IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

I think that at IRI (with the strong, deep field) Coopertition balances will be the norm, hence why I'm in favor of reducing the double Coop balance to 1 point ...

I agree with your reasoning, but I think the opposite should be done with the coop points (increase them, not decrease them). Here's why:

At the IRI, coop bridge balancing should be the norm. It might even occur in every match. If it does occur in every match, than it has no value at all. Every team has the max CP value so we're back to win/loss record.

If coop balancing occurs in 90% of the matches, even then it has very little affect on the outcome of seeding. In thid case, it becomes a minor penalty for the odd match that coop balancing isn't successful.

Because of the fact that coop balancing will probably occur in 90% of the matches at IRI, coop bridge points need to be increased in order to increase it's affect on seeding. Make the coop bridge worth 4 points for a double balance in order to really penalize a failed attempt.

[kramarczyk]

I propose 1 seeding point is awarded to any alliance that connects to the field before Paul starts ranting about the green light.

[qzrrbz]

Originally Posted by kramarczyk

I propose 1 seeding point is awarded to any alliance that connects to the field before Paul starts ranting about the green light.

Hmm, this year Paul may get confused? All those pretty green lights *on* the field have to go off for things to get under way! :-)

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Because of the fact that coop balancing will probably occur in 90% of the matches at IRI, coop bridge points need to be increased in order to increase it's affect on seeding. Make the coop bridge worth 4 points for a double balance in order to really penalize a failed attempt.

I can see what you're saying, but I don't think a single element of the game (the ability to balance the bridge) should be able to overwhelm the several elements of the game and various intangibles that go into winning a match. Several things concern me about more than 2 points being awarded for a standard co-op balance:

- When two robots in a match failed to get co-op points for a "silly" reason... perhaps a robot was flipped on the bridge, they got a wheel stuck on the siderail, etc.... you'd have the failure of a single robot at the last second dragging down six teams in the rankings. This wouldn't be a single point, this would be equivalent to winning two matches! So, your un-defeated, super-awesome team whose only flaw was that they trusted their capable partner to balance the co-op bridge for them is suddenly set back anywhere from a 1 or 2 to 10 or more places in the rankings.

- If a 2-robot co-op balance were worth more than a win, you'd be radically skewing the ranking system toward a single capability: balancing. There's a lot more to this game than balancing though... hybrid scoring, ball harvesting, accurate shooting all in addition to the intangibles like strategy, driver skill, etc. By elevating any single element so dramatically the rankings would skew dramatically too.

Taking Troy as an example, as it had many co-op balances, I was interested in seeing how applying 4 points for each balance instead of 2 would affect the rankings... Attached are two plots side-by-side for comparison. I also attached the spreadsheet from which I made the plots.

The plots indicate a noticeably higher correlation between Rank and Points Scored and Rank and Wins when the co-op balances are worth 2 points. They also have fewer outliers. One could say the graphs for 4 point balances are almost characterized by outliers, producing a loose correlation.

Interestingly, the top 12 teams remained the top 12 teams, but the order jumbled around a fair bit... instead of proceeding "1->12", it went, "1, 8, 2, 3, 5, 4..." The greater changes seemed to be in the mid-tier teams though...

This graphing really didn't provide any overwhelming change in correlations, but it certainly looks like it'd put at least one more team in the top 8 that would make you scratch your head.

[ratdude747]

Originally Posted by Libby K

I think you meant "I don't like the Coopertition bridge."

Coopertition is not just a game element, it's not just a bridge, it's not just a ranking point. It's part of the core values of FIRST.

Coopertition is the teams who see their opponent in the finals is broken... and then walk over with the part they need.

It's the spirit of the FIRST Community. It's how we do things here.

If you don't like the Coopertition bridge, that's fine. Quite a few people don't. However, Coopertition itself should certainly have a place at all FIRST events.

I'd argue that gracious professionism is the core value and the spirit of the FIRST community.

Coopertition is a game concept. Not a core value.

Gracious professionalism does belong at all FIRST events. IRI has always had it.

Coopertition, not so much. The whole concept is the opposite of IRI. IRI is about being GP off the field but performing the best on the field.

Think back to 2008 when coopertition didn't exist... to rank well for seeding you had to play your best. Alliance seedings were more accurate and helped ensure that the best robots were the ones driving on saturday afternoon. There still was GP and off the field teams were just as helpful to eachother as ever.

Compare that to now, where some of the alliance captains, well, to be blunt, are not best teams on the field, in some cases "boxes on wheels." It isn't fair to the teams who didn't get picked because the elite 24 was crowded with lesser performing robots, the teams that get picked by such captains and are more or less "doomed" (or have to burn the backup coupon), and to the spectators that are cheated out of seeing the best quality matches.

I see no need for coopertition in the first place. This is FRC: FIRST Robotics Competition. While it is more than a simple "robotics competition", there still is a robotics competition as part of it, and I think that is how it needs to be. We have plenty of non-robot awards; two of them are higher than winning the competition and are highly regarded in the community.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by ratdude747

I'd argue that gracious professionism is the core value and the spirit of the FIRST community.

Coopertition is a game concept. Not a core value.

