Ethics of Telling a Team "No" [Archive]

Yipyapper

09-03-2014, 19:42

At GTRE this past weekend, there were many teams (I'd imagine many others at other regionals encountered this problem as well) that essentially caused their teammates to lose due to something like a foul or getting in the way of a more competitive robot. In two of 781's matches, for example, we were very close to a win which would have allowed us to be seeded 3rd and, by extension, 2nd alliance captain, which I think would warrant a much higher chance of winning than being seeded 10th. In the first, I was nervous that a team with a history of fouls in their previous matches was going to incur several, so we asked them if they were absolutely positive that their robot would not pass the maximum height. They were so sure of this, but when it came time for the game, they incurred 70 foul points for our team (one of the fouls was due to their height) and gave us our first loss. The second had a a team claiming that their shooter was working and that their auto would be fine, but when the autonomous period began, they winded up knocking into our robot and veering our successful hot auto off-course. The ball miraculously still went into the other goal, but it was not hot and lost us 5 points that we would have gotten otherwise. We lost the match by 1 point.

I'm not saying that we should've been super high on the seeding list because we were better than anyone else. The other two matches were fairly lost, and our drive train was being incredibly funky before a prolonged delay in the matches allowed us to fix it before our match with 1114—as a note for that match, we actually nearly lost that one. We scored around 200 points between us two with auto and assists/truss/etc, but our third partner incurred 100 foul points and gave the other alliance something like 170 points.

I initially wasn't very angry because our 7th seeded alliance played a strong game and lost to a very strategic and skilled 2nd alliance backed by 1241's powerful defense, and since I knew we'd lose to 1114 and 3683's power alliance if it came to that. However, when it turns out that they had actually lost due to something that is currently being discussed in seemingly every thread on these forums, I wondered how well 781 would have done had we been the 2nd-seeded alliance (with a record of 8-2-0 instead of 6-4-0).

Now, I'm not saying that I'm incredibly angry at any team or mentioning specifics, but this is more just me wondering what other people think as a point of discussion. Should teams with experience and strong strategic influence tell teams on their alliance to simply not move at all or stick to a corner where they won't get in the way?

Personally, I'm not sure what I think. On the one hand, teams that make this happen are restricting some fun driving after the weaker teams built a robot that they toiled many hours over, but on the other hand, the stronger teams worked hard to be competitive and weren't looking to lose all of that just so that the weaker teams can enjoy themselves.

cadandcookies

09-03-2014, 20:03

Should teams with experience and strong strategic influence tell teams on their alliance to simply not move at all or stick to a corner where they won't get in the way?

There are very, very few situations when this is strategically logical for any alliance. Most of the time teams have at least one redeeming feature-- whether it's that they can inbound easily or truss or play light defense.

Maybe in extenuating circumstances-- if a robot is likely to violate the rules just inherently by moving, then it might be better, but with some before match strategizing most robots can be doing something useful during a match.

FrankJ

09-03-2014, 20:04

In eliminations the alliance captain sets the strategy.

In seeding games, strategy is negotiated. You really cannot tell another team "no". They all have paid their entrance fee and get to play their robot as they think best. Smart teams will agree to a strategy that will best use their robots strengths. About the only thing you can do with a hard headed team is try to persuade them and cross them off your pick list.

BrendanB

09-03-2014, 20:11

In seeding games, strategy is negotiated. You really cannot tell another team "no". They all have paid their entrance fee and get to play their robot as they think best. Smart teams will agree to a strategy that will best use their robots strengths. About the only thing you can do with a hard headed team is try to persuade them and cross them off your pick list.

^This.

As painful as it is, this is the nature of the game and each team needs to play it as such. This past weekend at UNH we played qualification matches with our alliance partners utilizing what each person brought or wanted to bring to the alliance. There were many instances where we gave auto balls to partners where our scouting data said we shouldn't or gave a position to a team who hadn't played it before. While we ended with more loses than I thought we would our team finished quals as a team player and not a solo alliance member.

If you want to go into matches and play it on your own or chang up the strategy part way through a match go ahead. That is your choice and the rest of us will judge you and your team based on your actions. Yes you might be seeded higher but I doubt many of your qual partners would want to play with you again.

