Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote

[BJC]

FIRST did the Co-op bridge to foster coperation between teams. However, I contend that working in alliances is already doing this and is extremely successful. In no other sport do you see teams working together on the field to beat other teams. This is awesome. I believe that because this has now become the "norm" FIRST (and many FIRSTers) have lost sight of the amount of cooperation and teamwork that goes into each alliance, it's now taken for granted. Maybe we should start celabrating that instead of forming new ways to colaborate with other teams.

The above said I would like to play matches where we totally and completely play to win. I hate relying on my opponents for half of my seeding points. (An issue which has been brought up on CD enough already.) I would like to completely get rid of the co-op bridge. However, because that is not an option I voted for #3.

Please consider eliminating the Co-op bridge entirely, you would not be sorry.
Regards, Bryan

[A_Reed]

Keep it the way it is. I thought this was one of the greatest games to come out of Manchester, from top to bottom. I like to see a little parity and the luck of the co-op balance play into the final rankings. I find it interesting to see the pressure to pick on the first seed and when ego or scouting get to them it makes the upsets that much more interesting.

I would also find it interesting to encourage the co-op behavior deep into qualification matches by keeping the sponsor system. Get sponsors, big and small to pledge $x.xx per co-op point, pennies to bills and give to cancer research, food bank, scholarship fund etc. Guilt people into using the white bridge for every match in the spirit of charity.

[Bjenks548]

I would still love to see triples throughout qualifications, but some alliances simply not be able to perform this. Giving extra coopertition points to a alliances that puts 3 on the coop bridge poses the same problem. What if a balanced coop bridge was worth 2 coopertition points to both alliances, but if there were 3 robots the alliance with 2 on the bridge gets 20 points. Would make some very interesting fights over who gets to triple with who as its worth an extra 10 point than going to your alliance bridge. Also now you have to do it with a semi-unwilling partner.

[Joon Park]

Originally Posted by BJC

FIRST did the Co-op bridge to foster coperation between teams. However, I contend that working in alliances is already doing this and is extremely successful. In no other sport do you see teams working together on the field to beat other teams. This is awesome. I believe that because this has now become the "norm" FIRST (and many FIRSTers) have lost sight of the amount of cooperation and teamwork that goes into each alliance, it's now taken for granted. Maybe we should start celabrating that instead of forming new ways to colaborate with other teams.

Perhaps you are right in that many are overlooking the alliance cooperation. Since Rebound Rumble is only my third FRC game, it's not my call to make. However, I do think that coopertating with the opposing alliance is quite different than cooperating with your own alliance partners. And the difference is what makes FRC so cool.

[Donovan0217]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

Leave it as is. Adding in the ability to 40 point balance in the qualification matches will really hurt bots that are a long configuration.

That is not necesarily true. While it is more difficult to triple in some cases, there are plenty of long bots that are capable of tripling. 217, 1114, 2056 all have their own dinguses to help tripling. Wave 2826 *almost* tripled with HOT in Archimedes, and Robostang has tripled as well, and that is just off the top of my head. There are plenty long bots that can triple.

(Thanks to Adam for correcting me)

[Adam Freeman]

Originally Posted by Donovan0217

Wave 2826 tripled with HOT in Archimedes...

Unfortunately, Wave has never tripled with HOT in an actual match. That was part of the problem.

Now I will go sit in the corner and cry...


Regarding Triple Balancing in Quals - I agree with Paul...teams can either decide to triple, block it, or attempt to out score it. It just adds another element of strategy to qualification matches.

[P.J.]

If I may make a comment, while I do like the discussion that is happening, it is kind of irrelevant to the topic. Mr. Fultz gave us three options, and from what it sounds like they have probably narrowed it down to these three from all the other suggestions in the other IRI thread. So I believe that they have decided to not allow triples in quals for whatever their own reasons are.

That said, I like option 3.

[JesseK]

While I won't attend IRI, I agree with Paul. IRI is traditionally all about being competitive on the field the whole time.

