[YMTC]: Robot Ability

[Taylor]

This isn't a traditional YMTC based on knowledge of the rules and gameplay, but I think this a fitting forum for my (hypothetical) situation.

Team Redabot has had a rather disappointing regional. A key component of the robot's manipulator has been malfunctioning for most of the event. It has competed in every match, mostly playing (rather good) defense. Just before the last match, the students get the manipulator working smoothly and effectively. The team has one last chance to show off their manipulator function before elimination alliance pairings, and all mentors have told the drivers and coach to score at will.
When the drivers and coach go to their alliance partners (two very strong offensive robots) to talk strategy and share their good news, the other members of Redateam compliment Redabot on their defense and ask the drivers to continue their pure defensive ways.

Here are the two options presented to the coach/drivers of Redabot:
1. Go against current alliance strategy and show off offensive capability, increasing their scouting stock and increasing their chances of being picked for eliminations

2. Stick with current alliance strategy and play pure defense, hoping that a win in this match would move one of Redateam's bots into a captain position, but keeping other team scouts in the dark about Redabot's scoring capabilities.

YMTC!

[Alex Cormier]

Good one i must say!

I would try to explain a little bit of the story to the alliance coaches, and agree upon. We would have 2 chances to score a tube, if scored as planned then go ahead and play offense for the remainder of the match. If the two 2 ringer attempts fail, then play the defense as prescribed in the meeting. Also watch the rack very closely, if losing by a big number, ditch the offensive mode and go play D against their best scoring robot.

[Jeff Rodriguez]

Have they been winning playing defense?
I'm a 'stick to what works' kind of person. If they've been playing defense and winning matches, than there's no reason to change.
If they want to play some offense, than you have to let the alliance know. Yeah, playing offense shows off their robot, but if they go against the gameplan the alliance has, than they'll upset their partners and won't get picked by them.

[ALIBI]

Redabot only has two choices. 1: Go Against Alliance or 2: Go With Alliance. A negative reputation of going against what the majority of an alliance wants to do is probably more damaging to a team than the benefits of showing off their offensive ability. Redabot should go with the alliance strategy.

We had several teams that had agreed to a certain strategy before the match and then went out and did something totally different. I.E. Bot A: play deffense - climb ramp. Bot B: play offense - climb ramp. Bot C: play offense - deploy ramp. Within 30 seconds Bot A deploys their own ramp withour ever playing deffense. Needless to say, the alliance looses. Bot C ended up in the top eight, Bot A was not on their list.

Redabot should have pointed out that the opposing alliance would be expecting the strong offensive bots to score and the previous deffensive only redabot to play deffense. As a scout, I would all ready know that the two strong offensive bots could score and that redabot was a strong deffensive bot. Assuming the redabot could score effectively, wouldn't it better the allinace to 1: surprise the opposing alliance by switching roles 2: give redabot a chance to show they can also play offense and give one of the other strong offensive bots a chance to show that they can play deffense or 3: go on an all out offensive attack and get at least a row of seven, watch to make sure that the opposing alliance doesn't get more than a row of three, if so, plan to switch at least one robot to deffense.

[Billfred]

Funny, you seem to have described 1618 at Palmetto this year.

Always thinking we'd figured out the arm problems, we would tell our alliance partners we'd try and get one human-fed ring, then go with our standard defense for the rest of the match. If the arm wasn't going, we'd just scrap it and go immediately to defense. (Then, if the arm ever did work at that one tube, we'd plan accordingly in the next match. We wouldn't dare change strategy in the alliance station.)

I'd ask my partners to let us score one or two rings as scout fodder, then go on defense. It's neither of the options really, but I've yet to find a set of partners not receptive to input from all three partners.

[Travis Hoffman]

My personal opinion - a team's own seasonal and robot design goals should never, ever be sacrificed to satisfy the standards or will of any other FIRST team or teams who believe they should be changed, especially when a team has been struggling all year to implement a robot function and is on the verge of seeing that function work on the playing field. The team wishing to use their arm to score and finally show off a capability their team members have collectively been working so hard all season to develop must proudly, confidently, and respectfully stand up for themselves and their right to pursue their own goals. This is not a case of being "selfish" or "un-GP" as many might be quick to label it. It's a case of having pride in one's own program and being free to practice any style of gameplay they choose given their robot's capabilities and the current game and rules.

