers is to give the losers their score. This more or less turns the ranking system into a function of your average score plus a bonus (of a constant plus the losers) if you win. I like that, you get rewarded for high score, regardless of win/loss, and you get rewarded for wins, regardless of score.

[Koko Ed]

I completely HATE the coopertition seeding system even if FIRST did "improve" it in mid season. It didn't stop the 6 vs. 0 junk.
I want the teams to play each other not the system.

[cyberjoek]

The fix, to me at least, is a somewhat simple one. Each team gets their *own* penalized score, winning team gets their opponent's un-penalized score as a coopertition bonus. I do like the idea of a coopertition game piece being built into the game and being worth lots of bonus points to both teams if everyone does what they need to.

If each team gets their own score then it encourages you to score for your team (every point scored goes into your seeding) and encourages you to keep the game close (if you win you also get your opponent's score). If FIRST doesn't want blowouts to be as harsh to seeding perhaps there's a floor of 1/2 the winning alliance's score that the losing team goes away with as seeding points.

[Steve Compton]

So much has been written, well thought out, pro and con, trying to parse GDC intent, effectiveness and outcomes. My thoughts are simple and clear to me, and there are only two:

1. If my alliance wins 19-0, my team seeds less well than if we lose 25-0. At some fundamental level, a system that allows that is grossly defective.

2. Because 2 different games are played in qualifications and eliminations, teams that are solid prospects as a strong elimination robot (for instance a great defender) has to intentionally reduce their demonstration of effectiveness in qualifications and go for high seeding points according to whatever strange scoring strategy makes sense at the moment.

I still believe than winning matches needs to matter and that we each design our robots for specified functions, and that a ranking system that evolves to devalue robust implemntation of conscious design is compromised.

[Bill_B]

Originally Posted by Steve Compton

So much has been written, well thought out, pro and con, trying to parse GDC intent, effectiveness and outcomes. My thoughts are simple and clear to me, and there are only two:

1. If my alliance wins 19-0, my team seeds less well than if we lose 25-0. At some fundamental level, a system that allows that is grossly defective.

In both cases the winning alliance has FAILED to help the other alliance have a better showing in those matches. For that failure they are not awarded seeding points purely for their victories. Most of the objectors to the coopertition seeding structure have focused almost solely on the robot performance on the qualification fields. If, before that 19-0 win, some part of the alliance had helped (cooperated to allow) the other one score better, their resulting seeding would be improved, right? That help can be in the form of strategy advice or mechanical design improvement, or both. Argue the impracticality or even impossibility of that level of help, BUT that is closer to the spirit FIRST is trying to incubate, nurture and harvest from the various teams involved.

Instead of picking apart this year's seeding method, I'd rather see some thought devoted to a way to award seeding status to those alliances or teams that can be verified as having positively helped their opponents during qualifications. If everyone in the pits opens their crates and shifts directly into eliminations mindset, we're not so far from the battlebots label being assigned to us by a public that doesn't know better. If a potential alliance partner doubts your ability to play a rock'em sock'em game, just invite them to a personal demo on the practice field to prove your "robothood." Or offer a video showing your robot's abilities. I saw a lot of flat-screen displays in the pits; plenty of opportunity for mechanical boasting via electronics. The need for demonstration during qualifications will not suffer for being moderated by seeding considerations.

[David Brinza]

The "coopertition" in FIRST that really counts happens off the field (i.e. in the pits, the off-season, in CD, etc.)

"Helping" weaker alliances by creating clever scoring schemes to promote close, high-scoring matches doesn't have the lasting effect that comes from teams helping each other outside of those two minutes on the field. We do compete on the field, but we want our opponents to play to the best of their ability.

[the man]

Booo i very much dislike CoOpertition. I find it has little place in the real world, every one is out to make the best product and even the goverment keeps scerets (in regards to sharing desine ideas). The real world dosent shine most often on those who help there oponnets win. Over all i dislike CoOpertition.

My two cents.

[Bill_B]

Originally Posted by the man

Booo i very much dislike CoOpertition. I find it has little place in the real world, every one is out to make the best product and even the goverment keeps scerets (in regards to sharing desine ideas). The real world dosent shine most often on those who help there oponnets win. Over all i dislike CoOpertition.

My two cents.

So you reject Dean Kamen's urgings to change the culture? Is the situation you describe the way you want it to be?

[the man]

Originally Posted by Bill_B

So you reject Dean Kamen's urgings to change the culture? Is the situation you describe the way you want it to be?

If dean is human he can be wrong I am sure he has been wrong many times and I believe he is wrong here. I would like every one to be united to work under one company and share information and ideas; unfortunately I don’t believe this will happen.