The biggest incentive to add in a triple balance is that it will give more opportunities to teams to *try* a triple balance when they've never been on an alliance that had an incentive to do one. More triples = more excitement for the successes and more heartache for the teams who fall off.

Are HP's/BP's still being tracked at IRI? Towards the end of a full set of Qual matches, one would be hard-pressed to find two teams with identical QP's and HP's. Yet if BP's were tracked (much easier) at IRI, then that could be the secondary sort after W-L-T, thus incentivizing the triple balance.

[artdutra04]

Here's a sample analysis of how teams would have ranked differently when going by the three different options above. I chose the 2012 Archimedes division and followed the above three options. In cases where there was still a tie after the conditions set about in the options above, I then went by the manual and used hybrid and then bridge points as the tiebreakers. Here are the results:

Rank	Opt 1	Opt 2	Opt 3
1	2826	2826	2826
2	2056	2056	2056
3	2648	3481	3481
4	781	2648	67
5	3481	67	245
6	2590	245	1676
7	195	781	1218
8	67	1676	3997
9	245	1218	839
10	973	2590	2512
11	1676	195	1311
12	1218	3997	359
13	2557	973	1458
14	1403	839	1736
15	4082	2512	2815
16	4334	1403	2648
17	2898	2898	781
18	3997	1311	2590
19	1014	359	195
20	2974	2557	973
21	1756	1736	1403
22	839	1458	2898
23	2512	4082	2415
24	1868	2415	2996
25	1736	2996	1504
26	587	1504	190
27	2415	2974	1796
28	2996	1756	3015
29	1504	190	272
30	1311	2815	692
31	2395	4334	3008
32	359	1868	3947
33	2603	1796	1987
34	190	3015	2557
35	1458	1014	4082
36	956	2395	2974
37	2403	2603	1756
38	2815	587	2395
39	1796	272	2603
40	3015	692	2949
41	2949	2949	2046
42	2046	2046	128
43	2614	1987	1592
44	716	3008	4001
45	272	2403	3927
46	692	128	3476
47	3158	716	1868
48	1875	956	587
49	126	1875	1114
50	2085	3947	4143
51	1987	1592	4334
52	2851	126	1014
53	3008	4001	2403
54	1902	2085	716
55	128	1114	1875
56	234	3927	126
57	4256	2614	2085
58	4403	4143	234
59	1261	234	1261
60	1592	3158	2022
61	3747	1261	1
62	4218	2022	3968
63	4001	2851	236
64	2022	1	4300
65	246	1902	2851
66	1114	3476	1647
67	4143	4256	144
68	1710	4403	247
69	3927	3747	956
70	1	246	2614
71	369	1647	3158
72	1816	1710	1902
73	3947	3968	4256
74	20	236	4403
75	4206	369	3747
76	2638	1816	246
77	3335	4206	1710
78	4356	144	369
79	3410	4218	1816
80	3999	3335	4206
81	1647	4356	3335
82	144	3410	4356
83	2809	4300	3410
84	3968	3999	3999
85	236	1642	1642
86	1306	20	2410
87	3476	2809	1058
88	1642	2410	2809
89	100	2638	4218
90	2410	1058	20
91	4300	247	2638
92	3634	1306	1306
93	1058	100	100
94	3081	3634	3634
95	75	3081	3081
96	3128	75	75
97	1018	3128	3128
98	247	1018	1018
99	3456	3456	3456
100	3585	3585	3585

[Chris Fultz]

and i thought i asked a simple "choose one" question ...

[Justin Montois]

I guess I'll be the outsider and say leave it alone. This is the game that was given to us. I want to see it played, the way it was designed, at the highest level.

[Joon Park]

I say leave it alone as well. I honestly thing that the coopertition is what makes Rebound Rumble one of the best games in recent years.

The GDC have always been trying to integrate coopertition into the game in a way that makes coopertition crucial to a winning strategy. I realize the point of this poll is to see what we think, not the GDC, but I fully agree with the system they have created. I believe in the tired and true spirit of coopertition, and I think that spirit is greatly emphasized by this point system.