One would hope that when politely confronted by the other team asking to use their arm and play offense, the two successful offensive teams would ultimately respect this right, understand how much this means to that team, and would do their best to work with the alliance to readjust their strategy around an all-offensive mindset. Just consider it another opportunity to rise to the dynamic challenges a FIRST competition presents to its participants. No amount of rankings glory is worth the disappointment of an entire team when they don't receive the opportunity to prove the effectiveness of their design.

Too often, I feel we all default to taking the perspective of the veteran teams' viewpoint when evaluating these situations. How can we humor the struggling team's wishes while still maximizing our chances of maintaining a high rank, etc.? We call it a compromise and move on. But are we asking the struggling team to sacrifice too much? It is really a fair compromise? I need to ask myself these questions more often. Being a member of a veteran team, I don't know if we've ever been placed in the position the two offensive teams are in here - I typically don't follow the pre-match scouting conversations of the countless matches we've prepared for; all I can say is that if we ever have been faced with this situation, I hope we made the right choice. I'd venture a guess that at some point(s) in time, however, we did not. I'm thinking that perhaps many veterans have fallen into that trap from time to time. For those teams struggling to achieve their own "little" victories at an event, victories that may get lost in the hype of other teams' pursuit of ranking stats and competitive elimination glory, don't let those teams lose sight of the big picture of why we're all truly there together. Help keep everyone tethered to reality. Just stick up for what you believe in. Communicate your conviction honestly and gracefully, and be persistent. No one team or person is above the need for a little "re-educational reminder" every so often. No one team or person is perfect, but that's ok. :) Good luck to all teams as you pursue your individual dreams.

[Beth Sweet]

I'm going to go with "do what works to win". Sometimes the goals that you set out for your robot to do originally just don't pan out. Example: Our original plan was to be a 2 robot, 12 inch ramps and platforms. We went 2 regionals before we could get that to happen in Atlanta. But we took our lemons and made lemonade. We used our arm for 2 regionals, seeding 9th (#8 alliance captain) and 6th respectively. Sometimes, you just have to go with what works.

In the case of this, I would suggest that, given the options, the team do what it needs to in order to contribute to the alliance as much as possible. While I don't condone forceful defense, I think that the "get in the way and prevent a score" strategy grately contributes to an alliance this year.

[Greg Needel]

I feel like I see/ am involved in this situation every year and it never gets easier. Fortunately for the sake of this discussion you pin pointed 1 detail that makes it very easy.


Just before the last match, the students get the manipulator working smoothly and effectively. The team has one last chance to show off their manipulator function before elimination alliance pairings

You need to do what will make you win the match! IMO most of the final picking decisions are finished before that point which you speak of, infact most are 90% done on Friday night with some small adjustments on Saturday based on the rankings and any changes that might happen. Which brings me to my advise to do what will win. I am assuming that from your description the team has been winning matches by playing defense then keep your ranking high because many teams won't rank enough robots and will turn to the rankings and some teams may want you for your defense ability. While I think every person on every team can identify with your situation the example that is given here is one of those "to little to late" ones. The best thing to do is to go to the top team and tell them that you are working and try to draw them over to the practice field to show them in order to gain one of those valuable late 2nd round pick spots.

[kawelch]

I've seen several situations where a veteran team will TELL my rookie team what to do in the strategy session. It's not a democratic discussion but rather a dictatorial decree. In those cases I tell my students to do what they want. If however, it has been discussed and everyone is on the same page, I expect my students to try to do what they agreed to do.

[Greg Needel]

I've seen several situations where a veteran team will TELL my rookie team what to do in the strategy session. It's not a democratic discussion but rather a dictatorial decree. In those cases I tell my students to do what they want. If however, it has been discussed and everyone is on the same page, I expect my students to try to do what they agreed to do.

This is the exact reason that we will always have an adult at the strategy session and in most cases on the drive team.

[dlavery]

I've seen several situations where a veteran team will TELL my rookie team what to do in the strategy session. It's not a democratic discussion but rather a dictatorial decree. In those cases I tell my students to do what they want. If however, it has been discussed and everyone is on the same page, I expect my students to try to do what they agreed to do.
This is the exact reason that we will always have an adult at the strategy session and in most cases on the drive team.

and since, at least during my observations of the process, it is usually an adult coach from a team that tells their allaince partners what to do (rather than discuss it), this is the exact reason that we always allow only students on our drive team.

