No-show teams and trailers

[StevenB]

In the past, if a team, for whatever reason, could not bring their robot to a match, they could nonetheless send their drivers or human player and receive match points for that round. The same rule applies this year (section 9.3.6).
However, I have not seen any rules discussing what happens with the trailer if a team shows up but does not bring their robot. Does the trailer get placed on the field anyway?

[IKE]

It would be nice if they had a set of acetol blocks to mount the trailer hitch to so that it is at proper orientation if they are going to leave it on the field. Plus this might help prevent the tongue from gouging into the floor.

[Jimmy Nichols]

I think they will leave the trailer on the field, in all fairness to the game play from both sides. But what concerns me is the trailer tongue sticking out in midair and a robot running into it or over it and damaging their bot in the process.

[A.Lathrop]

Interesting... Could be a strategy, however I see it very unlikely. Maybe they would eliminate a trailor from the other team to compensate. :cool:

[Taylor]

This would give the "short" alliance an advantage - they have 3 goals on which to score, whereas the "full" alliance only has 2. I imagine the trailer will be a sitting duck for the match, which means a non-working robot is an absolute killer for the alliance.
I also expect Q&A clarification on this rule.

[Nuttyman54]

I asked this on the Q&A last night.

IMHO, they will have to leave the trailers on the field. The definition of a "no-show" team in the rule book is one that has NO members of the team (including Payload Specialists) at the field. Therefore, a team that sends their PS out but no robot still gets the qualifying points, ranking points and win/loss from the match. If the trailers are removed, then the best robot is the one that doesn't show up for the match.

An example: Alliance A has the 3 best robots at the regional and are expecting an easy win. Alliance B had the three worst robots at the regional. Alliance B sends only their Payload Specialists out to the field. Therefore they all will get the points for the match, but because they don't send robots out, there are no trailers present for alliance A to score in. It is now impossible for alliance B to win. Alliance B can send balls flying with their human players, and out of 60 shots, only one has to go in to guarantee a win, because alliance A cannot score any points.

I also agree with IKE that they should have a jig to keep the trailer upright and from gouging the floor.

[Asa]

At San Diego last year they asked a couple teams to step into unfilled matches, but did not count their score.

I imagine they'll ask teams to tow the trailer and work with the other robots for strategy, but not score.

[Richard Wallace]

Back-in-the-day (before the alliance era) FIRST provided a Placebo robot to fill no-show slots. The Placebo had no scoring capability, and fairly limited mobility. One such Placebo was actually a hovercraft, IIRC. I don't recall if there were others.

Perhaps FIRST should provide non-functional Placebo robots to stand in for no-shows in Lunacy. Placebos could be built using the AM C-Base chassis with no drivetrain, fitted with standard bumpers and trailer hitch, and ballasted to the maximum inspection weight. Trailers assigned to no-show teams would be hitched to Placebos instead.

Alternately, perhaps no-shows should simply be prohibited. Put another way, teams might be required to place a robot on the field and hitch it to a trailer, whether they think it can be competitive or not. A non-functional robot would behave much like the Placebo described above, and would save FIRST the cost of deploying and maintaining several for each event.

[Chris Fultz]

Alternately, perhaps no-shows should simply be prohibited. Put another way, teams might be required to place a robot on the field and hitch it to a trailer, whether they think it can be competitive or not.

Except this would then remove the robot and 4 members of the team from the pit and the team would lose 20 - 30 minutes of build / rebuild time, possibly causing them to have a non-functioning robot for another, later match.

[Richard Wallace]

Except this would then remove the robot and 4 members of the team from the pit and the team would lose 20 - 30 minutes of build / rebuild time, possibly causing them to have a non-functioning robot for another, later match.Fair comment, Chris. Time to build, improve, and/or repair robots is a precious resource.

How would you interpret <S04> in the case of no-shows?<S04> Permitted ROBOTS - Any ROBOT used during a MATCH must be in compliance with all Robot Rules (as defined in Chapter 8). Any ROBOT in violation of a Robot Rule will automatically be assigned a PENALTY and may receive a Yellow Card, depending on the severity of the infraction.Should a no-show team's alliance partners be excused from the penalty required by this rule if the team says "our robot isn't ready so we won't compete"?

[Nuttyman54]

Back-in-the-day (before the alliance era) FIRST provided a Placebo robot to fill no-show slots. The Placebo had no scoring capability, and fairly limited mobility. One such Placebo was actually a hovercraft, IIRC. I don't recall if there were others.

