If a note is placed in the amp and a team uses it in order to activate the coopertition bonus and the other team doesn’t hit their button within the 45 second period, does that note immediately count towards the amplification? Or is it just reset? The manual doesn’t seem to take this into account.
TLDR; is our note from coopertition refunded if the other alliance is full of meanies?
Thanks in advance 
To me it sounds like it is “used” and therefore not usable for the amplification.
Makes sense. Our debate was that FIRST doesn’t usually use points against teams, especially when it comes to points that come from collaborating with the opposing alliance. Thinking along the lines of FLL / benefit of the doubt policy.
That might be a good question for Q&A when it opens tomorrow, actually.
Lol this would kinda suck, and leads back to this discussion:
You can think of the scored points value of placing a note in the amp as separate from the coop and amplify “points”. Scoring in the amp earns a credit towards the coop/amplify, not additional match points. Once you use the credits, they are gone, but the match points remain.
Generally, if the manual doesn’t mention a mechanic (like “refunding” notes), then it isn’t part of the game. That’s not to say changes won’t be made in future team updates.
There are some similarities between coopertition this year and last year: both require teams to modify their scoring cycles in a way that doesn’t directly benefit them unless the other alliance cooperates, and you’d still get points for scoring the game piece(s) that you used for coopertition.
This is actually a really good topic to discuss with your teams. I typically avoid rabbit holes like this but given how coopertition works this year, we have considered the possibility of less honorable teams abusing NOT pressing the yellow button. I’m not saying it will be a huge problem, and I hope it never happens, but scenario could happen.
I see it happening once in a while. lets say last qualification match and 2 ranked team has a great alliance and feels they can get 18. 1 ranked team is on an alliance that can’t get 18. Strategy in a scenario like this may be to NOT push it, get the 4 RP’s and try to jump 1 ranked team. I don’t necessarily see this as less honorable, just part of game play.
It’s part of game play, a strategic element. You are free to draw your own conclusions but there may be benefits like @mmorauske mentioned to not press it. FIRST left this as an option for us to use - honor really doesn’t have anything to do with it IMHO.
This is not new. Since we have had ranking points: 2012 had reasons not to balance the co-op bridge, 2015 had reasons not to place the the yellow totes on the center platform, 2017 saw teams “bluffing” on spinning up the rotors and so on. It is an element of game play. Heck 2010 saw teams scoring balls in the wrong goal because it was more adventitious in the rankings to lose.
Just my 2 cents.
Aware, If not stated in rules, it is legal.
It does not get put towards amplification, per Q17
True, but repeated games have different theory than one-shots in game theory. And until you reach Einstein finals FRC is very much a repeated game. That means scouting will be able to identify teams that are bad actors and react accordingly with on-field and off-field (alliance selection) consequences.
I think it’s important to avoid characterizing teams who don’t reciprocate in activating Coopertition as “bad actors.” There are any number of reasons why an alliance may end up not activating this, not all of them intentional, and not all of them driven by the team whose HP happens to be standing at the AMP during the match.
Let’s be clear - an alliance is under no obligation to accept Coopertition if it is offered. Just like playing defense, or declining an invitation during alliance selection, these are strategic options that are intentionally offered to teams as part of standard gameplay.
This is true. In 2012 it was important to talk to teams on the opposing alliance about the bridge to make sure they were willing to do it.
And when a team played a “strategic” game and essentially lied and never tried to get on the bridge while you wasted 20 seconds waiting, their dishonesty moved them to the “never pick this team” list.
11 years later, and I still remember the teams that pulled this, and they still get a skeptical eye.
Teams should be careful about crossing the line from strategy into dishonesty. It doesn’t end well.
Yes, “bad” was probably too strong. The idea is that scouting can identify team characteristics around the coopertition option and respond accordingly in future matches. Some characteristics from “good” to “bad”: early cooperator (presses button early), late cooperator (presses button close(r) to 75 seconds), non-first-actor (never presses until/unless opposing alliance does first), strategic non-cooperator (your scenario), deceptive non-cooperator (says they will then doesn’t).
We’re on the same page there.
One thing I have wondered (and this has probably been covered endlessly somewhere) is whether any pre-match agreements with the other alliance would potentially violate G203. I could imagine a team that was asked to sacrifice a potential speaker amplification cycle in order to get Coopertition could feel that they were being asked to play beneath their ability.
It would be interesting if Coopertition was intended to be based entirely on trust and in-match communication rather than any pre-match assurances.
Yeah, my mentor submitted that on behalf of my strategy team and I. Thanks!
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.