Also, perhaps this argument is biased coming from me, as our team always seems to be better at the end game than the actual scoring game, but it allows less capable teams more of a chance against powerhouse teams or favored teams. And even if I was on a different team, I think I'd rather see more flexible and unpredictable matches, as that makes competition more fun.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

Here's a sample analysis of how teams would have ranked differently when going by the three different options above. I chose the 2012 Archimedes division and followed the above three options. In cases where there was still a tie after the conditions set about in the options above, I then went by the manual and used hybrid and then bridge points as the tiebreakers. Here are the results:

Rank	Opt 1	Opt 2	Opt 3
1	2826	2826	2826
2	2056	2056	2056
3	2648	3481	3481
4	781	2648	67
5	3481	67	245
6	2590	245	1676
7	195	781	1218
8	67	1676	3997
9	245	1218	839
10	973	2590	2512
11	1676	195	1311
12	1218	3997	359
13	2557	973	1458
14	1403	839	1736
15	4082	2512	2815
16	4334	1403	2648
17	2898	2898	781
18	3997	1311	2590
19	1014	359	195
20	2974	2557	973
21	1756	1736	1403
22	839	1458	2898
23	2512	4082	2415
24	1868	2415	2996
25	1736	2996	1504
26	587	1504	190
27	2415	2974	1796
28	2996	1756	3015
29	1504	190	272
30	1311	2815	692
31	2395	4334	3008
32	359	1868	3947
33	2603	1796	1987
34	190	3015	2557
35	1458	1014	4082
36	956	2395	2974
37	2403	2603	1756
38	2815	587	2395
39	1796	272	2603
40	3015	692	2949
41	2949	2949	2046
42	2046	2046	128
43	2614	1987	1592
44	716	3008	4001
45	272	2403	3927
46	692	128	3476
47	3158	716	1868
48	1875	956	587
49	126	1875	1114
50	2085	3947	4143
51	1987	1592	4334
52	2851	126	1014
53	3008	4001	2403
54	1902	2085	716
55	128	1114	1875
56	234	3927	126
57	4256	2614	2085
58	4403	4143	234
59	1261	234	1261
60	1592	3158	2022
61	3747	1261	1
62	4218	2022	3968
63	4001	2851	236
64	2022	1	4300
65	246	1902	2851
66	1114	3476	1647
67	4143	4256	144
68	1710	4403	247
69	3927	3747	956
70	1	246	2614
71	369	1647	3158
72	1816	1710	1902
73	3947	3968	4256
74	20	236	4403
75	4206	369	3747
76	2638	1816	246
77	3335	4206	1710
78	4356	144	369
79	3410	4218	1816
80	3999	3335	4206
81	1647	4356	3335
82	144	3410	4356
83	2809	4300	3410
84	3968	3999	3999
85	236	1642	1642
86	1306	20	2410
87	3476	2809	1058
88	1642	2410	2809
89	100	2638	4218
90	2410	1058	20
91	4300	247	2638
92	3634	1306	1306
93	1058	100	100
94	3081	3634	3634
95	75	3081	3081
96	3128	75	75
97	1018	3128	3128
98	247	1018	1018
99	3456	3456	3456
100	3585	3585	3585

I really like option 3 now, especially since it shot us up 4 ranks! In all seriousness, from the data posted, the top 8 in any scenario does not like it has shifted much. The top 2 are still the top 2, and really, if those two don't change, then the alliances eating each other don't shift too much either.

[Clayton Yocom]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

...IRI relaxes the namby-pamby bridge defense rules implemented at the championship

This isn't without precident, especially after last year's changes.

I vote option #4, because it takes co-op bridge out of the rankings. (And no bias either, we made it up to 11th with co-op points and ended up winning the regional.) I feel co-op is really pointless at IRI where either everyone tries to co-op or nobody does. If I have to vote within the 3, it'd be option #3. Again, get co-op out of the rankings at such a high competition event.