-dave

[petek]

Defense doesn't have to be just pushing other robots around. I'd give Redabot a ringer right away and play "offensive defense". Better yet, make it a spoiler - nothing gets everyone's attention like a robot with a black ring (and Redabot does want attention, right?)!

Also, if you're gonna get between opponents and the rack, you might as well put something up when you can. If the manipulator does work, your drivers may have the opportunity to show that they can keep the opposition from scoring and put some points up themselves.

[Greg Needel]

and since, at least during my observations of the process, it is usually an adult coach from a team that tells their allaince partners what to do (rather than discuss it),
-dave

I agree with this 100% and we have also seen that most students will just lay down to whatever the adult says. This also goes farther then match strategy as I have witnessed other adult coaches yelling at kids from other teams during the matches, having an adult on the drive teams makes this less likely to occur Until there is a rule that it is just students allowed on the drive team we will put an adult in there as a "defense" and then it is just up to us to make sure that adult is not doing the same thing.

[IndySam]

I think the whole “adult on the drive team” thing is for a different thread.

Getting back to Mike's original question....


At that point in time the scouts have made up their minds about what you are. If they are considering you for a pick it won't be for your offensive ability so an offensive show will be much less important than showing them more strong defense and getting a win. That’s what they will be scouting you for.

[Dan Petrovic]

Defensively score.

Place tubes in the way of the opponent's rows so they can't get a row higher than 3 or 4.

Defense is simply keeping the other team from getting a lot of points. It doesn't always have to involve pushing and shoving.

[George1902]

As a coach, it's my job to see what tools our alliance has to play with and what obstacles the opponents will be throwing at us. I'd have to honestly assess how well I think my team could cap with little to no drive practice on this newly upgraded arm. This is how I would probably approach my partners:

"You guys are capping juggernauts. That's what we need you to do. We'll play our match on the other side of the field and try to draw attention away from you guys. While we're there, you know we can play some hard defense, but my pit crew just told me we finally got our capper functional. If we get the chance to make a few defensive caps and maybe a spoiler cap towards the end, we'll try it. Basically, you two throw up lots of tubes, and we'll make their two minutes very difficult."

This seems like a reasonable proposal. Smart cappers will love to be able to play on their own side all match.

Under no circumstances would I abandon the plan just to fulfill our own personal goals. If our goals are that important, it's my responsibility to work them into the game strategy somehow.

[Shoob189]

Personally, I think you should go with your alliance if they can provide solid reasoning for you to play defence (which they seem to have done) and if they aren't dictating it to you and not listening to your opinion. Being a main strategy person on my team, one of the most frustrating things I've run up against is when we come up with a strategy with one of our alliance mates and the other alliance mate refuses to cooperate without providing good reason (ex: they don't cooperate just because they don't like it). I believe in making sacrifices for the good of the team. If I can provide something my alliancemates want, I'll do it even if it is less favorable to me (ex: playing defence with a scoring bot). It is a hard decision to make (especially if you just got it working). Who knows, mid-match the oppertunity may come where you need to put one up or change strategies.

[Bharat Nain]

You go with the discussed strategy. If you settled on playing defense, then play defense. This is very important because if you follow the strategy, the teams you are partnered up with might be in the top 8 and may feel like picking you even if it is second round. However, if you broke the strategy, you are off their list. At least our list. If during the course of the match there is no defense to be played, then of course you should take a ringer/spoiler and cap it.

If the team really wants to play offense(in this scenario), they should let their alliance partners know that is what they are going to do. This way, at least they can compensate/change/play along with that strategy. I think it's all simple enough.

[Andy Baker]

Under no circumstances would I abandon the plan just to fulfill our own personal goals. If our goals are that important, it's my responsibility to work them into the game strategy somehow.

George knows what he is talking about... this is exactly right.

I am always amazed by the abrubtness of people in a pre-match strategy session. It's not a student or adult thing, either... I've seen an equal number of forceful students and adults.

If I am involved in a strategy session, the first thing I ALWAYS say to the other alliance partners is this:

"what do you want to do in this match"

Our drive team has an idea of what we want them to do, but it's more important to know what they want to do initially. From there, we try to meld what they want to do into what we want them to do, and meet for a comprimise.

In this case, if I were the team that Mike's team was approaching, I would recommend that they start with scoring 1 or 2*. If they do well, then they could keep scoring. As the coach, I would monitor their progress and still coach our drivers. We could switch our plan and go play defense, if needed.