[Kibaspirit]

I want the teams to play each other not the system.

I totally agree. Point blank. Do other sports say "Hey, let's score some for the other team, in the long run it'll be beneficial right?"

No. I believe I remember Dean and Woodie talking about how they wanted to creat a sports-like game, to get more people to come to the competition. But, a lot of parents that went with our team were confused and frustrated with the 6V0-type system.

It is great that they added the 5 point bonus, but those 5 points are more obnoxious than helpful in my opinion. Wouldn't it be easier for it to be just the way it was?

You win, you win. You lose, you lose.

I know Coopertition is in the spirit of FIRST, trying to level the competition- but creates that whole idea of "playing the system."

It was risky to score goals for the other team, when you weren't sure if you were actually ahead. Sometimes, the score on the screen, wasn't actually the score... at all. How can you decide whether to score for the other team, when you can't even trust that?

I just see, another award like the safety award. How loud can you yell robot? How many goals can you score for the other team?

[Travis Hoffman]

Loser gets loser's score. No more 6v0, along with more of an incentive to win.

Winner still gets W + 2L. Get rid of the 5 point bonus, because the stuff you were trying to mitigate by including that bonus is no longer in the game.

Teams are only allowed to score in their own goals. No more 6v0, and no more 2*loser's score padding during a blowout. Winning teams aren't doing this to help and "cooperte" with the loser; the loser doesn't magically become more of a capable machine as a result of this practice; winning teams are doing this only to elevate themselves in the standings, which they will continue to do if the rules permit them to do it. Please get rid of any other tra la la "coopertative" notions that claim otherwise, and close the door on this pointless practice.

But...BUT...since the 2L bonus is still in place, if the better teams want to maximize their seed scores, forcing them to only score in their own goals ALSO incentivizes getting them to help their opponents become more capable BEHIND THE CURTAIN, where true "coopertition" has been demonstrated for years. The only way to get a big 2L bonus is to make sure your opponents are competitive BEFORE THE MATCH and leave them balls to score DURING THE MATCH. What a concept.

Finally, I really like the idea of a mutual "coopertition" objective built into future games - this sounds like the mutual mission that spans the two fields in FLL.

[Nigel]

What I'm about to say can be taken as meanspirited or a jab at someone, but it's just my views on it. Flame me if you will.

the biggest problem with the system is not the system itself, but rather you people. the people who question how can we get the most points out of this system... how can we work the system to get the most seeding points, and then blame the system when someone else does the same. Here's the simple solution in MY mind. use the same coopertition system, it works well, rewarding wins with more points than losses, and losses get some points as well, mitigating punishment for a team who's in the first qualification match, and has 2 bots who don't work vs. a full alliance. This system works, if everyone plays the way they say they want the system to work, that is, if everyone play to win. That's the underlying thing here. No matter what system is in place, you can find fault. Someone, somewhere, is not going to like it, and is going to find fault. the coopertition system gives a system that guards against the easy schedule win, and the brickmode disadvantage for the early rounds. The biggest problem is when teams assume they're going to lose, and don't play, so they score for their opponent, trying to get points. Instead, if everyone just plays to win no matter the odds, scores will be higher, closer, and everyone will get points. The 19-0 vs. 25-0 shouldn't happen unless the other alliance just is miserable, or you are miserable in the case of the second. keep the system, play to win, get points if you lose, and lets build some robots.

thats my $3.79, flame me if you will.

[thefro526]

I think this whole "Cooperatition" business is just someone's attempt to advance their own political agenda, but that's just my opinion.

Anyway, applying the concept of Cooperatition to FRC is not beyond reason, because well, we've been doing it since the start. Think of all of the times that teams have helped other teams make it to the field and play matches, think of all of the teams throughout the years that have shared resources throughout build season, the teams that practice with one another until the late hours of the night with the hopes of getting better - this is the spirit of Cooperatition.

IMO, the seeding system this year tried to extend the concept of Cooperatition to the playing field, and had mixed results. In theory, the seeding system was supposed to give an incentive to teams to allow their opponents to score and perform well, because it would help them in the long run. An unforeseen consequence to this system is that in many matches the opposing Alliance couldn't hang with the scores that the better alliance was putting up, so the other "better" alliance chose to score for them.

Perhaps true Cooperatition could be encouraged with the seeding system by adding one simple clause to the rules: "You cannot intentionally score for your opponents. Violation - Yellow Card". This would encourage helping your opponents to compete at their best, while also discouraging and making the concept of a 6 v. 0 illegal. Hopefully this would lead to strategies like feeding your opponents balls that they subsequently score, playing less or no defense against opponents, or not kicking balls out of the opponents scoring zone etc...