I think FIRST would beg to differ.
http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/gracious-professionalism

Under the header of "Core Values"...

Originally Posted by The FIRST Website

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.

As do I.
Just because this year's game involves Coopertition does not mean it's just a game element.
FIRST kind of says it for me, but that's how I see it too. Kindness and respect in the face of fierce competition.

EDIT: Also, Coopertition was coined in the late 90s (as far as its use in the FIRST world), and the 2000 game was called Coopertition:FIRST. Coopertition has been a value long before its use this year.

[ratdude747]

Originally Posted by Libby K

I think FIRST would beg to differ.
http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/gracious-professionalism

Under the header of "Core Values"...



As do I.
Just because this year's game involves Coopertition does not mean it's just a game element.
FIRST kind of says it for me, but that's how I see it too. Kindness and respect in the face of fierce competition.

EDIT: Also, Coopertition was coined in the late 90s (as far as its use in the FIRST world), and the 2000 game was called Coopertition:FIRST. Coopertition has been a value long before its use this year.

Well, let me rephrase. Coopertition shouldn't be a core value of FIRST.

Kindness and respect already exist off the field. Its called gracious professionalism.

Kindness and respect already exist on the field... It's called sportsmanship, the field version of gracious professionalism.

I do not see coopertition as either of the two. I see it as a concept that basically says that if you play on the field to win, even in a fair and just manner, and you happen to achive a much higher score than the opponent, you deserve be penalized since you didn't choose to intentionally lower your performance to make the opposition look better.

In addition, coopertition makes things hard for teams that do good "cooperative" things for the sake of truly caring... As soon as you put a price tag on something, yes, there will be more of it, but for the wrong reasons. Such acts should be done out of true kindness, not out of desire for an award or a higher ranking.

Don't get me wrong; I still think GP is a valuable things... But It isn't coopertition.

IMHO, It should be like this:

1. Off the field, everybody is friends and when somebody needs help, somebody else will unconditionally be there to give help. GP is de-facto, not de-jure. Similar to how it is is off the field.
2. On the field, play field, act responsible, exhibit good sportsmanship, and let the best playing alliance win.



I understand coopertition existed long ago but not to the degree it is now... It wasn't as heavily weighted as it is now. It was at a more manageable level where it had little effect on rankings. Back then, you EARNED your rank by playing well and having a good robot, not by intentionally cutting points or by repeatedly performing a basic task that any drivable robot could perform...

Bottom line; the Path to success on the field should solely be through a good robot and well played matches.

[Chris Hibner]

Larry,

In many ways, I really agree with you. I grew up playing a lot of sports and good sportsmanship was ingrained in me from the start. Unlike a lot of people, I know that being extremely competitive and being a good sport are not mutually exclusive.

However, coopertition is a life lesson that FIRST is trying to teach that isn't well understood in a lot of American life. The fact is, in real life you can be very competitive yet still benefit by working with your competitors in certain areas.

This is a very foreign concept in the US, but a lot of examples are out there. The best example is the "Group of 5" - the alliance of German auto companies. I was introduced to this when I worked for an automotive supplier that had a decent presence in Europe - I even attended a Group of 5 meeting at Porsche's headquarters one summer.

The Group of 5 was highly competitive with each other in their market, but they realized that they could gain a competitive advantage over the rest of the world by cooperating on certain advancements that helped reduce costs among them, but didn't really make for a competitive performance advantage. Basically, they collaborated on things that made life easier for all of them.

Many of the things that started out as Group of 5 collaboration efforts have become world-wide standards since then, such as CAN and CCP. Virtually every control system in the world now uses CCP as the standard method of calibration and data collection.

The point is, FIRST wants to point out that you can be competitive, yet still find ways to improve your standing AND someone else's standing at the same time. Personally, I think the coopertition bridge this year has been by far the best example of showing this concept.

Yes, it's just a robot competition, but FIRST's greater mission is to get people thinking of bigger picture things along the way.

On a final point, I don't really think the seeding has been out of whack this year. If you look at the standings from the vast majority of competitions, you see the usual suspects.

And by the way, it was nice meeting you at dinner in St. Louis last year.

[ratdude747]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Larry,

In many ways, I really agree with you. I grew up playing a lot of sports and good sportsmanship was ingrained in me from the start. Unlike a lot of people, I know that being extremely competitive and being a good sport are not mutually exclusive.

However, coopertition is a life lesson that FIRST is trying to teach that isn't well understood in a lot of American life. The fact is, in real life you can be very competitive yet still benefit by working with your competitors in certain areas.

This is a very foreign concept in the US, but a lot of examples are out there. The best example is the "Group of 5" - the alliance of German auto companies. I was introduced to this when I worked for an automotive supplier that had a decent presence in Europe - I even attended a Group of 5 meeting at Porsche's headquarters one summer.

The Group of 5 was highly competitive with each other in their market, but they realized that they could gain a competitive advantage over the rest of the world by cooperating on certain advancements that helped reduce costs among them, but didn't really make for a competitive performance advantage. Basically, they collaborated on things that made life easier for all of them.