* Just how much freedom this team would have would greatly depend on just how much the teams in the alliance needs this win. Unless we would be in the top 16-20, this match may not mean much to us. The other teams in the alliance may agree. However, if one of these teams are in the top 10, there is no way they can afford a loss. So, this team would be hard pressed for any risky moves. If that was the case and we were in the top 10, I would suggest that this team score 1 only and then go play defense for a while... then get back to scoring 1 at the end if the situation allowed.

AB

[Chris Fultz]

it needs to be an "alliance strategy", not one teams strategy pushed onto the others.

I would have the discussions and see what works best for the group. Like AB said, how critical is the win for all three teams, and how much risk is the alliance willing to take. Ideally, the team can show off their scoring capability for the first 30 seconds then switch to another mode of play to assure a win.

Once the strategy is agree, then everyone needs to play what was agreed. the worst possible solution is saying YES and then doing your own thing.

I am usually part of these discussions for 234, and work hard to avoid pushing any particular plan, but instead makeing sure all teams input is heard and evaluated. I try to summarize and be sure we all agree and understand, then review it again just before the match.

I have seen 'bully' leads that were students and mentors - we just have to manage around it.

[Grant Cox]

Regards to the original thread:

Offensive all the way. Not only is this game better when played with 3 offensive robots *cough*, showing that they have the ability will influence other teams' scouting reports for sure. Everyone knows that they can play great defense already, why not throw mediocre ringing in there too? Who knows, the elimination alliance they're on might have picked them for their defense with the option to score if needed. In this game, being able to do both makes you very appealing.



Regards to where the thread seems to have gone:

Adults vs. Students: It doesn't matter if you've got Andy Baker with his whiteboard or little Susie from across the block, all that matters is how well that person knows the game. If little Susie spends all day reviewing the rulebook and watching match videos, she may be better than an adult in a similar position. One of the best pre-match strategy sessions for us on Friday (in my opinion) was with 1126 and their awesome student coach. He knew more about strategy than a lot of the adult coaches had during the day, and by the time the match came we had a flawless plan. The match itself was lost due to unforeseeable circumstances, but that's not the point.

Democracy vs dictatorship: For those of you saying "well the veteran team ordered us to do things we didn't want," you need to stand up for yourself and say "I believe we can do this better, it would probably be more beneficial for the match if you let us do this" because if the veteran strategist knows anything about what they're doing, they'll use every robot on the team to their full ability. If they came in with the idea that team X is going to score middle on the far side, and team X is actually much more comfortable (and better) playing defense, that might be what wins the match (being good at one thing, not being mediocre at another). I find it hard to believe that a FIRST coach would refuse to let a robot do what they're good at.

Whatever you do, don't just switch strategies on your own without the whole alliance adjusting the idea as a whole. If something happens and you feel the need to play defense or ring somewhere different or whatever, tell the other coaches. [shameless plug] Whenever I hear Paul say "agh this isn't working, try going to the other side" it's immediately followed by "hey guys we're going to the far side, don't bother defending the front anymore" or "try and move the row back there and we'll connect" or something like that. I've also heard the opposite, "hey our arm just broke, we've gotta switch to defense" "okay we'll fill in your row." it can be fixed, if your teammates know what you're doing. Too many times have I gone back to review the video of a lost match, only to see that team Y didn't even attempt to do what was discussed in the pre-match meeting. What's the point in discussing it if you're just going to ignore it?



*breathe*

[jagman2882]

Adults vs. Students: One of the best pre-match strategy sessions for us on Friday (in my opinion) was with 1126 and their awesome student coach. He knew more about strategy than a lot of the adult coaches had during the day, and by the time the match came we had a flawless plan.


thats my little brother!!! he must have learned from me:D just kidding thats all him!!! Dylan Gramlich is his name. I do agree tho, he goes into those strategy sessions knowing what needs to be said

[Pavan Dave]

and since, at least during my observations of the process, it is usually an adult coach from a team that tells their allaince partners what to do (rather than discuss it), this is the exact reason that we always allow only students on our drive team.

-dave

I have a question about veteran teams telling rookies what to do. If everybody says "stick with what works" than if the veteran team has experience, I believe they would be saying "what works" since most veterans have some sort of scouting system. Why would this not be a "stick with what works"? I understand if the tone of the speaker was a bit demanding or if they were rude, but why change the game plan and sabotage a good plan?


Pavan.