Whippet

09-03-2014, 20:19

Should teams with experience and strong strategic influence tell teams on their alliance to simply not move at all or stick to a corner where they won't get in the way?

No.

This happened to us over the weekend. We were essentially told to disable our auto and sit in the goalie zone for the whole match. We still won, but I can now say that there is no feeling worse than receiving a win that you didn't contribute to, or, even worse, contributed to through inactivity. (I hold no grudges against the teams involved, both of which are very successful teams who easily deserve the success that have, but I do believe that we could have contributed a lot more to that alliance if they had taken the time to listen to our input.)

Jeanne Boyarsky

09-03-2014, 22:02

There seems to be an assumption here that a team is being stubborn or misrepresenting. There's two other possibilities here:

The team believes they fixed the problem. Last year, we had a number of unfortunate things happen to our robot in New York City. We did fix them and were fine later. (We went on to be the alliance captains that won NYC.) Our team is from NYC and been around long enough to have a reputation so people are apt to believe us if we say we fixed the problem. But what happens if a rookie team has the ball get stuck in their robot during the first two games and says it is fixed. Do you believe them or try to insist they don't load for autonomous? GP says it should be the former.
FRC isn't ONLY about winning. How is a team supposed to improve if they are told to sit in the corner? Granted a team shouldn't want to cause penalties for their partners. But if you can do something 10% faster than they can, maybe it is worth giving them a chance. That's something I like about this year's game. It encourages all three teams to be involved in some fashion.

Yipyapper

09-03-2014, 22:13

No.

This happened to us over the weekend. We were essentially told to disable our auto and sit in the goalie zone for the whole match. We still won, but I can now say that there is no feeling worse than receiving a win that you didn't contribute to, or, even worse, contributed to through inactivity. (I hold no grudges against the teams involved, both of which are very successful teams who easily deserve the success that have, but I do believe that we could have contributed a lot more to that alliance if they had taken the time to listen to our input.)

A team said that we should just not have a ball at the start of auto to allow for quick cycles, believing that our drive train was still in disrepair from the prior matches where it veered to the left and failed in autonomous. Through insistent nudges, eventually we were able to convince this team to agree and we got it on the field, detected hot correctly and winded up scoring a 70-point auto. From then on, we didn't miss a single hot auto in qualifications and got the 2nd highest auto score besides the first few matches (1st was 1114; who would have thought? :p)

This is what makes this topic so interesting; teams want to win, but they can also miss out on a great opportunity if a team claims that they have something working. Sometimes this isn't true, as was the case with other teams on our alliances, but telling a team "no" can leave you out of a truthful statement and ultimately leave you out of a win.

cadandcookies

09-03-2014, 22:13

On another, more pragmatic note, experienced and strong teams have every right to tell teams not to do something-- just as those teams have every right to ignore them. As Frank said, strategy in qualification rounds is negotiated-- for the majority of teams, if you come in and tell your alliance partners how to play a match, it will cause problems. Talk it out, and come to as close to a consensus as you can. Chances are all three teams want to win.

Donut

09-03-2014, 22:29

Should teams with experience and strong strategic influence tell teams on their alliance to simply not move at all or stick to a corner where they won't get in the way?

They could tell them, but I don't see why they would have incentive to listen, and it seems like that would be a poor strategic choice anyway. Every team with a semi-working drive train should be able to at least pin a ball for a possession, and if they can't manage that you probably have nothing to worry about because they won't be moving at all during the match due to those issues.

This really isn't any different than discussion between working robots about who will be scoring, except it now revolves around different game actions. How do you normally handle those discussions? They happen in just about every match. Alliances that don't agree on a strategy usually perform poorly relative to their max potential, regardless of if it is 3 boxes on wheels that get penalties every time they move or the world championship alliance on Einstein.

Citrus Dad

09-03-2014, 22:47

Unfortunately, this is year is unusual in that the actions of a single team can completely undermine the efforts of its alliance members. While I strongly believe that teams who come to play should be given the opportunity to show what they've done, there is a limit. If a team continually demonstrates that its actions seriously detract (through missed auto shots or frequent fouls), other more ambitious teams should be able to strongly request that that the team not load balls or move their human player to a different role. In the elimination rounds, a team better consider whether they're going to be "benched" when they accept a position on an alliance. They are not entitled to play how they want at that point--it's a privilege, not a right, to make the playoffs.