Perhaps FIRST should provide non-functional Placebo robots to stand in for no-shows in Lunacy. Placebos could be built using the AM C-Base chassis with no drivetrain, fitted with standard bumpers and trailer hitch, and ballasted to the maximum inspection weight. Trailers assigned to no-show teams would be hitched to Placebos instead.

I thought of this too, but it actually isn't a good idea. The former placebo was not allowed to affect the score of the match at all, and in this game it has to, by definition of the fact that it moves and therefore moves the goal. In a game where moving is key, a team with a robot that can't move or drive very well is then better off saying their robot is "broken" and having the placebo play instead.

[IKE]

I really like the idea of just a kit frame with wheels, bumper, and a hitch. The weight value I see as negoitiable, but I really like the chassis idea.

I think we will have an extra kit frame this year. If FIRST can provide some wheels, I know we could donate a stationary bot.

[Mike Starke]

One thing that I do see, is that if FIRST did send a trailer out by itself, it's starting position is right in front of an opposing teams PS. As an insult to injury, that alliance could stock up on moon rocks in that PS position and at the start of the match have an easy shot to score points on the robotless trailer. I am intrigued to find out the ruling.

[JimWright949]

I really like the idea of just a kit frame with wheels, bumper, and a hitch. The weight value I see as negoitiable, but I really like the chassis idea.

Driven by randomly choosen adult mentors (who are not from any team in the match)! This would give me a chance to finally drive one of these things in a real match.

-Jim

[klanicam]

One thing that I do see, is that if FIRST did send a trailer out by itself, it's starting position is right in front of an opposing teams PS. As an insult to injury, that alliance could stock up on moon rocks in that PS position and at the start of the match have an easy shot to score points on the robotless trailer. I am intrigued to find out the ruling.

I was thinking the same thing. However, if the red alliance had a dead trailer in front of the blue's fueling station, wouldn't that prevent the blue alliance from herding moon rocks to that player?

I can see robots trying to move the trailer out of the way, but I can see that as being hazardous to the field.

If they would force the team to an inoperable robot on the field, that could be even harder to remove from the fueling station.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

If a team doesn't show up, I'd like to see a caster (made from a kit wheel) attached to the tongue of the trailer with no robot, so that it can be pushed around.

This would change the dynamics of the game when a team could not be there.

[IKE]

http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_6970_150886_150886

Northern tool has a swivel trailer jack stand for $17.

Says it has a 750 pound capacity which should be enough for our trailer.

Seriously who has ever heard of a good trailer without a tongue jack?:confused:

[EricH]

Fair comment, Chris. Time to build, improve, and/or repair robots is a precious resource.

How would you interpret <S04> in the case of no-shows?Should a no-show team's alliance partners be excused from the penalty required by this rule if the team says "our robot isn't ready so we won't compete"?Remember that it's kind of hard to violate a rule if you aren't there...

I expect that once asked, this will show up in an Update on Friday.

[JesseK]

If a team doesn't show up, I'd like to see a caster (made from a kit wheel) attached to the tongue of the trailer with no robot, so that it can be pushed around.

This would change the dynamics of the game when a team could not be there.

Interesting concept.

Since the trailer hitches are supposed to be 7" wide I wonder if we could hook up 2 trailers to 1 robot in such a scenario. Even if it reduces a robot's mobility twice as much as 1 trailer does, it's better than just leaving the thing sitting around as an easy target.

[GaryVoshol]

How would you interpret <S04> in the case of no-shows?Should a no-show team's alliance partners be excused from the penalty required by this rule if the team says "our robot isn't ready so we won't compete"?

Remember that it's kind of hard to violate a rule if you aren't there...
<S04> starts, "Any robot used during a match ..." If it's not used, there's no penalty under <S04>.

[Carbon419]

Yeah, from what I understand the trailer is placed on the field and is basically open for any opposing team to score on. SO.... show up!:D

[Matt C]

Ok, but how is it held level? or is the tongue just hanging out in the open?

[GaryVoshol]

Yeah, from what I understand the trailer is placed on the field and is basically open for any opposing team to score on. SO.... show up!:D
Where do you understand this from? Has it been stated in any FIRST documentation? Cite, please.

[Rick Wagner]

I want to verify I haven't missed something, but after the third update, there still seems to be no Q&A response or rules update that addresses this issue. The trailer tongue for a no-show robot will gouge the regolith when it gets shoved out of range of an opposing PS by an alliance partner. The trailer will also rest at a non-vertical angle, and might be tipped over backward fairly easily.

I would have posted my own Q&A question on this, but someone earlier in the thread said he would ask.

[cardinalman86]

Since the trailer hitches are supposed to be 7" wide I wonder if we could hook up 2 trailers to 1 robot in such a scenario. Even if it reduces a robot's mobility twice as much as 1 trailer does, it's better than just leaving the thing sitting around as an easy target.

