No Coopertition bonus?

[martin417]

I am surprised no-one has commented on the lack of seeding bonus based on coopertition. This has been the norm since 2009. Each year, the coopertition value has grown rather than shrunk, and this year, nothing. Could it be the fact that the ccopertition was used as a weapon against powerhouse teams last year? I did see a lot of cooperation last year. Mostly whole regionals cooperating against a few of the top teams at the regional. Perhaps that's why they eliminated it this year.

Thoughts?

[apalrd]

There was no direct bonus in 2010. You got a seeding bonus if you won a close match, rather than a complete blowout. This led to the 6v0 if you knew you couldn't win, or scoring (possibly several times) for your opponents when you were up by a large margin. The coopertition award was based on the largest number of 2x opponents points, and this served to reduce defense in quals (IMO).

There was no bonus at all in 2011, that I can remember. The coopertition award was based on giving away minibots in qualifications, which I don't recall ever happening at an event I attended, due to differences in deployment mechanisms and such. The teams who had engineered a good deployment mechanism usually could engineer a good minibot to go with it.

2012 had the coopertition bridge. At the lowest level of competition, it was awful because nobody could balance and you were relying on the skills of your partner to help you win. In the middle, it was OK, but everyone would always do it so it gave you a disadvantage for failing rather than an advantage for doing it. At the highest level, the teams would try to spend less time doing it and more time scoring, leading to more failures and less points. And, as noted, some teams did intentionally try to screw over the powerhouse teams, which is very very bad. The co-op bridge also added a lot of noise to the rankings at any event, and IMHO the point of the ranking system is to estimate the best teams going into elims, to allow the best team to pick first, so intentionally adding noise is directionally incorrect.

AND, to make everything worse, the 2012 coopertition award was based on high coopertition point but a low ranking point. At the first event we went to (week 1), we assumed a team who had co-oped 5 times (more than anyone else) would certainly win the award, but it ended up going to a team who had never done it themselves, were ranked really low because they lost almost every match, and on the field during a few co-ops.

IMO, the 2012 implementation of the co-op bridge AND the co-op award was terrible. I'm glad to see it go. I'm welcome better suggestions, but doing it that way was not good.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by apalrd

IMO, the 2012 implementation of the co-op bridge AND the co-op award was terrible. I'm glad to see it go. I'm welcome better suggestions, but doing it that way was not good.

I called it the We Fell Really Bad That Your So Bad Here Have An Award Award.

[AllieS4246]

I think the difference in the seeding system is much more strait-forward than last year. Last year you still did well in seeding no matter what the score was if you could manage a co-op bridge. This years seems faulted, yet more honest. This is a good system on ranking scoring and climbing that offensive robots do. This does not account for any defensive bots, unless they can climb. And in the grand scheme of things, if a defensive bot can't climb at least a 20 if not a 30, they probably won't be drafted.

[PVCpirate]

Originally Posted by AllieS4246

I think the difference in the seeding system is much more strait-forward than last year. Last year you still did well in seeding no matter what the score was if you could manage a co-op bridge. This years seems faulted, yet more honest. This is a good system on ranking scoring and climbing that offensive robots do. This does not account for any defensive bots, unless they can climb. And in the grand scheme of things, if a defensive bot can't climb at least a 20 if not a 30, they probably won't be drafted.

The first method of ranking is Qualifying score, based solely on winning and losing. A defensive robot will be ranked highly if they are able to have enough of an impact on the match that their alliance usually wins.

[FrankJ]

Oop missed that part. That makes more sense.

[ratdude747]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

I called it the We Fell Really Bad That Your So Bad Here Have An Award Award.

Me too. Dare I call the award "pointless."

Glad to see coopertition go and accurate rankings to (hopefully) arrive.

[ender2112]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

I called it the We Fell Really Bad That Your So Bad Here Have An Award Award.

Originally Posted by ratdude747

Me too. Dare I call the award "pointless."

Glad to see coopertition go and accurate rankings to (hopefully) arrive.

This really is not in the spirit of First my friends. Winning is very important but it is not everything.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by ender2112

This really is not in the spirit of First my friends. Winning is very important but it is not everything.

Well I'm glad you have an appreciation of poorly thought out awards.

[FrankJ]

Ranking this year is straight high score. No compensation for opposite alliance score. win/loss ratio is not directly important. IE losing a game with a high score is better than winning a game with a low score. Opposing alliance score not directly important for seeding.

Ranking:
1)Total score
2) auto points
3)climbing climbing points
4) Teleop points
5)random sort

So in terms of ranking a good offense is better than a good defense.

The only real cooperation is it is always better to score lots of points as an alliance rather than as an individual team.

This also means as usual, the strategy for seeding rounds is slightly different than elimination when defense will be more important.

[MARS_James]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

Ranking this year is straight high score. No compensation for opposite alliance score. win/loss ratio is not directly important. IE losing a game with a high score is better than winning a game with a low score. Opposing alliance score not directly important for seeding.

Ranking:
1)Total score
2) auto points
3)climbing climbing points
4) Teleop points
5)random sort

So in terms of ranking a good offense is better than a good defense.

The only real cooperation is it is always better to score lots of points as an alliance rather than as an individual team.

This also means as usual, the strategy for seeding rounds is slightly different than elimination when defense will be more important.

No the first sort is QS which is number of wins*2 + number of ties*1 + number of losses*0

[MikeE]

I see the modifications to rule T6 as being a close proxy for coopertition this season.

The rule now means that a team risks being disqualified from a Qualification match if any of its partners do not have an inspected robot, even if they only bring a representative to the field and not their robot.

It provides a fairly strong incentive for everyone to help the less able teams to pass inspection early.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by MikeE

I see the modifications to rule T6 as being a close proxy for coopertition this season.

The rule now means that a team risks being disqualified from a Qualification match if any of its partners do not have an inspected robot, even if they only bring a representative to the field and not their robot.

It provides a fairly strong incentive for everyone to help the less able teams to pass inspection early.

That's an old rule.
At Alamo we had a team get their whole Alliance disqualified because a team that didn't pass inspection sent their human player out and he refused to leave the field when he was told to by his partners. We found out afterwards that the student was told by his mentor if he came back to the pit before the match was through he was going to be walking home. Way to to inspire the kids.

[MikeE]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

That's an old rule.
At Alamo we had a team get their whole Alliance disqualified because a team that didn't pass inspection sent their human player out and he refused to leave the field when he was told to by his partners. We found out afterwards that the student was told by his mentor if he came back to the pit before the match was through he was going to be walking home. Way to to inspire the kids.

Thanks Ed.

Clearly I've spent too much time over the past several years focusing on the Robot rules and not enough on the Tournament rules.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by martin417

I am surprised no-one has commented on the lack of seeding bonus based on coopertition. This has been the norm since 2009. Each year, the coopertition value has grown rather than shrunk, and this year, nothing. Could it be the fact that the ccopertition was used as a weapon against powerhouse teams last year? I did see a lot of cooperation last year. Mostly whole regionals cooperating against a few of the top teams at the regional. Perhaps that's why they eliminated it this year.

Thoughts?

Please inform me as to how the coopertition points were used for seeding in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Because I don't recall that being true at all.