Having fun does not mean doing so at the expense of another team. Remember that if a team causes a loss, their alliance members will have less opportunity to advance to the elimination rounds and to have yet more fun.

I expect that the number of times that a team will be requested to "sit out" a significant role in a match will be quite minimal--2 or 3 times maximum out of 10 to 12 matches in qualifying. That means that the team will be able run as they like at 7 times and probably many more through the match.

IronicDeadBird

09-03-2014, 23:08

The reason why I see a lot of teams taking chances on Auton' is that it paints the robot in a better light. It says "we have the capability!" for those teams who recognize that odds are against them for them getting to be one of the people who picks alliances the next best thing they can do is make them self look attractive so they will be picked. Besides nobody wants to see something they put hard work into not be utilized so there is always a little bit of ego.

DampRobot

09-03-2014, 23:16

You can and should tell a team no (to loading auto balls, to shoot at the high goal, etc) if you think it will help you win the match. However, if they think they have a better plan to win the match than you, they don't have to follow your advice.

There's a role on an alliance for any team that can drive. Even if they don't have an amazing shooter, they can still contribute to a win by getting assist points, playing D, etc. If a team is telling you that you're so bad you should stay in the corner, you have a definite right to tell them to sick it. If you believe your robot should take a more dominant role in a match, work with the other teams so you get assist points.

When I had trouble convincing teams to play D in the offseason, I often reminded them that given their current scouting report, they weren't going to be picked because of their shooting performance (which was often mediocre at best). They were going to get picked because they could play great D, something we were offering to help them do.

Yipyapper

09-03-2014, 23:19

valeriemoore

10-03-2014, 02:08

I find this a very interesting question as well as something I have been on both sides of.

This year we started off as a very sporadic robot. And I do mean sporadic. Mecanum drivebase +Uneven weight distribution = robot that doesn't go in the direction that it is supposed to. (The physics is actually really interesting) We figured it out, and now our robot is fine. However, before it was fixed our robot ran head on into another robot during autonomous, loosing us a auto-hot-high-goal. It was an honest mistake for our robot, one that never happened again. Yet, it did happen, and I'm sure some scouters noticed it.

The thing that makes this years game interesting (and frightening) is that the actions necessary to win the match are not necessarily the ones that attract the attention for scouters. Every robot wants to prove their shooter and their ability to pass.

Some drive teams just won't be a team player, and there isn't much you can do about other than crossing them off of your pick list.

Yet, I agree with the sentiment of some of the other responses. All of these teams, regardless of their results, have worked hard on their robot. Having anyone tell them to go sit in a corner is quite honestly offensive.

The best strategy of creating a strategy from what I can see, is to make the distinction from struggling robots and stubborn drive teams. Ask the teams who have struggling robots to play defense. I saw several teams shut down because of good defense. As for the stubborn drive teams, make sure that you aren't being one of them, cross them off of your pick list, and remember not to get too frustrated with them, there isn't much you can do. Good Scouters will notice these teams. At least at CIR, they were announcing the teams that had incurred penalties.

dtengineering

10-03-2014, 02:30

I have yet to meet the team who doesn't want to win a match.

I have yet to meet the team that WANTS to get a foul.

I have met many teams that in a bungled attempt to play the game well, either incur a foul or mess up a scoring play. Met them? Heck, I've mentored one.

Ask me about our team history and I'll tell you that in one of our first matches... at the Canadian Regional, incidentally, the forerunner of GTRE... "we were so bad that we made team 33 lose." Yep, two team alliances, and a powerhouse partner who could have won on their own, and we incurred enough fouls and messed up enough game play to lose the match.

We apologized, went back to the pits and analyzed what we'd done. We developed strategies to avoid doing that in future matches. Drivers, coaches and human players would be subject to a rules test before we got to the tournament, and robot designs were developed specifically with an intent to stay within the rules.

I won't pretend that we never had another foul called on us, or never messed up a play again... but I'll suggest that few teams would have had a cleaner record.

Would that have happened if we had just sat in the corner and let 33 win? I still feel a bit guilty that our learning experience came at their expense, but it drove home the need to be prepared in a very visceral fashion that became embedded in our team culture.

Play clean, play hard, and play with the cards you are dealt. Maybe next tournament you'll "steal" a match or two back as other veteran teams help a few more rookies to have a defining moment like that.

