Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

It may have been at IRI, but it goes to show that the fourth bot isn't completely useless.

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

A 4th bot at IRI is an early second-round pick at worst anywhere else.


I do know of some cases of an AC sitting out, but the one I most remember happened back in the 2v2, 3/alliance days when the AC swapped out with the 3rd robot and the 2nd robot played every match. That one resulted in a regional win (AZ '04).

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

As opposed to the hundreds of regional/district events that have 4 robot alliances? :ahh:

Like what the heck? You can't use the regional level baseline and apply that to 4 robots on an alliance, because they aren't remotely comparable. Obviously.

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

*chuckle*

OK, serious question: How many total 4-robot alliances were there at the regional/district level (and DCMPs) this season? I can account for one (at Ventura, semis IIRC).

Now, how many were there at CMP? (64)
IRI? (8)

I don't think I'd be willing to bet on IRI having more 4-team alliances than the entire regional/district level, but I'll go with IRI having more than the regional portion of that.

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

Just wanted to weigh in on the "When should the captain sit out" discussion.

We were the captain of the 4th seed on Tesla. We played exactly 1 match in Elims, because that was the best strategy.
Both 2415 and 3130 could shoot from the outerworks. 3042 was a crazy good defense bot (see SF for proof). Our bot had only rarely been enough of a threat to warrant defense, so we weren't great against it (we got in off of the waitlist, and made a massive upgrade). It made sense to run 3130, 2415, and 3042 in elims, so we did.

As an additional bonus, our robot has technically never played in a match and lost at champs :D (more from luck than anything else).

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

My team was the 3rd pick for the 4th Carson alliance this year. We took home a blue banner for winning the division despite our robot never set its wheels down in eliminations. The vibe of my team was that we didn't earn the banner. Rather than being ecstatic about winning, the team was wondering why we weren't picked earlier and why our alliance captain didn't sub us in. I think our major flaws were not being able to shoot from the outerworks, our limited defense crossing, and we were easy to block as a low shooter. The team was happier seeding 8th, and losing in the quarter finals at MAR champs.

This thread has shown me that 4th pick bots do contribute, but I haven't read many accounts of a non-playing 4th pick bot that contributed on a similar scale. Some stated that they helped repair a broken alliance bot. I know I will get a lot of flak for this next comment, but I stand by it. No matter how hard you work to repair an alliance bot in say an hour or 2, it should not be given the same recognition that is given to a team who spent 6 weeks on their robot, and (at least) a whole other competition to qualify for champs. In our case, it sure feels like a participation award.

I think the contributions of a 4th bot vary wildly. Some are absolutely key to the alliance's strategy, while others are cheerleaders. I've like to see them removed, or forced to play. As stated earlier in this thread, forcing the bot that did not play in match 1 to play in match 2 would be the bests fix.

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

I understand what you're saying, but didn't the second part of this statement apply to almost every 4th robot at champs? They spent six weeks on a robot too; they got picked based on the quality of their robot, and they attended another competition where they played well enough to qualify for champs?

I'm not really in favor of removing the 4th robot - the alternative is 8 more teams miss eliminations, and Championship alliances are less reliable and strategic. I understand the arguments for requiring them to play at least one match, but I'm not entirely sure on that yet.

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

Your success is all perception. You can look at it as being the 4th pick out of 4 bots on your alliance. If you look at it like this, then yes you were the worst robot on your alliance (Don't look at it like this). You can look at it as being the 28ish pick out of 75 robots in your division. If you look at it like this, then you were roughly better than 2/3 of teams at Champs. Now that is something to be proud of. You can just be proud of qualifying for Champs, something only 600 out of 3000 teams did. With that view, you performed better than roughly 80% of FRC.

Just because elims was the last thing you played, it doesn't mean your perception of your elims performance should be what you base your opinion of the entire season on. I've found myself falling into the same trap as a team that has been about 40th-50th in New England the past few years. It is really easy to be caught up in the fact that we ranked 50th out of 60 at District Champs and forget that we ranked 50th out of 180 in New England.

Yes, its okay to be disappointed that you didn't go farther or rank higher, but you should also be happy about how far you got. 4th bots are not picked out of pity, they are picked because the alliance sees value in them. They earn there spot just like every other robot.

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

The way I look at it is that one of the big lessons of FIRST in general is to maximize and utilize the resources available to you. The best teams in FIRST have the same laws of physics as everyone else. Good teams are the ones that maximize the resources available to them.

At the beginning of the draft, each captain is given 3 chances to maximize the resources available to the alliance. The 4th robot in the winning alliance is the team that the winning alliance captain deemed as maximizing their available resources.