Haha! Would you even be able to drive like this!?! It would be really awesome to see, but i don't know if the robot could get enough grip on the regolith to pull both of the trailers at the same time and still get enough speed not to get completely tossed around... it might be something to try.

Would you also fit within the LAUNCHING PAD?

[DMetalKong]

One thing that I do see, is that if FIRST did send a trailer out by itself, it's starting position is right in front of an opposing teams PS. As an insult to injury, that alliance could stock up on moon rocks in that PS position and at the start of the match have an easy shot to score points on the robotless trailer. I am intrigued to find out the ruling.

I doubt you will see teams try and take too much advantage of this due to G14.

[ChrisH]

I want to verify I haven't missed something, but after the third update, there still seems to be no Q&A response or rules update that addresses this issue. The trailer tongue for a no-show robot will gouge the regolith when it gets shoved out of range of an opposing PS by an alliance partner. The trailer will also rest at a non-vertical angle, and might be tipped over backward fairly easily.

I would have posted my own Q&A question on this, but someone earlier in the thread said he would ask.

They probably have asked, but we won't see it until the GDC deigns to answer. We have a team trailer constructed and it is not very tippy at all. I don't recall if the hitch reaches the floor, but the low bumpers make great stabilizers and the possible angle off of vertical is not too great.

[Rick Wagner]

Thanks, Chris.

[GaryVoshol]

If the GDC is concerned about protecting the trailer tongue from hitting the side of a towing robot's bumper, surely they will be concerned with a robot running over a loose trailer tongue.

Note that this is not a life-and-death-designing-the-robot question. It won't matter until competition starts, so they may be getting to more important things first. Or they may be trying to come up with some kind of jig to use.

Has anyone asked?

[Nuttyman54]

Has anyone asked?


I asked this on Q&A the day it opened. Still no response.

[ScottOliveira]

It seems like it would be fairly easy to detach the tongue from the trailer, it's only held in by a few easily accessible bolts (at least that's how it appears in the provided technical drawings.

I think the best solution would be to detach the tongue and attach a caster to keep the platform upright.

[Ian Curtis]

I want to verify I haven't missed something, but after the third update, there still seems to be no Q&A response or rules update that addresses this issue. The trailer tongue for a no-show robot will gouge the regolith when it gets shoved out of range of an opposing PS by an alliance partner. The trailer will also rest at a non-vertical angle, and might be tipped over backward fairly easily.

I would have posted my own Q&A question on this, but someone earlier in the thread said he would ask.

If you look at FIRST's field drawings (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/2009%20Game%20Specific%20Drawings.zip) the trailer hitch is pretty different than the one in the team drawings. The end of the rod is a hemisphere, so I highly doubt it will scratch the regolith. (Sorry, I can't remember the exact drawing number! It's in there though!)

[Rick Wagner]

It will be interesting to see if the answer comes tomorrow on Q&A. Even if the tongue has no sharp edges, robots can run up on it or in a worst case scenario, the trailer gets tilted back for a second and a robot gets impaled on the tongue. The suggestion above, to remove the tongue for safety, seems to me to be workable. Removing the entire trailer, as has been pointed out, is apparently unworkable from a game dynamics viewpoint.

Perhaps the best solution, ultimately, will be to introduce a special tongueless trailer with a third wheel (no caster necessary, I think), just for the case of no-show robots. That means building extra trailers or modifying existing ones in realtime during the competitions.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

It will be interesting to see if the answer comes tomorrow on Q&A. Even if the tongue has no sharp edges, robots can run up on it or in a worst case scenario, the trailer gets tilted back for a second and a robot gets impaled on the tongue. The suggestion above, to remove the tongue for safety, seems to me to be workable. Removing the entire trailer, as has been pointed out, is apparently unworkable from a game dynamics viewpoint.

I suspect that we will just see surrogate robots playing for any robot that does not show.

[Rick Wagner]

I suspect that we will just see surrogate robots playing for any robot that does not show.

I wonder if the surrogate robots will have autonomous modes and what they will be.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I wonder if the surrogate robots will have autonomous modes and what they will be.

Surrogates are usually nothing more then a stand in team (without the penalty issue of <G14>)

[Rick Wagner]

Surrogates are usually nothing more then a stand in team (without the penalty issue of <G14>)

That could work. Would the no-show team still play their payload specialist? I suppose so.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

That could work. Would the no-show team still play their payload specialist? I suppose so.

Yup. Full team. Just would not get the ranking points or W/L record.