[Liz Smith]

I have a question about veteran teams telling rookies what to do. If everybody says "stick with what works" than if the veteran team has experience, I believe they would be saying "what works" since most veterans have some sort of scouting system. Why would this not be a "stick with what works"? I understand if the tone of the speaker was a bit demanding or if they were rude, but why change the game plan and sabotage a good plan?


Pavan.

I think that you are the only ones who know what your robot is capable of doing. For example, if you know that your ramp is broken, you're not going to volunteer to lift both robots during a match, no matter how consitent your robot has been in previous matches. I think that pre-match strategy discussions should not be dominated by one team, no matter how long that team has been around, or how much scouting they have done.

I remember once in 2005 (Think tetras) before one of the matches, one of the mentors from one of the teams on our alliance was pressuring us to agree to cap specific goals. The problem was, we were better at placing the tetras underneath the goals (a strategy that had made us a finalist and a regional winner). Though our robot may have been able to complete that task, we had only capped the goals a couple times and were not confident that we could do what they wanted us to. If they were the only team with input into the strategy of that match and if we didn't speak up, we probably would have wasted a lot of the time in that match. I'm all for asking "what do you want to do in this match" rather than telling "this is the best way for us to do things".

For this situation? I think that a good coach is the key. You can choose a strategy where you try to score for the first X amount of seconds, and revert back to defense if certain things happen. If you can't score within X seconds, you'll go back to defense. If an opposing team is scoring ringers left and right, then go back on defense. If you spend the whole two minutes trying to score one ringer, while the other alliance has just scored 256 points, there is a problem. As long as the coach is keeping a good eye on the clock, and a good eye on what's going on around on the field, and is communicating with the other teams on the alliance, the match should be successful.

[JesseK]

As a mentor who was also the drive coach and one of the strategists, I believe that it is more beneficial for your team to do offense in a situation such as the OP's. It's more beneficial simply because it shows the fruits of the labor the mechanical/programming team put into a manipulator. It shows them what it actually took to get the durn thing working! Now maybe next time they can plan ahead & design/test instead one fire and then the next.

Strategically, it could help your alliance out as well. If you explain to them the other capabilities of your robot, and that you'll attempt to "score one on the way by" and then cap the back (effective defense b/c you get in the opposition's way too), you have an argument that is tough to fight. It was also my experience that scouts have your greatest strength figured out before your final match.

Typically the students on my drive team would do the scouting for our next alliance, simply so they could get the full experience of having to work with other engineering-minded people. The one thing to teach is that regardless of how great your mind is or how knowledgable you are, you still HAVE to be able to communicate well. I would simply step in and suggest ideas for strategies (like how to split the opposition's defense in our 256-scoring match in Atlanta), but for the most part we would all stay open to others' ideas. Hopefully others can learn to do the same since I don't see alliance-style matches going away any time soon.

[Graham Donaldson]

We had a couple of situations similar to this this year: we were a single bot @12" ramp, excellent defense, and modest scoring capability. Our goal at the beginning of the year was not necessarily to be a team that picked, but a team that is picked. In this year's game in particular, a lot of the high-scoring teams seeded high. Chances are, they'll pick an offensive bot and a defensive bot w/ a ramp. If you can play good defense and help win matches consistently, you'll get picked. Stick with the plan.

[kawelch]

To quote Mel the cook on Alice... "The best D-fense is a good O-fense." I agree that if you can place ringers while playing Defense...DO IT. Run around with a spoiler waiting for the best opportunity. Just the threat of a spoiler can mess witht the other teams plans....

[Jimmy Cao]

I would try my best to talk to the other alliances. If they're both strong scoring robots, then they can prob still win the match with you playing decent offense. Most teams would understand that you want to try to make your robot stand out, and they will prob let you play offense if u try to talk to them and reason about it.

[dilbert]

During the strategy talks, did Redateam ever ask the other scorers if they could try and hurdle at the beginning of the match? What I would have done was ask the other alliance partners if we could try to hurdle at the beginning of the match. If we are ahead, we would continue hurdling, but if we fell behind, we would start our defense.

[Vikesrock]

During the strategy talks, did Redateam ever ask the other scorers if they could try and hurdle at the beginning of the match? What I would have done was ask the other alliance partners if we could try to hurdle at the beginning of the match. If we are ahead, we would continue hurdling, but if we fell behind, we would start our defense.

This may have led to some strange looks in an '07 strategy meeting :ahh: