I just watched this interesting video on Robert Axelrod’s experiments on trust and cooperation using game theory, and it made me think about how it relates to the concept of Coopertition.
There’s already a topic on evaluating the Coopertition element of the Crescendo game using game theory from earlier this year. However, I believe that game theory also applies to FRC more broadly than just in the context of an individual match.
In Axelrod’s experiments, he found that in scenarios where entities compete in a non-zero sum game (which I would argue FRC is, but would love to hear other opinions on the matter), environments where people trust each other will lead to the best outcomes for all competitors in the long term. Additionally, when trust is broken, it is important to reestablish that trust by calling people out on the transgression, but then also be willing to forgive them. We’re called to help each other compete at our best through the spirit of Coopertition. Helping, trusting, and forgiving others are things that many of us believe is the “right” thing to do. It’s cool to know that the math supports this belief as these actions typically lead to the best possible outcomes for everyone.
But, hey, that’s just a theory…
What do you all think? Have any of you seen instances where teams working together has led to better outcomes in the long term for all involved than would have likely happened if they had not collaborated? Or maybe you’ve experienced the opposite?
I wholeheartedly agree with this, because I’ve experienced it for myself. When I first joined the team, I felt like I stood out quite a bit (I had joined my sophomore year, the others in my grade had joined their freshman year). Now it’s my senior year and I feel like an actual part of the team because of the ways that others have helped me improve my technique and trust me with tasks, as you’ve mentioned.
‘A rising tide lifts all boats’ is baked in to the FIRST ethos. It certainly wasn’t always that way, and it’s not completely universal, but evidence is everywhere. From suppliers providing their product CAD models, to the proliferation of Everybots and Ri3Ds sharing their strategies and designs, to OA teams live-blogging their seasons, FIRST participants have embraced coopertition and gracious professionalism.
It extends into the competition culture - I’ve never heard an “overrated” chant or anything like it. Teams take great pride in competing when all opponents are full strength; it makes victory much more satisfying and defeat much more palatable.
Perhaps teams in the district model experience a more rose-colored reality than regional teams, but it’s still reality.
It definitely comes across like this at surface level. And I do not think you are wrong, the community does an exceptional job.
However, there is a certain amount of “boat maintenance” that some forces are making harder than it should be (mainly there seems to be a lack of a push(?) for team sustainability from HQ, at least in messaging (not all their changes are bad though), and maybe in bumper rules, we’ll see).
Linking back to the thread topic, there is definitely a lot of push and pull between the haves and the have nots. E.g. not co-oping with the top/well known team(s) to " stick it to the man". Sure this does come with the territory somewhat (see top/famous teams getting hammered by defense and having to adapt and lean into that role with strategy; playing a very different game)
I’d make the argument that if you’ve experienced the opposite, you’re doing it wrong .
One of the coolest things about the Peoria area is the collaboration teams end up having. There’s plenty of hard competition for sure, but never at the expense of friendship, or helping the others do better.
Concretely, this means things like swapping parts, doing design reviews, having casual get-togethers, being proactive about asking “what do you need?”, recommending students/mentors around to try to make sure all gaps are filled…
I’ve yet to have experiences or hear a proof that FRC is anything like a zero-sum game.
What I find interesting is that even without discrete cooperition bonuses, there is a fundamental cooperition baked into all games now, which are the secondary ranking points.
Essentially, alliances can choose to play defense in quals but they often don’t.
In a lot of games, if you play cut throat enough defense you could prevent someone from obtaining the teleop RP. Maybe preventing MELODY last year, or preventing the 5 links in 2023, etc.
An alliance could sacrifice their offensive power (and likelihood of earning the bonus RP) in order to play defense and try to prevent their opponent from earning the bonus RP, and also to win.
If both alliances do this, they end up going even on who wins but both lose out on the RP.
In this way, I like to say that non-winning bonus RPs is the biggest cooperition elements FRC has instituted. Stay out of each other’s way in quals, and let’s let the robots be the best they can be is a nice incentive when so much effort is put into engineering unique solutions to that part of the game.
I hadn’t even thought about how this dynamic works within a team. On an individual level, a veteran student looking out for a newer one is an example of a win-win situation. Yes, it takes time to train another student, but in the process the veteran student is also learning valuable leadership skills, creating a bond with that student, and is learning their technical skills on a deeper level (required to be able to teach it to someone else). On a team level, it helps promote team unity, adds bandwidth to the team, and helps ensure that the team will continue to be successful after the veteran student graduates.
I’m curious to hear from open alliance teams. In your experience, do you find that sharing your development during build season leads to benefits for your own team?
.