Jason

DampRobot

10-03-2014, 02:33

The thing that makes this years game interesting (and frightening) is that the actions necessary to win the match are not necessarily the ones that attract the attention for scouters. Every robot wants to prove their shooter and their ability to pass.

No. Scouts don't just look for robots that can shoot. If they do, they're bad scouts.

Unless you're one of the best shooters at the regional, shooting will likely not get you picked. Being a meh shooter is actually worse than not shooting this game, as you'll lose your alliance much more time chasing down the ball than you'll gain in points if you happen to make it in the high goal. Smart scouts know this, and won't really care I'd you made 8 high goal shots or 3 if your drivetrain isn't there or you don't appear to pass well.

Passing, on the other hand is something that every team can and should demonstrate to scouts, and something that will contribute to almost any qualification alliance. Probably one of the easiest and best things for a robot to do in quals (given even a KitBot drivetrain and extremely basic ball handling skills) is to sit in front of the human player, receive the ball and pass it to another robot, and then go play defense. This isexactly what scouts are looking for, will make a positive contribution to your alliance, and stay "out of the way" of other robots.

Yipyapper

10-03-2014, 02:47

No. Scouts don't just look for robots that can shoot. If they do, they're bad scouts.

Unless you're one of the best shooters at the regional, shooting will likely not get you picked. Being a meh shooter is actually worse than not shooting this game, as you'll lose your alliance much more time chasing down the ball than you'll gain in points if you happen to make it in the high goal. Smart scouts know this, and won't really care I'd you made 8 high goal shots or 3 if your drivetrain isn't there or you don't appear to pass well.

Passing, on the other hand is something that every team can and should demonstrate to scouts, and something that will contribute to almost any qualification alliance. Probably one of the easiest and best things for a robot to do in quals (given even a KitBot drivetrain and extremely basic ball handling skills) is to sit in front of the human player, receive the ball and pass it to another robot, and then go play defense. This isexactly what scouts are looking for, will make a positive contribution to your alliance, and stay "out of the way" of other robots.
I disagree with the "meh" shooter thought; if one has a men shooter, then they can still shoot over the truss and not have to be accurate, while at the same time being a team player that helps out the main shooter of the team.

Michael Corsetto

10-03-2014, 02:55

Unfortunately, this is year is unusual in that the actions of a single team can completely undermine the efforts of its alliance members.

The thread can end here.

This is why Aerial Assist is a terrible game for rookies/less experienced teams.

Teams at the top of their game often need to convince detrimental alliance partners to not use a majority of the features (pick up/catapult/auto mode/etc) they've spent 2 months pouring their heart and soul into because they are inconsistent and/or slow down the cycle. Occasionally, coaches get creative and re-purpose a design to provide the needed assists. Often though, this is not possible. This is heartbreaking, but FIRST has put top teams in this spot.

Please don't do this again FIRST.

-Mike

FrankJ

10-03-2014, 09:13

I take the opposite view. It is a great game for rookies/less experienced teams. It is a great opportunity for the teams at the top of their game to use their GP and mentor the less experienced teams. Unlike some previous games you can drive & play defense with little risk of fouls. So coaching a willing team can be effective.

The playing only for a team's self interest to the detriment of the alliance is not just a rookie issue. You can't tell those teams no because they will not listen to you anyway.

pandamonium

10-03-2014, 10:26

Helping a team maximizing their scoring potential is in everyone's best interest. Unfortunately some people either live in magical christmas land or they value trying to show off over team performance. Sitting in the corner nundging the ball against the wall to trap it is not a bad strategy for some teams. It all depends on how the other teams approach pre match but everyone should buy into the overall strategy to optimize performance.

Citrus Dad

10-03-2014, 13:58

PayneTrain

10-03-2014, 14:10

One last point about FRC games in general--they are a team sport. It is 3 on 3 alliances made up of teams of individuals who make robots. If FIRST wanted this to be an "individual" sport, they would have designed one-on-one games. In a team sport individuals make sacrifices to help the team. Would you expect the left offensive tackle on a football team to grab the center snap and attempt a pass? But many of you would be amazed to find out that the left offensive tackle is often paid more than wide receivers and other "stars" because that tackle is the most important player in protecting the QB (who is usually right handed.) Remember that that not everyone can be the QB, but your team can be the best possible offensive tackle for the alliance.