Many of the things that started out as Group of 5 collaboration efforts have become world-wide standards since then, such as CAN and CCP. Virtually every control system in the world now uses CCP as the standard method of calibration and data collection.

The point is, FIRST wants to point out that you can be competitive, yet still find ways to improve your standing AND someone else's standing at the same time. Personally, I think the coopertition bridge this year has been by far the best example of showing this concept.

Yes, it's just a robot competition, but FIRST's greater mission is to get people thinking of bigger picture things along the way.

On a final point, I don't really think the seeding has been out of whack this year. If you look at the standings from the vast majority of competitions, you see the usual suspects.

And by the way, it was nice meeting you at dinner in St. Louis last year.

First, I think it's cool that you remember me from then...

(Long post ahead)

My beef with co-opertiton is that sometimes it gets manipulated too easily... like 6 vs 0 in 2010 or this year, where boxes on wheels are becoming alliance captains:


Where the co-op bridge bit falls short is this common scenario:

We have an alliance in Qualification XXX:

1 Shootbot
2 Boxbot
3 Shootbot

What usually happens is the alliance decides that they will send #2 to try to balance on the co-op bridge, since there is little else productive that they foresee #2 doing. The opposing alliance on the other hand doesn't care, since as long as they can push it or be pushed by it up the bridge, it's valid.

This is a shortcoming because of how the co-op rules work. just attempting to balance is a guaranteed point, and a balance is 2 guaranteed points.

In addition, the odds are in favor of the box-bots, since unlike non-box teams that will only have a box alliance member only some of the time, box teams will ALWAYS have a partner that is boxed, that being themselves. Therefore, the chances of getting at least the one point of attempt points are much, much greater and far more consistent for box bots than non-box bots.

With co-op points so valuable, this occurs:

(% of maximum possible)

1.

Wins: 0%
Balances: 0%
Failed Attempts: 100%
Seeding points: 25%

2.


Wins: 0%
Balances: 50%
Failed Attempts: 50%
Seeding points: 37.5%

3.


Wins: 25%
Balances: 50%
Failed Attempts: 50%
Seeding points: 50%

4.

Wins: 0%
Balances: 100%
Failed Attempts: 0%
Seeding points: 50%

5.

Wins: 50%
Balances: 50%
Failed Attempts: 0%
Seeding points: 50%

Cases 1-4 were common Boxbot occurrances. Case 5 was a common average bot occurance. As one can see, all a boxbot would need would be a few lucky pairing to get some win points tossed in and all of the sudden they are picking alliances.

IIRC there have been regionals where the #1 seed actually WAS a boxbot... they used the above effect to rack up massive amounts of seeding points.

The reason this is such a problem is that while co-op balancing is fruitful in Qualification, in eliminations it is useless. The only things boxbots can do in eliminations is either balance or play defense, which most non-box bots can also do. What that means is trhat if you get picked by a boxbot captain, you have in a way been given a large hurdle if not a kiss of death. IMHO this is not good game design and this needs to be fixed for IRI.

[hammerhead_399]

We should run 5v5 on a regulation size NBA court with 2 sets of hoops on each side... and a tip-off!!

In all seriousness, besides the change in coop point values, I'd like the rest of the scoring to stay the same. If a team LEGITIMATELY breaks the world record, you'd want to know, right? A record being broken because of points being altered is not a record broken, unless someone counts baskets

[EricH]

I had a totally crazy idea. (And picked up another one...)

First, the simple one. The first match at IRI is FiM champs vs. MAR champs.

OK, now for the other one...

All bridges are treated as the coopertition bridge, and all bridges earn balancing points based not on color but on who is on them. 10 points/robot balanced on a bridge, to that robot's alliance. For balances with more than one alliance represented, add 10 points and 2 CP for each alliance. (This involves removing all penalties associated with the bridges, save for interfering with balancing.)

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by ratdude747

My Idea for Qualification balancing:

- Toss out the whole coopertition bit. Let's be honest; Coopertition has no place at IRI.

I think you meant "I don't like the Coopertition bridge."

Coopertition is not just a game element, it's not just a bridge, it's not just a ranking point. It's part of the core values of FIRST.

Coopertition is the teams who see their opponent in the finals is broken... and then walk over with the part they need.

It's the spirit of the FIRST Community. It's how we do things here.

If you don't like the Coopertition bridge, that's fine. Quite a few people don't. However, Coopertition itself should certainly have a place at all FIRST events.

[Arefin Bari]

I just booked our flights, hotel and car for IRI. I sure hope dates don't change. I am so excited to be able to go back after 3 long years!

[JohnFogarty]

I'm bringing in the FTC "Get Over It" idea from the game where the balance bridges came from.

1. Extend the autonomous period 10 - 15 seconds, and give teams bonus points for autonomously balancing their robot.

Talk about a challenge, as one of the teams that did it successfully last year in FTC it's not easy..at all, did I mention potentially disastrous if approached the wrong way.

[jason_zielke]

Originally Posted by John_1102

1. Extend the autonomous period 10 - 15 seconds, and give teams bonus points for autonomously balancing their robot.

This would be an interesting addition...I think we would see a lot more teams use the Kinect.