Interested in any discussion
I see two things happening.
Low/mid tier filling the bottom rows right away then trying to fill a fourth
High tier ignoring the coop section until they have at least 3 other rows filled then gauging they’re likely hood of two more rows before going adding to the coop
Honestly, I would prolly focus on getting 5 without the coop, then during the last 30 switch one of the bottom rows to the coop section if we’re gunna miss our goal
I dont think so. I feel that it will happen only if both teams can only do 4. If I can only do 3 i wont want to help you and if i can do 5 and I know you can only do 4 i wont help
Yeah, but a lot of teams I think will miss that strat and just focus on points points points, even if it’s only 2 at a time…
Why I split the strats
The majority of teams are going to say no now then struggle to get even 2 links
Depends on the alliance pair-up. I see the following possibilities (where 5+ = five or more links, 4 = four links, and 3- = 3 or fewer links):
- 5+ vs 5+: doesn’t matter, since both will get it anyway
- 5+ vs 4: the 5+ alliance doesn’t have very much incentive, but I could see it happening out of convenience (for example, if the 5+ alliance can’t score on the top row or if they want to reduce congestion).
- 4 vs 4: both are incentivized to do it, so I think they would
- 4 vs 3-: no incentive for 3- to play along
- 3- vs 3-: doesn’t matter
Overall, I’m optimistic, for two reasons:
- Alliances can’t be confident about their random partners. Sure, it’s ideal to avoid it if you can get 5+, but you can’t be super confident in that. Better to accidentally give some possible competitors an extra ranking point, rather than missing out on one yourself.
- I think that avoiding the coopertation grid gives some significant disadvantages, just because of how it contains 1/3 of the possible places to put stuff.
I think most matches early on will have it done cause there is no scouting data on the teams to they might as well do it
In almost every match helping the opposing alliance is largely irrelevant to your teams ranking. In the small cases where it could matter (closely ranked high seeds), I would bet that both alliances can score 5 links and/or would like to fill the top level to get the most points.
I have to wonder how many matches it’ll actually make a difference in. I feel like it’ll make a difference in regional events, district events, and district champs qualifications, but is unlikely to matter past then. Might be an interesting statistic to scrape from TBA after the season.
I think that, at least in some matches, coop will be more random and not be used for strategy. If a robot happens to be near the coop section, they’ll score a game piece there with no regard for the RP.
For those who are more strategical, it will prob be a target to reach if you aren’t confident in the other robots on your alliance. (It could hypothetically be used to hurt another team’s ranking, but if a team is in that position I think they would be able to get 5 links anyways)
I dont think it’ll be that important overall seeing as there is a set amount of places to score and (if you are good enough) you will need to tap into the coop section eventually
Our goal for every match is to get 3 or 4 ranking points. Our alliance actions determine whether we get 3 RP. Actions of the other alliance determine if we get 4. To guarantee the sustainability bonus, we need to be capable of scoring 5 links as an alliance. When we were analyzing the game we asked, “Does the coopertition bonus change how we play the game?” The answer is largely “no”. To maximize scoring, our first priority in teleop is filling each row, starting with the top row. How many total game pieces end up scored is a function of cycle time. No matter if we need to score 4 or 5 links for the RP, we’re filling the top row first. On the way to the RP, we’ve done our part for coopertition. The only change to our behavior influenced by the coop bonus is if we might want to do the center grid before the other two. If we’re filling the top row anyway, we’d rather let the dynamics of deconfliction with our partners and most efficient cycle time determine which grid positions get filled first. In short, if we play to score 5 links as fast as possible, we’re achieving our part of the coop bonus anyway, so the existence of the coop bonus does not change our decision making during the game.
I think this has real potential.