That's a good way of putting it. When you negotiate strategy with alliance partners in qualifications, it's good to come in with scouting data of their team and say "here is where we see your strengths as an alliance partner" instead of "we need you to NOT do x, y, z". It's a lot easier to work with an alliance partner by telling them "I want you to give #### hell the whole match because we've seen you do it and this will give us all the win" instead of "just stay out of our way."

Granted like I've said in other threads, these challenges are not exactly unique to this year, they are just made far more obvious because situations where these challenges arise are far more prevalent.

JesseK

10-03-2014, 14:14

In 7 seasons of driver coaching, 3 of which my team has been successful out of the gate, there have been relatively few instances in Quals where I felt it may have been prudent to ask an alliance partner to not do something.

Want to do your 1-ball autonomous? Who are we to say no? My driver can probably get an errant ball regardless.
Want to put your ball on the field but not move it in autonomous? It's not the worst thing in the world.
Want to do your 2-ball autonomous you just created? Well, if you've done it on the practice field then sure. Otherwise we want to do our own 2-ball autonomous, depending on how "hard" the match is expected to be. If it's expected to be a blow-out, then generally I'll agree that you can do yours.
Want to play uber defense after consistently acquiring 100 foul points? I'm fooling myself if I want to believe you'll agree to a "no", especially on Saturday morning. You can do it, but you should at least touch our inbounded ball first.
Want to play high-goaler but you're typically 25% accuracy? I think the TRUSS is much better for you and (honestly) would play a key role in getting massive assist points if you do it right.

Finally, it has historically been easier for a team to agree to uber 'wingman' than uber defense, but I have yet to play this 2014 game. I have watched 8 streams at once though :D

Dival

10-03-2014, 17:23

As a couch in the 1st seed at our regional, I must admit I've played terrible strategies in the qualifications. While we could get 70-100 doing cycles alone, most of the times I chose to play many assists in the match, often causing us to make much less score than we could do playing alone. Most of the times I knew that we can play the match better if we work alone and let the other teams play defense, but I couldn't let the other teams stay outside the game. It's important to remember that while most of the teams you play with have no chance to enter the top 10 in the seeding, most of them would want to show themselves, hoping to get some nice 2nd pick.

Of course, in some cases I found myself dealing not only with teams that try to show things they can not do in the match, but also with plain lies. In one match one of the teams claimed that their auto worked in every single game, even though my scouters said that they didn't try it even once. I could not stop convince them to give up the auto, and needless to say, it failed.

There will always be those teams that are hard to convince to play for the good of the alliance rather than for their own, but even they have to be accounted in the strategy. Even strategically, it's important to play with your alliance rather than against them. Hopefully, if you give up some part of your ideal strategy (like letting a team try their auto) you will more easily be able to play other parts of the game as you wish, or even "take" the game if it is needed.

Overall, I must agree with Michael. I hate the fact that teams should give up showing their abilities in order to win a match. While in last year, for instance, team needed to play as creatively as they could in order to win the elimination matches, this year teams have to play in a very conservative way, in order to avoid hurting the whole alliance.

