I probably missed it in the flurry of discussions, but what about the new ranking system…
Game Manual sections
5.3.3 Coopertition is equal in value as Winning the match: 2 pts for either
5.3.6 Auto Hoops scoring used as 2nd sort (no more ranking points)
5.4.4 Cleanness and Auto hoops used to decide ties (no more ties)
As a programmer I say: Woo Hoo, Auto/Hybrid rules this game 
Phil.
Well, it doesnt rule the game, but you actually have to be good at hybrid mode for a higher seed! Yay, this will be fun, especially for me!
How well you do during hybrid mode only decides your seed ranking if you have the same number of qualification points as another team.
Right?
Correct.
I really do not like this new seeding system, especially because co-opertition score directly affects qualification score. While yes, the better teams may communicate better with their opponent, or they might have a way of helping an opponent balance on bridge, a lot of the times, it will simply be luck as to whether or not you play against an opponent that can balance on the bridge, and plans on balancing on the bridge. At the very least, co-opertition could have been a separate score and serve as a tiebreaker.
I also don’t understand why how well a team does in roughly 2 minutes of a 2 minute and 15 second match is the fourth tiebreaker.
But that’s just me.
Opposition welcomed.
-Duke
Yes, but it does often does happen that there will be groups of 2-5 teams in the top eight-twelve that have the same qualification score. Admittedly the co-opertition bonuses will most likely reduce the groups of 5 and up down to smaller groups, but none the less there will be a need for qualifying tie breakers, and in this game hybrid points will break those ties, therefore it’s very important to get your hybrid mode working.
I understand how it works, i just do not understand why it was chosen that way. Personally, i do not think hybrid mode should be the second tiebreaker. I think the co-opertition should be separate, serve as a first tiebreaker, with teleop second, auton third, ramps fourth, and random by the FMS last.
I agree wholeheartedly. This fact actually bothered me for a long time yesterday. Actually, it still bothers me.
I like this idea much more than the current system.
I like the idea of coopertating (Is that the proper verb?) but don’t think that it should be as heavily weighted as it is.
You can always TALK to them before a match. 
haha ^exactly.
the new scoring system ensures that your team isn’t just building a robot that will do well in teleop. but that your team ensures that the hybrid period is utilized since in the past couple years autonomous period has been pretty boring.
the cooperition points are also a good thing because this sends out FIRST’s message of working together, even with your opponents.
some of us forget what FIRST is really about, its not just about building robots but also about working together to make sure everyone improves and making science and technology a culture in the world.
That’s nice, but if they cant’t do it, or they’re not planning on doing it, you’re out of luck.
Actually, the autonomous points ensure your team isn’t just building a robot that will do well in teleop.
Of coure, im not bashing FIRST nor its goals, but a coopertition ramp is not what makes science and technology a culture in the world. And again, im not saying remove coopertition; rather, make it a separate tiebreaker.
Balancing may not be as difficult as you think it will be. Check out this:
28 inches away from center and 2 batteries on one end will still be balanced. I’m sure all of you know, those batteries have some weight to them also. So, balancing may not be too difficult though getting 2 bots on it at the end of the match quickly may be. Especially from opposite ends of the field being both bots getting on from each end instead of one following the other on directly behind.
So, the bridge stays balanced with a moment of up to 60 ft*lbs of torque (assuming 13ish lb batteries). However, that still means you’ve got to precisely position your robot with 5" or so (assuming a long robot with the edge of it’s frame at one extreme), and I wonder how the dynamics of a dynamic ramp coming from tilted to horizontal plays with that number.
Try to think of getting other robots to balance with you on the bridge as an engineering challenge for you. If your robot is good at it, then you can probably get the coopertition bonus in most of your matches.
Figured I’d give this thread a bump.
Now that week one has passed what does everyone think about how the ranking system has worked thus far?
What do you think about the coopertition bridge and how big of a factor it plays in team rank?
What do you think of any of the pre-conceived notions you had before?
Glancing over the week one regionals I see that 5 of the 8 had a top seed with the highest number of coopertition points. Considering the number one seed won in every regional except Alamo, I am of the opinion that the coopertition bridge is very important maybe even the top objective in any qualifying match. As powerful of a ranking factor the bridge is, I probably wouldn’t change it because it adds to the excitement of this game. Many times during Kettering I could get excited even if a team was about to lose a match because they were going for a last second coopertition balance.
As for hybrid, I think it is important without the seeding implications and even more important with them, further adding to the excitement of hybrid. I think its a good metric of a quality robot so I agree with using it as the first tie breaker in seeding.
You guys definitely had the right idea at Kettering with going for the Coopertition bridge every match. My jaw dropped when I realized Friday night that the EngiNERDS had a higher seeding score than us with almost half their points coming from Coopertition. We only had 2 Coopertition points on Friday but were undefeated.
I do think that if every team tries their best for the Coopertition bridge in the qualification matches, then the 1st seeds would win less often. 4161 won San Diego by focusing just on the Coopertition bridge in quals, but something tells me this was because the best scorers were situated outside the top 8 and therefore were split up. If 4161 and Code Orange tried going against an alliance with 2 good scorers, I don’t see them winning.
It’s simply luck if your alliance members can score balls, or if they’re boxes on wheels that can’t move.
Every team out there has been affected by luck in qualification matches. Our rookie year we were the 7th seed… not because we were good (I think we put up 2 tubes in Rack 'n roll the entire competition), but because we ended up on awesome alliances again and again. Fast forward to some other years, where we had a good robot but ended up lower in the seeding - in a particular game, our robot may have out-performed every other individual robot on the field, but we lost because our alliance, as a whole, was weaker than the other alliance.
The coopertition bridge isn’t about luck - if your robot can manipulate the bridge, you can drive up it, lower it for the other alliance, and have them drive up as well. All a team needs to balance on the coopertition bridge is a drive train and some patience. Now, if no one on the field can manipulate the bridge, then you have a problem… but that’s as much your fault as anyone else.
I generally like this system. They wanted to make coopertition really important, and they have succeeded in doing it in a really fun way.
It is a little unfortunate that teams with good allies (hybrid scorers) get a tiebreaker boost in addition to the wins they are likely to get by having good allies. But I prefer this to basing tiebreakers on opponents’ scores, which creates incentives to score on oneself. This way, a team has the ability to directly impact their own tiebreakers by having a good Hybrid mode, which is great.
Teams with tough schedules have the significant benefit of good teams to balance with on the coopertition bridge. It is great that there are seeding benefits for easy OR hard schedules.
We understood the importance of the Coopertition bridge ahead of time & were ready to deal with it. It obviously helped; we had 26 qualification points (with 1 loss) as compared to the undefeated #2 seed with 22 QPs.
I like having the 2-alliance interaction requirement; I think that adds significantly to the game. It’s a huge factor, but I personally would like to have seen the importance be a bit lower than it is. Maybe have wins be 3 points (or even 4) and keep the coopertition points where they are at 2 for a balance and 1 for a fully-supported attempt.
I agree 100% with Jaxom…this aspect of the game and “coopertition” with the opposing alliance is interesting and adds to the game but the importance is just too high in my opinion. Maybe I’m just too competative but I still like to see winning be the most influential factor in the ranking systems. Jaxom’s suggestion of 3 points for a win and only 2 for a coopertition might be the right mix…There’s always IRI!