Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

What I'm driving at is that pre-selection and during qualifications, go wild, help each other out as much as you can. Post selection I don't think a team should be allowed to strip out large parts of their alliance's robot and then bolt on their own solution to the game; but they should be allowed to help work to improve the other team's robot.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Yea, I think this is the grey area that makes me cringe... as I'm not sure how to write a rule for it.

There is a very important distinction to me about an attitude in post alliance selection, saying "I am looking at your robot, and I am going to work with you to make you as effective as possible for our alliance, even if it means drastic changes or a limited role". That has value as a teaching/inspirational moment.

If you have brought a pre-built mechanism/passive element that can be bolted onto almost any donor robot, and their only thing that third partner brings to the table is a donor robot and ability to hit a button (or run an auton routine)... the intent of bringing said mechanism in on Thursday really seems much more stilted towards providing your elimination alliance with an advantage, not general goodwill. I also know that we are all quite competitive, and as teams continue to make more modular designs and get better at integration... without a rule prohibiting it, it is tempting to bring these bolt on solutions.

I actually like the idea of doing whatever you want in qualification matches, or maybe even cutting it off Friday evening. If you want to bring a pre-built mechanism in your bag or withholding to help another donor robot succeed... knock yourself out. Make them awesome. However, other teams can scout what you did... and pick up that now awesome robot.

If you want to modify a robot on Saturday, it needs to be from raw materials or unmodified COTS parts.

I'm sure that has 1000 issues wrong with it, but it feels alot better?

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I think the difference with this year is that, if there's an alliance on the other side with better potential than you, you can't come up with some clever strategy or play amazing defense to beat them. You just have to hope they fail to meet their potential. Not exactly a feel-good moment.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

What would happen if, a rookie team came to you, or one of the other high ranked teams, on the first day of the competition, and said. We only have a drive base, what can we add to it to help you in the finals. We would like to build a can burglar, create an auto that helps score the robot team points, and build a ramp or two that will help your team in the finals. Will you help us do it.

I think this is a perfect opportunity for a team with no hopes of winning, and no plans on going past one or two districts or regionals, to have a much better event that they could have realistically planned on having with another game.

I agree with many people that it seems wrong to grab a low ranked team and turn them into a ramp anchor. But is it different if that team takes the initiative and does it themselves. Especially if they start on it on the first day and instead of just being a ramp anchor, they can also grab a couple of cans in auto, and then move to the auto zone, before being driven to sit in a safe out of the way place. At least they are doing something then.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I have been on some teams that "were on a diet" throughout the build season and competition season. It was not fun nor was it inspiring for anyone on the team. Perhaps, there are more opportunities to give and receive cheesecake at the competitions because some of the teams that had been on a diet finally see the futility of their diet and decide to accept cheesecake.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

There's a 6 week build season and 2 days prior that I'm more than willing to spend helping teams build their robots. As Brando mentioned above, we host numerous teams in our already crowded lab. As well as outright help 10+ teams build their drives week 2 of build each year. And spend the event helping teams (in fact that's a good chunk of my job at Rhode Island this weekend).

Sorry, if with all that our pick still can't move, I don't think we should have to put them on the field. And in a lot of cases, it's not a function of pick a better robot. (27 event district, more than 3 didn't move or show up to numerous matches).

And if you want the most blunt response you'll likely get in this thread - Sometimes the nicest thing you could do for the team is to not make them play. Just let them observe how an alliance communicates, the stresses of elimination play, and what decisions go into it. I think we're awfully focused on the robot being out there, but less focused on the more important issue of what teams take away from playing with strong teams.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

For many of these such teams- especially newer/young ones- the concept of coopertition, where another team is coming to help them is foreign. They may not know the willingness of some teams to help. I've seen this firsthand numerous times.

-Brando

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Also we forget sometimes that the other teams have input in to this. I know if I was on a team that couldn't contribute I'd be working to make it contribute and I'd keep it off the field. Hurting your alliance no matter what the intentions doesn't really help anyone.

We sat out our first few matches at Rock City while rebuilding our robot. We could have driven in all those matches but nothing else. It didn't make sense for us to get in our partners way, we asked most of our partners if they were okay with that decision or did they want us to drive. None of them choose drive.

Going back to last year we played with teams who were happy to just sit and inbound the ball, and at times we played matches where we were happy to sit and inbound the ball. Strategy decisions should be left up the alliance.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

The FRC GDC have to take responsibility for designing a game where theoretically, the winning alliance on Einstein can:
- have two robots
- "win" the game in the first two seconds

Whether or not that will transpire is mainly irrelevant, but what is up for discussion is what we do from here.

If you asked me (note: not my team, me personally) whether I would be willing to win a district/regional/district championship where my robot was:

a) not on the field
b) on the field did not move/tethering a cheesecake
c) only moved in the first 5 seconds using cheesecake

I would still be happy when we won, because I enjoy winning, and it would be a ticket/aid for getting to World's.

I honestly don't know how I would feel if it was actually at World's. I imagine bittersweet, especially for scenarios a and b. But I don't know if my team would feel the same, and it is apparent people in this thread would have different answers. It would after all be a valuable learning experience, and an opportunity we wouldn't have otherwise.

Ultimately, as has been said in previous years, GDC needs a means of designing better games, especially avoiding those that unwittingly put GP and winning in conflict. For this year, I think any "ruling"will be difficult to enforce, and it should be left to individual teams to accept or deny a certain role. This specific cheesecake rule is also ambiguous and requires further explanation.

Also while cheesecake is delicious, it's also very unhealthy. I'm not sure if that makes the metaphor more or less apt.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Ironically, the story I've heard several times from FIRST officials at various events is the story of how a robot failed to arrive at a competition and all of the other teams contributed to build a new robot in one day so the team could compete. That single act of the best "coopertition" would now be illegal. What stories will FIRST be able to tell now?

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

So you want to tell every alliance captain at every event this year that they are only allowed to play a strategy that their event will allow them to? That is extremely disheartening.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I can tell you from personal experience, it's awesome. In 2006, my senior year of HS, I attended Worlds with 971 as an "unqualified" team (aka, pre-registered). We didn't play in elims at our one regional (SVR) and we placed 80th out of 83rd in the division. Our robot could barely move, and we only won one match. It was still one of the most inspirational experiences I've ever had, and the same was true for the rest of the team. We made friends with teams from around the world, and that experience of observing and being awestruck by the best teams in the world was a catalyst for 971's rise to one of California's top teams.

Any way you qualify for Worlds, go. It's incredible.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

No, if you want your 3rd bot to do something specific that would benefit multiple alliances, go help all 3rd bots to accomplish it.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Ohh yes... the help everyone or help no one gambit... always a favorite strategy of mine.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

If you truly have another team's best interest at heart, you want them to do their best regardless of what alliance they compete with.

I'm arguing that team ZZZZ shouldn't get to compete with 2 team ZZZZ robots instead of 1 team ZZZZ and a third bot.