IronicDeadBird

11-03-2014, 15:05

Design wise this game has very easy tasks that rookie teams can try for the low goal or attempt a defensive goalie bot. Both are simple and easy concepts but to be pulled off at the competitive level is something completely different. Since a working low goal bot in order to function just needs a drive base every team does it. So doing it doesn't really give a rookie team the biggest sense of accomplishment. The goalie bot while also simple in concept requires a lot of thought and planning an amount that I would be startled to see a rookie team do. Since the height extension is limited to within the goalie zone the front of the low goals is open. I have only seen a goalie bot pulled off really well where it covers the high goal and the top of the low goal in one instance (if I am wrong please please please send me links). While possible the rules make it very strict in how well a goalie bot needs to be designed. If the robot is too flimsy it will lean to a side and go out of its 6 inch vertical extension cylinder, if its blocker is too slow then it is ineffective. If the entire team consists of low goals then the front is always out of goalie bots reach and in that instance the goalie bot is useful. Remember what teams have robots capable of scoring low goal? Every team with a working drive base. I expect any team that wanted to make a goalie bot would need access to field elements to test the robot. A lot of teams regardless of rookie or veteran don't have the space required to do such things.
So there it is, 2 tasks a rookie team can absolutely aim above and fall back on in case they couldn't make a high goal consistently, to me that makes this game designed fairly newbie friendly.
There is one slight issue though, all of the students have spent a lot of time putting together a robot and they want to see it perform to only what they designed it to do. They expect the best, they expect that all the hard work isn't for nothing. They want to see every function on that robot work because of the time and commitment. Remember though that it hurts man and the feels when you don't see your idea brought to life or executed as well as other teams. We all spent a lot of time putting together a machine that competes in this environment where the veteran teams don't just do the task they look cool. We all want to look like that veteran team we all hope that our robot can perform what we designed it to, regardless of weather or not its smart for the robot to take a shot at the high goal, weather statistically it makes more sense to just go low goal that requires disregarding every night these students spent on the robot because alliance members want to win.
So the solution is obvious: "Don't worry about winning and every alliance member will be able to play how they want!"
....
So the solution is obviously unrealistic.

dellagd

11-03-2014, 15:19

Unlike some previous games you can drive & play defense with little risk of fouls. So coaching a willing team can be effective.

I feel that this game is actually harder on teams for getting penalties while driving. While there is no "safe zone" of the other alliance that drivers have to avoid, that doesn't mean that you can't easily get penalties while playing defense. At our district event, I saw teams be penalized for simple repeated bumper contact of an opponents ball, causing it to move in a certain direction. The opponent ball may be rolling around the field, making a moving obstacle. To be safe, you really have to avoid it or not be moving when you touch it. This is a much harder thing to do that to just "not go near the key" of your opponent or "don't touch them if they are touching the pyramid". Watch out drivers.

dtengineering

11-03-2014, 15:24

Design wise this game has very easy tasks that rookie teams can try for the low goal or attempt a defensive goalie bot.

Rookies... our apologies... I do this too and generically refer to rookie teams as weaker teams.

Having had my veteran butt kicked by rookies, and having been invited in to elimination rounds by rookies, on behalf of all of us who use the term rookie as a correlation to a weak team... I apologize.

Yeah, rookies tend to be weaker, and no, the relative abilities of rookie teams is not the key point of this thread, but we have to remember that not all rookies are weak.

Jason

IronicDeadBird

13-03-2014, 00:33

For all intents and purposes I do mean weaker teams when I say rookie.
I should clarify that when I talked about rookies I do not mean to call out any teams in particular nor am I just talking about the teams new to FRC. Really "rookie" would apply to any low tier team regardless of what puts them at a perceived disadvantage. Regardless of how its taken being called a rookie, or a newbie, is only an insult when you add negative intent.
If you call yourself a rookie that doesn't mean you are less of a team, it just means other teams will react to you differently. My hope is that most teams hear rookie and take it the right way and go "I wonder if I can help them?" Instead of "what a bunch of new rookies."

All flowers start with seeds nothing to be ashamed of so lets just get the fertilizer and bloom a little quicker.

cadandcookies

13-03-2014, 00:49

I hate the fact that teams should give up showing their abilities in order to win a match.

See, I see this as more a failure/ intentional problem on the team's part than a failure of the GDC. FRC can basically be broken down half and half into strategy and execution. Executing a poor strategy/ set of design requirements perfectly (ie, prioritizing high goal shooting over drive train and intake) is as bad as executing a good strategy poorly (see teams that poorly mimicked Boom Done). Unfortunately, teams misread games and poorly execute designs relatively often (my own team is a very good example of this in 2013 and 2011). Personally, I think a better approach than blaming the game is to adjust my robot and match play to better suit the competition, even if this is a good deal of effort.

If a team is being asked not to do something, it's likely that they should be trying to either fix that something or find something better to be doing. This year, my team came to Northern Lights Regional trying to be an everything bot-- pick up, 10 point shot, truss shot, floor passes, the works. Our most successful matches came when we locked some of the mechanisms that we were trying to use effectively and focused on just inbounding or trussing. Now, going into North Star, it's quite likely that we'll still be trying to play those roles solidly and expand on our abilities from there.

I hope I didn't stray too far... it's late at night and I've been thinking about my team's robot a lot lately.

Yipyapper

13-03-2014, 01:23

I hope I didn't stray too far... it's late at night and I've been thinking about my team's robot a lot lately.
FIRST in a nutshell.

markmcgary

13-03-2014, 01:46

I think that I have figured out a strategy that can earn you a blue banner. You need to be able to understand the game well enough to design and build a robot that is so dominant at 'the game' that you do not need to depend on randomly selected alliance members to win during qualifiers. Do whatever it takes during qualifiers to ensure that you will be the first seed. Then, you can hand-pick an elimination alliance that can really play 'the game' so amazingly well that there is no way your alliance fails to win the finals. Bingo. Blue Banner. Am I close?

safiq10

13-03-2014, 07:05

I disagree with those who say this is a bad game.
I feel as if this game you must be much more strategic in your own team and others. Also Diplomacy is a big thing this year. I tend to think that higher ranking teams will have an upper hand on lower ranking teams. (if 148 asked me us to do something I pretty sure our team would go with that strategy... just sayin) but it will really all go to your dipolomacy skills. Also has any team gone the entire competition with a penalty? Thats our goal.

Bill_B

13-03-2014, 08:04

... but it will really all go to your dipolomacy skills. Also has any team gone the entire competition with a penalty? Thats our goal. without a penalty?

Also, is it undiplomatic of me to correct misspellings? I think I'm grateful that Dean and Woodie have not engineered an extra-syllabic phrase meaning diplomacy among alliances. How can I be professionally graceful about it?

Cam877

13-03-2014, 09:12

mathking

13-03-2014, 09:18

There is another important aspect to consider before you ask a team to "do nothing" or try to tell another team they must do something in qualification. Sometimes it doesn't make you look very good. And that reputation can be hard to shake if it takes hold. At the Championships in 2011 we played a match with a team whose mentor coach was incredibly bossy and condescending. Some toward us but even more toward our third alliance partner. We actually had very complimentary robots and easily won the match in which we partnered. A couple years earlier we had a similar experience with the same team (and same mentor) in qualifying. And the team members who were around in both years absolutely remembered. In 2011, based purely on a "pick the best robot to partner with" strategy we should clearly have picked them to be our allies in eliminations. We opted not to because of the ill will they had engendered because of their behavior toward alliance partners.

It wasn't even that what they were asking for was bad strategy or completely unreasonable. But they were demanding it and belittling or dismissing the suggestions of others. The really sad thing is that it was really just the behavior of their mentor and one of their drivers. The rest of their team had some great positive interaction with our team. Please be clear, I am not calling anyone in this thread out for bad behavior. This is a caution to think about what you are asking for and how you are asking it. Because ditching the reputation of being a jerk is a lot harder than winning a match.

JamesCH95

13-03-2014, 10:07

There is nothing un-ethical about asking a team to not do a specific task, but there are gracious and ungracious ways to discuss any concerns. I have found that if you calmly and objectively explain your concerns that your alliance partner(s) will be responsive to that input. We have been on both sides of this coin.

Remaining calm and objective during this discussion without becoming accusatory, defensive, or negative is critical. This is at the core of gracious professionalism IMO: being able to give and receive constructive criticism and work towards solving any issues that might be present. Deviation from GP with any interaction of this sort will get a team cross off my pick list in a heartbeat.

No one wants to lose matches, no one wants to incur fouls, but everyone has to be realistic about how they happen. Sometimes its a bad call from a ref, sometimes its a bad driving habit, and those on both sides of the situation have to recognize these causes. Above all: be realistic.

Did your team do something intentional or unintentional to draw a foul? If so, stop it! Find a way to avoid it in the future! Don't complain about bad ref calls.

Does your alliance partner own their prior mistake(s), explain why it(they) happened, and explain how they're going to avoid them in the future? If so, they got the message and no further discussion is needed.

Is your '100% reliable mechanism' not being 100% reliable? Call for help! Call a dead ball! Just don't sit there for 2+minutes trying, and failing, to complete a task when your alliance partner(s) can get it done.

ItalianMan

18-03-2014, 15:58

I think there is always some use, even if it isn't the most fun option.

Last year at VCU, my old coach helped another team win against 1st and 2nd seed. In order to do this, we had to make the other two robots sit in the way and block traffic. While this is similar to what you said, I think static defense is always an option for toaster robots.