[EricH]

I don't know about having surrogate teams (outside of the normal ones). It's kind of like, "Hey could you guys fill in for team XXXX right away?" You're really going to irritate some people.

I also don't see this being too much of an issue. 90% of matches have two full alliances. The other 10% are mainly due to broken robots. Stick the robot onto the field, get it away from its launch pad, and disable it or drive around doing nothing.

[ScottOliveira]

There is generally a fair number of teams willing to be a surrogate alliance member, just to get a little more practice and a little more exposure.

[Kevin Sevcik]

There is generally a fair number of teams willing to be a surrogate alliance member, just to get a little more practice and a little more exposure.There is also one very harried person in charge of team queuing at each event. If you told this person that they'd have to hunt down a surrogate team for every no show, in addition to hunting down the no-show, they probably wouldn't like you much.

Not to mention how it would screw up the scoring software, or the team/match list for the MC, or....

It's just not going to happen. There's far too many difficulties involved compared to just leaving a trailer out there.

[EricH]

There is generally a fair number of teams willing to be a surrogate alliance member, just to get a little more practice and a little more exposure.
And they've never been used. Ever. Except in the official surrogate matches or as a backup in the eliminations. (OK, and in practice matches.)

[Rick Wagner]

Leaving the no-show robot's trailer out there would have two benefits: first, it would emphasize the importance of getting your robot ready on time. Second, it will lead to some interesting autonomous modes and driver team play in "rescuing" the lonely trailer from its starting position.

[GaryVoshol]

There is generally a fair number of teams willing to be a surrogate alliance member, just to get a little more practice and a little more exposure.Beside being a queuing nightmare, how are you going to regulate it? "Brokenbot from team 9999 can't play, can we get a surrogate? OK, Pink will do it." Yeah, that'll go over well with the opponents.

The other 10% are mainly due to broken robots. Stick the robot onto the field, ...At least two problems with this. First, you pull the broken robot out of its pit for 20 minutes or so, making it less likely it would get fixed for the following match. Second, a broken robot hurredly patched back together to sit on the field could be an illegal robot (they forgot to include something). Now Brokenbot has just caused their alliance a penalty, and maybe a yellow card (see <S04>).

[Rick Wagner]

Update 5 is out today but this issue is still not addressed.

[martin417]

I asked this on Q&A the day it opened. Still no response.

I still haven't seen a response. I would think this would be an easy answer. Why no response? I don't think anyone would plan a strategy based on this, but I would like to know the answer...

[MikeDubreuil]

Why no response?
Since the GDC hasn't responded I'll take a guess...

The answer to the question, "what to do if a robot doesn't show up," is much more complex that previous years. It's also a question that doesn't need answering until 27 February.

[EricH]

The answer to the question, "what to do if a robot doesn't show up," is much more complex that previous years. It's also a question that doesn't need answering until 27 February.I was thinking the same thing. You have to do something without giving an advantage to one alliance (other than the 3v2).

Leaving the trailer on the field: point-blank for the payload specialists, the 2-team alliance is going to be at a huge disadvantage.

Taking the trailer off the field: 3 targets as compared to two, the 2-team alliance will be at an advantage. To further confound matters, it now becomes valid strategy to not show up for matches.

You could leave the trailer on the field and supply a house robot, but that's more transportation issues. You could leave the trailer on the field, but disable one of the 3 robots (randomly), but then somebody will complain that they were messed up because they were with 1114 vs. a 2-team alliance and 1114 got shut down.

You could remove one trailer from each side and disable the unconnected robot (see above for the objection, though this is more fair--you choose who gets the trailers). You could leave the trailer on, but put it at the outpost--there's a limited supply there. You could leave it on and not allow it to be scored on for x time.

In short, there's many ways to do this, it isn't critical to do it now, and somebody's going to be unhappy any way you do it. I think the GDC is thinking this one over carefully and throwing around ideas, but not exactly in a hurried manner.

[GaryVoshol]

I still haven't seen a response. I would think this would be an easy answer. Why no response? I don't think anyone would plan a strategy based on this, but I would like to know the answer...
This post from another thread probably answers this question:
To put Eric's comments into a nutshell -

a) a trailer is field equipment

b) thou shalt not damage field equipment

c) it has been so since the beginning of time.
I can confidently say the GDC is aware of the issue - at the least, Dave wouldn't have missed these threads, and people have posted to Q&A. Likely they are working on a solution that will allow the non-roboted trailer to be on the field but not present a danger to itself or to the other robots.

[JesseK]

Here's an off-the-wall solution....

How about making a queue such as what was seen for practice matches in 2008. If a robot doesn't show up, then the first team in the queue is put in their place. If that team is busy, on the field already, or doesn't want to come for whatever reason, simply put them at the back of the queue. The match couldn't count for the bot that subs in, win or lose The match would count against the team (and only that team) that didn't show up -- i.e. a loss, regardless of whether the alliance won or not. This would keep the alliance from being hurt while also penalizing the team that didn't show up.

The only way to abuse this is to sacrifice your team for the good of another team if the sub is a dominant bot or a friend of your opponents. There are some sketchy scenarios that could be derived from doing this on purpose, so we'd have to rely on good faith (or disallow the top N-ranked robots from sub'ing in) for it to work.

To pull this off, the GDC would have to re-write some code for the scoring/ranking system -- so maybe it's feasible, maybe not.

[Justin Montois]

It's an interesting thing to think about. This is the biggest risk to designing a game that is so dependent on robots in terms of actual match play.

It's for this reason that I never thought that we would see a game like this. What puzzles me is that I'm sure it had to come up during the design of the game, but they went on with the game anyway, which tells me that when this subject did come up, they had a solution or otherwise maybe they would have made a different game.

I wouldn't think it would be that hard to answer, seems there are only three options(2 of them being somewhat unfair an the last would being ?randomly unfair?)

Option 1- The Goal is place on the field with some sort of rolling support device. (Advantage the alliance with three robots.)

Option 2- The Goal is taken off the field. (Advantage Alliance with 2 Robots)

Option 3- A surrogate list is available for teams to sign up to be called in if a Robot is a no-show.(Advantage Alliance with 2 robots if say your surrogate partner is an elite team)

The only reason why they might go with Option 2 is that while the team with the no-show robot only has two goals, it also only has 2 robots to score with.

I remain interested in the ruling......

[Rick Wagner]

Leaving the trailer on the field: point-blank for the payload specialists, the 2-team alliance is going to be at a huge disadvantage.

The 2-robot alliance is always at a disadvantage in any year. It might be a little more apparent this year, but it gives a nice challenge for autonomous mode for a robot to "rescue" an unattended trailer. I see no need for special action but to remove the tongue from the lonely trailer. The message from the GDC will likely be "show up for your matches!"

[ScottOliveira]

The 2-robot alliance is always at a disadvantage in any year.

Agreed. Removing a trailer would minimize the disadvantage, but 3 robots would still have the upper hand.

[EricH]

The 2-robot alliance is always at a disadvantage in any year. It might be a little more apparent this year, but it gives a nice challenge for autonomous mode for a robot to "rescue" an unattended trailer. I see no need for special action but to remove the tongue from the lonely trailer. The message from the GDC will likely be "show up for your matches!"
I said huge disadvantage. Any 2-team alliance is always at a disadvantage, yes, but this year it will probably be more like showing up with 2 robots to a match against the Triplets in 2006 instead of your more typical 3v2 disadvantage.

[Elgin Clock]

I see no need for special action but to remove the tongue from the lonely trailer.

The trailer only has 2 wheels. Sitting on the field without the tounge could & probably will pose a safety hazard if a robot hits the trailer & it tips (since it will be more subject to tip at that instance than when attached to a robot) - Although, they could just have a dummy wheel attached to the trailer without a robot in that case to give it more leverage & stability, or they could go a bit further than that (See my suggestion below)

The message from the GDC will likely be "show up for your matches!"

I have to say in my strong opinion that the GDC can not be that brash about this subject.
In the past robots have been denied to show up for matches (especially on Thursday) by inspectors or other officials at the events because they are a safety hazard. I don't want a blanket "You better show up on the field!" if a team is in their pits fixing a robot so it's safe for operation.


My suggestion, & I'm not sure if this was mentioned before, is to have 2 simple kit-bot chassis, with bumpers of course (without electronics, or with the basic electronics included on them to have it register for the field software if necessary) in place (re: packed with the field) for every regional just to act as a placebo to hold the trailer for a team that doesn't show up. The other 2 teams on the alliance will decide which of the 3 spots it will be placed in.

2 kit-bots per regional (one for red & one for blue) shouldn't be that hard to come by or include with the field.

If MORE than 1 team doesn't show up for any particular alliance, I'm not sure of a recourse for that. I wanted to originally offer that one trailer would be removed if 2 teams on one alliance did not show up, but that just gives the opposing alliance an unfair advantage with trailers to score in.
But maybe that evens things out a bit though???

[Rick Wagner]

No argument there. The two-robot alliance is likely to lose if the trailer is left in the crater. Show up for your matches with a working robot!

[artdutra04]

I still don't know why everyone is coming up with weird and complicated "solutions" to the no-show-robot issue.

The issue should be simple: a regardless of whether a team's robot is there or not, the trailer should still be there. Whether you think this is fair or not with the whole 3v2 alliance issue, this is the only solution that does not yield to strategies like purposely not putting your robot on the field to limit your opponent's scoring potential.

As for "possible damage" to the robotless trailer, I think most reports on the death of the trailers are greatly exaggerated. These things have [hopefully] been designed to withstand rigorous game play attached to robots. How would removing them from a robot magically eliminate their durability?

Might they tip over easier sans robot? Potentially. Might the ends of trailer hitch scrap the floor? Potentially. Is this solvable with a Delrin (or similar engineering plastic) plug stuck on the end? Yes.

If you really don't like the whole 3v2 issue, why not do something proactive about it? Before the matches start at every regional, all teams get a match list. And any team on top of their game will always go check out those teams well before their match to talk about strategy, make sure the other team's robots are operational, and help in any way.

At the very least, make sure all teams you play with have a drivable robot base with a trailer hitch. That may mean sending some students or mentors over to help them [re]build a drivetrain or fix their teleoperation/autonomous code. Whatever it takes. At least a drivable robot can move their trailer away from the human player at the start of the match.

[Bob Steele]

Art makes some interesting points.

I think the simplest thing to do is take any empty trailers off.
Sure you only have two targets for scoring but the other team has only two robots to do scoring. I would have to say though that this would PRECLUDE the other team from using their human player.. So if you don't show up with a robot you don't get to score from your position with a payload specialist. That double hit evens the scoring in my opinion...

the team that is short a trailer is also short a payload specialist and a robot.

I also think the "placebo" robot (unpowered weighted chassis) connected to the robot is worth a look as a solution.

It would only be used in situations where there was an uneven number of robots. In all other times you would just take off the 2 or 4 robotless trailers and proceed with the game. In this way you just have to have one of these at each event.

Example 3 robots don't show up... 2 from blue 1 from red.
To even the field you take off a single blue and a single red trailer.
Hitch up the 3rd empty spot (blue) to the PLACEBO Bot... and let everyone play The single blue robot would have a tough time but it would be aided by three human players but it would still have to deal with only one PLACEBO scoring trailer.

I still think the first option is the best one...
No robot... no human player... no trailer...

You lose the human player but also lose the extra scoring opportunity for the other team...I do believe that allowing a no robot team to play as payload specialists would unbalance the game.

I think many of the teams would consider this an equitable solution.
Of course... many will probably disagree...

Good luck and see you on the field...
We plan on being there every time...and we WILL be checking with our alliance partners AND our Alliance opponents well before each match to see if there is anything we can do to help them get on the field

(This year the Seattle Regional has 25 Rookie teams.... our team AND the rest of the veteran teams there will have to work especially hard to help them all get on the field and stay there....)

oh and pardon me in advance for referring to the Payload Specialist as the human player...old school you know..
All these new terms/names confuse many of us that have been around awhile... you know that we are all really weak and feeble minded...so treat us with kindness...an occasional pat on the head would be nice...

[The Lucas]

Here is a fun twist to the placebo idea: Autonomous Placebo Bot :D . Its simple just:

Just make a kit bot
Give it a crazy dead reckoning auto routine that runs for the whole 2:15 match.
Hook the no show trailer up to it and GO!

It is not a huge disadvantage because at least the bot moves.
It is not an advantage (incentive to no-show) because they don't get to drive it.
It could be pretty fun. The auto code could be written by someone interesting (Imagine what crazy things Dave might program it to do). Or maybe the other members of the alliance could program it.

[Rick Wagner]

With all these options, it will be interesting to see what the GDC finally decides on this issue. In the meantime, my team is assuming the nominal case of the trailer being left on the field and programming autonomous alliance partner trailer rescue.

[Elgin Clock]

Here is a fun twist to the placebo idea: Autonomous Placebo Bot :D . Its simple just:

Just make a kit bot
Give it a crazy dead reckoning auto routine that runs for the whole 2:15 match.
Hook the no show trailer up to it and GO!It is not a huge disadvantage because at least the bot moves.
It is not an advantage (incentive to no-show) because they don't get to drive it.
It could be pretty fun. The auto code could be written by someone interesting (Imagine what crazy things Dave might program it to do). Or maybe the other members of the alliance could program it.

With a 40lb spare parts rule this year, a team could litterally make a (albeit small) placebo bot & bring it to competitions to run in case their original bot fails on them.
Could be an interesting interpretation of the rules, & it would save your butt!
(That whole... One team only competing with one robot rule/assumption could be interesting to debate though. :p)

Or what about a random substitution?
I know I'm asking the match list software to show it's power with that one now, but it could work. :cool:
It will be done at mini comps, that's for sure.
We had the little Speed Racer (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/31919)come in & substitute for multiple teams multiple times last year at BattleCry (& Bear Brawl too I think) when the original team couldn't show up.
How much did Speed Racer weigh again? Around 40 lbs??? ;)

[Mr. Van]

There will be no-shows - especially on Friday morning. Just think about the bumper rules this year. How many teams (some have already posted this as their plan) are going to say "it seems OK to us, we'll let the Inspectors decide" only to be told that they must correct their bumpers.

For some of these teams (in order to have a completely supported bumper, for example) may have to make MAJOR changes to their chassis. Note if the kit chassis is assembled according to the instructions, it can not pass inspection because of the unsupported corners. How's that going to go over with unsuspecting rookies?

FIRST has always allowed teams that were working on their robot to send out a human player to participate. Previously, it hasn't been so important, but this year, the human player is able to score in exactly the same way a robot can. With Supercells, the star human player is worth potentially 30 points!

The trailer is part of the playing field. Seems to me that if if a robot is not available to tow one, it remains on the field. Any other options lead to craziness - (no show strategies, complaints about replacement 'bot capabilities, etc.)

If the trailer is not on the field, even if you take away the human player, then the three-robot alliance is at a disadvantage (even more so if there are two no-shows).

Just thinkin' about it...

-Mr. Van
Robodox

[lukevanoort]

Couldn't you just place a cap over the unattached trailer and one of the trailers of the other alliance? Then both alliances have the same number of scoring oppurtunities (goals), one just has an extra robot to score with (which happens in 3v2 matches anyway). Not showing up then bcomes a rather useless strategy since nobody can score.

[GaryVoshol]

We had the little Speed Racer (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/31919)come in You didn't see the anti- Speed Racer definition this year? 1519 should be proud of having a section of this year's manual dedicated to last year's efforts.
ROBOT - A FIRST ROBOT is a remotely operated vehicle designed and built by a FIRST Robotic Competition team to perform specific tasks when competing in the 2009 competition “Lunacy.” The ROBOT must include all the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game – power, communications, control, mobility, and actuation. The ROBOT implementation must obviously follow a design approach intended to play the 2009 FRC game (e.g. a box of unassembled parts placed on the field, or a ROBOT designed to play a different game, would not satisfy this definition).

[Nuttyman54]

Art makes some interesting points.

I think the simplest thing to do is take any empty trailers off.
Sure you only have two targets for scoring but the other team has only two robots to do scoring. I would have to say though that this would PRECLUDE the other team from using their human player.. So if you don't show up with a robot you don't get to score from your position with a payload specialist. That double hit evens the scoring in my opinion...

In order to make this work you would have to require that the trailer gets removed only if NO member of the team shows up (a true "no show" in the FIRST rules), such that the team would receive a DQ for the match. If you do not, a team simply has to send only their driver to the match (with no robot) and they will get points for the match, which means that a good team playing with bad partners can easily ask their partners to not play, providing a distinct advantage without a largely negative effect on their partners.

[Andy Brockway]

GDC has decided...the trailer stays.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=10932

[MrForbes]

If a team fails to send a Robot to the Arena for a match, the Trailer is still placed in the Crater on the Launching Pad, but the tongue will be supported by a placebo hitch.

Robots may interact with the Trailer throughout the match, as deemed appropriate by the game rules.

This will be fun!

[EricH]

Mighty big incentive to show up for matches and help your partners do the same!

Now, what will the placebo hitch look like? I would suspect something simple, but you never know. I don't really care at this point, because it will never have to be used in competition... RIGHT?

[Elgin Clock]

GDC has decided...the trailer stays.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=10932

Make a note of that. If you want a question answered, then ask it 9 times on the official FIRST forums, & start a thread that has at least 64 replies here.

'bout time! Good thing I really started paying attention to this thread yesterday & they used a truely simple idea that could have been answered weeks ago.

Could of been a frustrating wait if that wasn't the case... </sarcasm> :rolleyes:

[lenny8]

Man i dont know if this is a disadvantage or not. i mean if you complty fill the unmaned trailer you still have to worry about the no super cell rule. so if its not in your gameplan to use a super cell then this rule is sweet but a super cell can win the game so idk what do you guys think?

[MrForbes]

Which of the two robots in your alliance has the task of pushing the no-show trailer away from the other alliance's PS?

[BigWhiteYeti]

If your robot doesn't show up for a match, do you still get hammered by G14 if your alliance manages to double or triple the other alliance?

[lenny8]

Which of the two robots in your alliance has the task of pushing the no-show trailer away from the other alliance's PS?

yea because me and the posible human player this year can make shots from the whole 50 feet :D better watch out for 1018 with this rule:cool:

[Elgin Clock]

Aye... everyone here is making things so difficult! lol

Which of the two robots in your alliance has the task of pushing the no-show trailer away from the other alliance's PS?

Either one. That's now your additional challenge to the game for the last 2 remaining alliance partners - Should have checked with them ahead of time to make sure they were fixed ! (imho)

If your robot doesn't show up for a match, do you still get hammered by G14 if your alliance manages to double or triple the other alliance?

If I were to argue one way or another I would say YES.
My reasoning is that if the answer was no, & I knew a team racked up the score, I would intentionally ditch a match so I wouldn't get a penalty. ;)

But that's not very nice, now is it? Leaving your partners left out to dry just because one (or both) tend to double scores, & they are high risk teams!
That's not cool to be able to choose your destiny like that even before you enter the field.

[Brandon Holley]

This was the ruling I expected....it seems to me that the GDC would not "lessen the punishment" for a team if they did not show up by taking the trailer off the field, or by putting a cap on it or something like that.

You better help your teammates are showing up every match, because its going to be terribly difficult to win a 3 v. 2 matchup.


thanks for the update squirrel

[Jared Russell]

Make a note of that. If you want a question answered, then ask it 9 times on the official FIRST forums, & start a thread that has at least 64 replies here.

'bout time! Good thing I really started paying attention to this thread yesterday & they used a truely simple idea that could have been answered weeks ago.

Could of been a frustrating wait if that wasn't the case... </sarcasm> :rolleyes:

I think that the GDC has been focusing on answering robot design questions first, since those are of immediate importance to a lot of teams. The answer to this question shouldn't affect many (any?) designs.

[Taylor]

You better hope your teammates are showing up every match, because its going to be terribly difficult to win a 3 v. 2 matchup.

With the threat of a <G14> hanging over their heads, I doubt the alliance of 3 will be terrorizing the empty trailer. I have the feeling that games will be both higher-scoring and closer than we think now, especially in the later regionals.

[Brandon Holley]

With the threat of a <G14> hanging over their heads, I doubt the alliance of 3 will be terrorizing the empty trailer. I have the feeling that games will be both higher-scoring and closer than we think now, especially in the later regionals.

I totally agree with that statement.

I still feel as the control of the match will be totally in the hands of the 3 team alliance.

Control meaning, if they want to score, they can score at will...

[MrForbes]

You better help your teammates show up every match.....

fixed quote :)

[Brandon Holley]

fixed quote :)

hahaha perfect, thank you squirrel

[Rick Wagner]

Which of the two robots in your alliance has the task of pushing the no-show trailer away from the other alliance's PS?

My team has been discussing this and we plan to have autonomous modes for this task. It will be best to place the missing robot at the outpost and then autonomously sweep the trailer into the friendly corner.

[Ken Streeter]

You didn't see the anti- Speed Racer definition this year? 1519 should be proud of having a section of this year's manual dedicated to last year's efforts.

Thanks for remembering Speed Racer! I don't know whether or not the GDC added that definition to try to prevent our dual-configuration robot (http://www.mechanicalmayhem.org/Team-1519-Multi-Configuration-Robot.pdf) from last year. However, I don't think the new "robot definition rule" would prohibit the dual-configuration robot design that we brought to the Granite State Regional last year.

The dual-configuration robot was prohibited on the basis of the fact that our dual-configuration robot had two different "basic robot structures," which still isn't explicitly prohibited in this year's rule.

In any case, we're glad to have gone down the path of the dual-configuration robot. Even though the GDC outlawed the dual-configuration robot (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8985), during the offseason we separated the dual-config robot into two separate robots, which permitted us to undo the many compromises that we had to take in order to make the "dual-config robot" a reality. In particular, we were able to add additional drive motors to the hurdling configuration, increase the frame strength of our speed racer configuration to better withstand high-speed impacts with walls, increase the number of frame gussets and other reinforcements on both configurations, and make a new electronics board for speed racer which didn't have to lug around the victors and other wiring needed for the more complicated hurdling configuration. After removing the compromises we introduced for the dual-configuration robot, the resulting two different robots each ended up leading tournament-winning alliances at off-season events. We'll fondly remember both Fezzik and Speed Racer.

[lproxster]

I think Bill's blog covered this topic (http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/2009/02/talking-about-trailers.html) a while ago.