|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#46
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
There are teams that are good, and there are teams that are bad.
Often times, people on "bad" teams think their process was right (they couldn't have worked harder, smarter, faster, with more resources, etc...) and therefore anyone who somehow achieves more is flawed; They must be cheating, they must have 100 NASA engineerins, GM gives them $100k a year, etc... It's far easier to blame the other people for being better, than to take a step back and evaluate why your team performs the way it does, and how it could be improved. It may also be useful to get to know one of these good teams, and learn at least at a basic level what they do right (at a bare minimum, I'd put money down that they work at least twice as many hours). So, if you're unhappy with how you did, and how well the good teams did; decide to do better, make a plan and make it happen. This is slightly off topic, but as someone pointed out to me, people only really complain when good teams do these things (6v0, 469's strategy...), but when someone else does it, it's just part of the game. |
|
#47
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
Quote:
GDC *facepalm* |
|
#48
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
Quote:
Dean looks long range....and he is also about change. Changing the "win-loss" mindset. I think that he has expressed that in a lot of ways through FIRST. Imagine a robot like the HOT BOT, a robot that can easily score from the mid-zone. It's early in the game, score 4-2, HOT BOT grabs a ball and turns to shoot. At its own goal, of course. Late in the same game, HOT alliance up 10-4, HOT BOT grabs a ball and turns to shoot. Where? In a "win-loss" game, there is no question. In Dean's game, its a strategy decision for HOT and its alliance. I'm not advocating right or wrong. I will say that I enjoy all the discussion and opinions about the system. It makes me look forward to next year's game (which will be different) and next year's scoring rules (which may or may not be different) and watching how teams play the new game and score using the new rules (if present). |
|
#49
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
There are some limitations on the coopertition system that restricts the modes of scoring for games.
What comes to mind is the different ways of scoring for Breakaway versus VRC Clean Sweep. In clean sweep, there are already a set amount of balls on the field. Your seeding score will be high, or higher, depending on the proximity between winning and losing scores. Any object on the field is worth points. If playing an poor team, a top team and a good team will be limited in score by the number of objects on the field--many good alliances have found themselves having completely cleared the field about a minute from the end of the match. An alliance that can "clean sweep" with a minute left is not distinguished from an alliance that can "clean sweep" with 5 seconds left. This is not the case in breakaway, with points only coming from robot performance. No moving robots = no score. This allows much greater variation in seeding score not fixed by the # of game objects on the field, and enables scoring to distinguish the top teams from the good teams. There is no cap to the score; it is limited only by the time. I won't say I'm disappointed though, because it gives good robots that face excellent robots a better chance in ranking regardless. Losing close matches isn't as devastating if there's no distinct point systems for winning and for scoring. We were frustrated at VRC championships because a clawbot with lucky alliances managed to pull off being 8th alliance captain, while our robot, having played multiple 1v2 matches due to no-show, lost close matches that led to devastation due to W-L-T ranking. |
|
#50
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
I liked the seeding system used this year. I don't pretend to know the intent of the GDC. I liked it because it encouraged and rewarded offensive play in the qualification matches. I also liked that the elimination rounds created a different strategy.
I agree with sentiments like "play the game, not the system." I think that the 6 vs 0 strategy, while allowed in the rules, is not in the spirit of gracious professionalism; I owe it to my competitors and my alliance partners to always give my best effort. I agree that alliances should be awarded seeding points based upon their performance and "quality" wins should be rewarded, too. I wonder how the following would play out: Winner gets their score less penalties. Loser gets their score less penalties. Coopertition bonus points are defined as the sum of the scores before penalties. Each alliance gets 50% of the bonus points. |
|
#51
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
Two separate questions are being discussed in this thread.
1) What is coopertition supposed to be, and did the 2010 system reward it properly? 2) Did the 2010 seeding system do an accurate job of ranking (seeding) the teams? Coopertition is a lot like friendship - It is priceless and cherished, but any system to measure it or put a price on it will create ulterior motives that can cheapen or destroy it. I view Coopertition as the "rising tide that lifts all boats". It is an aspect of Gracious Professionalism that happens off the field (pits, CD, mentoring, etc, etc.). FIRST always fostered that sort of coopertition with the system of random and shifting alliance partnerships. Strategies that resulted from the 2010 coopertition bonus were all about improving ones own standing. I would prefer to see coopertition rewarded by the judges. I support the idea of a seeding system that rewards victory and scoring (sorry all you defense bots, but your recognition comes during alliance selection). I would like to see the winners receive their own score plus the losers score, and the losers receive their own score. Perhaps there could be a guaranteed minimum seeding score for the winners (eg: 10 points) instead of a fixed bonus (5 points) for winning (values would be scaled to fit the game). This way, even a 2-1 victory is well rewarded, a 15-14 loser still does better than the 2-1 winner, the 15-14 winners and losers do better than the 15-1 winners and losers, and nobody benefits from 6v0. But then, I don't know what the GDC's goals were for coopertition, so I could be way off base. |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
Quote:
I have to agree with you on your points. Helping the students develop strategies was very fun. The students and teams that think outside the box (i.e. 6v0) is the innovative thinking we need for our students. The seeding system really brought another level of strategy to the game besides just having the best robot out there. Some of the teams that did well in the qualifications also had the best strategy and used the seeding system to their advantage. Congrats to the teams that read and understood the rules. One element of this year's game that I really liked was that your alliance had to cooperate much more to win the game. A team that played just in their near zone was not effective without a mid-fielder and a far zone player. In eliminations, defense became more of a factor and definitely was a key to the Einstein winning alliance. So I add my Kudos to the GDC! |
|
#53
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
Quote:
I have mulled this over for a long time. It really isn't coopertition that we discussing it is SEEDING....(as mentioned by many before this post) I really miss the old days (read... before this year...) when coopertition meant giving selflessly....by helping another team with no regard for your own stature in seeding. Now it seems that we get 'rewards' for doing it... To me... that takes away the valuable lessons that coopertition provides to us all... I can remember competing in Atlanta in our first year and helping a team fix a lifting mechanism and then turning around and having them competing against us in the next match.... it was wonderful...we couldn't lose that match.... But then again...maybe I am confusing gracious professionalism with coopertition...or are they both the same thing? I see gracious professionalism occurring in real life.... but I guarantee you that when competing for a contract.... two companies don't intentionally help each other....to make the result a close contest... So what is Coopertition then really? If it is what I saw on the field this year.... that is... intentionally scoring for the other team BECAUSE it would enhance our own seeding score.... then I don't like it.... If that is what it is... it is nothing more than undisguised self promotion...... What is that teaching? If coopertition is .... helping an opposing robot right itself... in the middle of competition....or intentionally allowing the other team to succeed on the field... no matter what that means.... then I am all for it....not taking advantage of a team's obvious weaknesses on the field when your alliance is much stronger.... These are the marks of the Coopertition that I would like to see manifested in FIRST and in life. coopertition as we have seen it is akin to playing a basketball game between the Lakers and a high school team.... with the Lakers scoring all of the points ....the opposing team needn't even come on the floor....how is that really helping a team... A sign hangs over the door to the tunnel at the Notre Dame stadium.... It states: "Play like a champion today....." in my FIRST world... it would read: "Help everyone to play like champions today...." |
|
#54
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
Oh, I bet certain people would just LOVE that. Thanks for the laugh.
Quote:
The behind the scenes coopertition is just so unfortunately overshadowed this year by the overemphasis of this contrived brand of "coopertition" on the field. If they would keep the seeding system (save for whatever changes it took to eliminate 6v0 and de-incentivize scoring for the other team) and ditch the artificial connotations they're trying to attach to it, I think people would accept it better. I still like the idea of 1 + (L*constant) for the winner, only teams are NOT allowed to score for the losing team. I also like the idea of somehow getting the match schedule in the hands of teams earlier in the competition - say mid-day Thursday. If you want maximum incentive for the better-functioning teams to help ALL the struggling teams behind the curtain prepare for competition, then this combination would certainly go a long way toward achieving that. Quote:
Fast forward to this year. The Bulls were the Eastern Conference's playoff doormat this year. They gave the Cavs everything they could handle, including on the defensive side of the ball. The Cavs now face a Celtics team that will be an even greater test. If they survive that battle, they will be much more seasoned, hardened, and ready to face the elite teams in the league. Why do I offer this NBA parallel? Because many have attempted to use the existence of the coopertition model as a "mandate from above" to suggest that regardless of your team's abilities at the time, playing defense within this model is akin to "tearing teams down", "not reading/understanding the rules", etc. And soccer is played without goalies, right? This coopertition model is blinding many people to notion that regardless of the seeding rules, the elimination round style of gameplay - the most heralded style of gameplay - could be the way this game is played all the time! Einstein matches are hailed as the best thing ever witnessed, while qualifying matches either go without discussion or are publicly excoriated. Unfortunately, which matches are the ones spectators must bear witness to the majority of the competition? Many are sacrificing the quality and appeal of this awesome game design due to their worship of this seeding system and its various quirks and exploits. While I totally feel that you should always strive to improve your robot to play the offensive aspects of the game better, the reality is, at any given time, during many of the matches at an event, there are going to be teams who CAN'T play the game that way, for whatever reason. We were one such team this year - many of our continuous improvement efforts did not pan out on the field, save for improving our drivetrain reliability, but we look forward to the additional time in the offseason we have to keep trying to improve the other systems. Why is it honorable for top-performing teams to "gently bully" the lesser robots into "trying their best" (this is also equivalent to "helping us seed higher at your expense" in the current system) and "not tear down other teams by playing d", when in fact they have alternate strategies available to them that would make the match MORE competitive and MORE of a preparatory challenge for the good teams and MORE interesting to spectators? If I am a team on an extremely weak alliance that would have no chance of winning the match in a straight up you-score we-score offensive fight, how in the heck is it doing ANYONE any good to just go through the motions and let the better alliance receive a huge seeding score? Also in defense of the appropriate use of qualifying defense, what if you are on an alliance whose offensive strength is a level below that of whom you are facing. Are you just going to hope the better alliance chokes, or are you going to go out there and provide some defensive resistance to help swing the result in your favor? I can tell you that we and our alliance partners elected to use defense within the alliance strategy several times when severely outgunned by quality opposition. I can tell you that in our alliance with 175, we arranged to play defense against 111's alliance when we felt outgunned, but not out of it. We won the match in a close struggle, contributing to one of Wildstang's two losses (I think they did pretty well after that match - maybe it lit a fire under them?). I also can say we pursued traditional offensive strategies (herding well and kicking...poorly) in the remaining matches where we felt the matchups were balanced. If I'm strategizing with an alliance before a match, and I can't score well, but I can at least drive well, does it not benefit both me AND the great teams I face to go out and give the competition a more elimination round level of defensive effort? Will their seed score be hurt by a more defensive tilt? Possibly - but if they are TRULY an elite team, they will find a way to overcome it. More importantly, will that team's drive team have received a better test of their skills that is more like what they will face in the elimination rounds? Sure thing. I'd rather be honorable in promoting my robot's best abilities and giving my opponents a true test of executing through defensive pressure than playing dead and giving them a FAKE sense of accomplishment. Last edited by Travis Hoffman : 30-04-2010 at 11:17. Reason: Saving it for the internet podcast debates. *rolls eyes* |
|
#55
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
I understand that FIRST uses a sports model and creates a game to play. However, FIRST is about equipping students to succeed in life and inspiring them to change our culture.
This year's seeding points system encouraged and rewarded offense more than defense in the elimination rounds. I liked it. It would apprear intentional, much like the NFL has intentionally modified or created rules to promote offensive play. |
|
#56
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]() Last edited by Travis Hoffman : 30-04-2010 at 12:33. |
|
#57
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
That is correct, qualifying rounds, of course.
|
|
#58
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
Here is how Coopertition is defined on the FIRST website; it is listed among FIRST Values along with Gracious ProfessionalismTM:
"CoopertitionTM CoopertitionTM produces innovation. At FIRST, Coopertition is displaying unqualified kindness and respect in the face of fierce competition. Coopertition is founded on the concept and a philosophy that teams can and should help and cooperate with each other even as they compete. Coopertition involves learning from teammates. It is teaching teammates. It is learning from mentors. And it is managing and being managed. Coopertition means competing always, but assisting and enabling others when you can." For as long as I've been involved with FIRST (eight seasons now), it has been made clear that the desire is to promote high-scoring close matches. This year's seeding points system would appear to be an attempt to promote high-scoring close matches. I agree that the (likely unintended) consequence of 6 vs 0 matches and the actual impact of scoring for your opponents detracted from the game. But here is why I liked the seeding points system: I believe that FIRST creates a game designed around a "challenge" and that teams are expected to compete by developing creative solutions to the "challenge". This seeding points system, I believe, rewards teams that have successfully conquered the "challenge". I think that it also seeded those teams the highest who best solved the "challenge". Many of us (certainly not excluding myself) get caught up in playing the game and the objective becomes winning the game versus conquering the "challenge". We choose to out-score our opponents by better inhibiting their ability to score, either as an over-arching strategy or a situational strategy. Under the current system, defense in the qualifying rounds remains a viable strategy. I understand the value of winning a high scoring match. I don't see the value of winning a low scoring match versus loosing a high scoring match. Travis made a point that I hadn't considered. I am inferring from his comments, perhaps incorrectly, teams that unsuccessfully or less efficiently solve the "challenge" are having their experience diminished by discouraging defensive play. He also points out (and I agree) that there is value in being tested by defensive play during the qualification matches. I offer another perspective. We have always decided to build a machine that plays all aspects of the game. We have enjoyed moderate success some years; however, we are certainly not among the most successful. While I have always accepted it as part of the game, I have also been disappointed when we have been unable to demonstrate our machine's ability to accomplish the intended task because we have been impeded by a strategy aimed solely at inhibiting our scoring. To be clear, in past years, we have not shied away from using exactly that strategy when overmatched or simply to ensure a win. And we used it in elimination rounds this year. However, this year, I consistently encouraged an all offensive strategy during qualification matches. I wasn't always successful in convincing all of our alliance partners, but it was based on my belief that it was in the best interest of our alliance and met the intent of FIRST (high scoring close matches). Net, I support Coopertition, on and off the field. I like this year's seeding system because it promotes the opportunity to compete against the "challenge" more than against each other and rewards those with the best solutions to the "challenge". It is a good system for Qualification. For Eliminations - nothing is more exciting than win-lose with good, solid defensive strategies and counter-offensives, etc. |
|
#59
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
Quote:
The long term goal should always be to get better at completing the offensive challenges, but if the short term reality for a team is that their robot is better suited to play defense, then they should stand up for their right to play it in a match, taking full consideration of their partner and opponent strengths before making the decision. Just because the seeding rules mathematically dictate that sitting there twiddling your thumbs after pressing the e-stop button or struggling to score with a malfunctioning or nonexistent system will *benefit* your seed rank; it doesn't mean that is the most enjoyable and satisfying activity for that team to tackle for a given match; regardless of what anyone else thinks they should do. I find it odd that if the qualifying seeding system is indeed effective in determining which teams best execute the *full* game "challenge", it seems contradictory that they give out the Champion and Finalist Awards to those who successfully complete the *elimination* round game challenge, where the seeding system is thrown out the window in exchange for additional gameplay mechanics which showcase all aspects of the robot design challenge - elegance and scoring efficiency, yes, but also robustness, toughness, and the ability to remain elegant and efficient in offensive performance even under duress, when real-time strategizing and communicating among teammates becomes even more critical to a team's success. To me, keeping the seeding system, while getting rid of 6v0 and scoring for opponent scenarios, combined with the notion that injecting more elimination-style matchups into qualifying is not the end of the world, would do well to synchronize the disconnect between qualifying and elims, and make the whole shebang a lot more sensible and enjoyable affair for all teams in the field, top to bottom, as well as the people in the seats. |
|
#60
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
Quote:
Agree, the incentive to play 6 versus 0 and scoring for opponents needs to go. I don't think that rules prohibiting such game play should be installed; I think that would only create headaches for referees. That is why I suggested the change in the seeding system a few posts earlier. If you want to include an incentive to play some defense, keep the winner bonus points. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Coopertition Award. | =Martin=Taylor= | Awards | 13 | 05-04-2010 08:10 |
| Coopertition Bonus? | Brandon_L | General Forum | 5 | 06-03-2010 07:40 |
| OPR vs Coopertition Strategies | SteveGPage | Scouting | 23 | 14-01-2010 08:26 |
| pic: Coopertition | Stephen Kowski | Extra Discussion | 6 | 26-03-2009 17:10 |
| Dean's Coopertition patent | Carol | Championship Event | 13 | 26-04-2005 19:48 |