Georgiawho

18-03-2014, 16:34

Should teams with experience and strong strategic influence tell teams on their alliance to simply not move at all or stick to a corner where they won't get in the way?

In qualification matches no "better" team has the right to tell another team not to play. Most robots will be able to do at least something (defense, push the ball, etc.) I personally do not think it shows any sportsmanship to "sit out" a lesser team for the sake of the better team's win. Every team that attends has a right to be there and a right to play. There's no inspection that a robot has to able to do a certain amount of things or perform to a certain extent to play the game, so we all have to work with what we get.

lamk

15-04-2014, 10:43

It's all about collaboration. Even a partially disabled bot can be a great asset. We got drafted by seed 1(4334) and seed 2(2013) in the canadian western regional final. Our shooter/ ball controller got disabled just before the elimination because one 3d printed part broke ( we've since replace all essential 3d printed part with cnc aluminum parts). Instead of telling us to sit in the corner, team 2013 did some modification to our bot with cardboard and duct tape to smoothen the assist. We become the best in bound player and defence. We score the second highest world score of 325 point in the quarter final and proceed to win the regionals.

Marcia Roberts

15-04-2014, 11:55

We had both sides of this happen to us during our regionals. In the end, you have a right to request that they not use something, but if you do you should explain why, and realize that they have the right to say no to your request. Also ALWAYS ask, don't tell. Give them a chance to prove you wrong. But you do have the right to ask them to demonstrate.

Max Boord

15-04-2014, 23:40

I think it comes down to specifics. I had to look at our match schedule and decide on a strategy to discuss with our alliance partners and sometimes a team needed to be put on full time defense/ put in a corner but to request so I went through a process:

1. Can this team be used for ANYTHING useful?
2. Can the other teams playing in that match improve the useless team to the point where they are no longer a detriment?
3. If 2 is a yes can we improve there mechanism, strategy, code and or driver skill in the ~ 1 hour time frame we generally had.
4. If the robot is still not competitive politely ask them to sit in a corner/ play defense. This should be done with scouting data and justification from both alliance partners showing that the match is more likely to be won with this strategy than by having them do an offensive task. I have truly never found a team who was mad about winning the match.

Kevin Ray

22-04-2014, 22:51

While competing in two regionals this season my opinion of the game constantly changed from horrible to okay, though never great. I did, however, solidify my belief that ANY team can contribute-especially in this game. A potato bot only has to push a ball a foot or so to get the assist. Even if they don't do another thing, each cycle they're contributing to the final 30 points in the assist portion of the cycle. In no other game has so simple an act contributed so many points!

What makes me go apoplectic, however, is when teams agree on a strategy--which is all so important in this year's game, then go out and do "what ever tickles their fancy" during the match. Because you are dependent upon your entire alliance for a "full" cycle, you need everyone's cooperation. It makes no difference whether you are veteran, rookie, elite team, under-funded or deep pocketed, you NEED to cooperate and stick to the strategy. We lost most of our matches this season because of this. In fact, some of the best matches we had were with poorly built bots driven by kids who still wanted to win so they stuck to the plan and we did win.

I'm hoping that the CMP is chock full of teams ready to "stick to the script".

Tmeziere

22-04-2014, 23:26

Before deciding on telling a team not to perform a specific task you should:
1. Have proof of them not performing the specific task well
2. Make sure the human players and drivers know rules
If they claim they have fixed the problem, and if time allows, going to a practice field is the best option. If they proove they are capable of a specific task, it would be rude to tell them not to perform a task for the alliance. After all if they can help why not let them?

AnonymousMarvin

23-04-2014, 13:17

I have been a strategist for my team in the past, and I know first hand that you can go into the match thinking your team has the best strategy, then you approach your alliance partners with your strategy and then they stubbornly refuse. During Qualification that is there prerogative; however, during eliminations the teams must bow to the alliance captain. if they decide that they don't want to give you a ball during auto, and your only job is to maybe play defense then you do your job and move on. I can also say that there is nothing more frustrating than deciding on a strategy before the match, and then having a team mid way through the match abandoning the strategy and going off on their own. This could not only hurt the alliance, but it could even cause them to lose the match. Like its been said, the only thing that you can do is move on and cross them off your pick lists.