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

The alternative to the 4th bot is the next highest seed... this robot may or may not compliment the alliance. And I think that's where the 4th robot brings the greatest value. The alliance knows if it hits the fan, they'll have a decent replacement. And that team won't have to get up to speed on anything, they already know (or even formed!) the strategy and how to fit within the alliance on the field.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

While I agree with you, I'd like to remind you that you come off the same way on a very regular basis. As much as I find it amusing when you tell off some high-and-mighty CDer, you rarely do it with any tact at all. So, while condemning the cliques and aggressive rhetoric of CD is good, you're just as deep into it as the rest of us.

Also, friendly shout-out to 5254 and 20, who are good NY teams. Especially 5254, who is one of the most underrated teams in FRC.

Back to the topic at hand

1086 is a good team. They make good robots. They made valid contributions to the world champion alliance. They are a world champion. Never have I seen an alliance where I really felt that the 4th team wasn't making some sort of contribution. It's not about their robot, it's about their team. Even if their robot isn't on the field, they're still in on strategic discussions, and can help in making those choices. They still have a pit full of things that can help fix robots, or help put on blockers, stuff like that. They have human players. They have a team of excited students, cheering alongside the other three teams.

It's annoying, honestly. After seeing it in action at MARC 2014, I'd argue that this kind of rule constricts the strategic capabilities of a 4-team alliance, and makes the 4th team into an "ugh, just play them now and take the L" team, instead of a "we can play them instead of xxxx in this situation" team.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

Can someone give me a tl;dr of this thread? Summer CD is too much for me to actually go through.

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

4th bots can be both useful and not useful.

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

But regardless of what the 4th team does, the 4th team is just as much a part of the alliance as the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

See my earlier post about how our 4th bots contributed in both 2014 and 2015 without ever playing. They had tremendous strategic value. Think of nuclear missiles--the US and USSR never used them but they were key to how the conflict played out.

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

Hmm ....

Would I want my team to be selected in support of a mutually assured destruction strategy?

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

Just think about it. If ur team was considered as part of a mutually assured destruction strategy, that means that you must be hella good to do some damage :D :D :D

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

:)

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

Yes, case in point... ;)

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

That actually happened in the 2015 semi between 118's alliance and 1114's. The two sides agreed that deployment would end up worse than playing it out as it did. And it was probably the most dramatic match of the year.

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

Re: Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

Oh wait, not playing is a losing move also. :( Now, about that game of chess...

Ike may have made the subtlest xkcd reference I've seen on CD yet. Props!

Re: IRI Alliances
 

The decision on whether or not use Team 900 was based on the readiness of the harpoons. The harpoons weren't ready and tested enough by our standards, as such we decided to play it safe and keep 1923 on the field. I actually had no insight into 5012's can grabbers and what they involved until months after the event.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

Thanks for the explanation, Karthik. Some of us in the nosebleeds kept wondering why that evil harpoon array never made it to the field. A MAD standoff makes a good story, though.

Isaac saw what I was thinking immediately -- he and I think alike often. BTW, I don't recall an xkcd reference. My thought was about the end of the 1983 film War Games, in which the NORAD computer learns (by playing a lot of Tic-Tac-Toe before running a lot of simulations) that global thermonuclear war cannot be won.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

Off topic, but https://xkcd.com/601/

Maybe the fact my mind went to xkcd first means I have a problem :P (although WarGames is a great movie)

Re: IRI Alliances
 

Ah, so a reference to a reference.

Reminds me of a college friend who watched the 1948 film "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre". When Bogart asks the bandits (who claim to be Federales) to show their badges, they respond with the classic, "we don't need no stinking badges!"* My friend had been using that line for many years without knowing where it came from.
-------------

*Not the actual quote. See the clip.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

Karthik,

This is how I understand it as well.

However, I do remember hearing from 118 about some discussion to negotiate a 2 and 2 can split in our SF versus the 1114 alliance? I wasn't privy to the discussion at the time, so this is second hand information. As I understand, our alliance opted to take our chances and try to get more than 2 cans off the step. I believe this was at the risk of seeing 900's harpoons (which we were all terrified to go against!)

The alliance negotiations for every match on Einstein were something else! Great memories.

-Mike

Re: IRI Alliances
 

WOPR with the operating system known as Joshua. It was one of my favorite movies to have on in the background while I built things out of legos. Closely followed by another 1980s gem where I learned the odds of finding a 5 leaf clover.

*Warning some possible stronger language than I remember watching it on WGN channel 9.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

My daughter's FTC team taped a 5 leaf clover to their robot in 2015 for good luck. Although as someone who has found multiple 5 leaf and multiple 6 leaf clovers, I question his math.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

The old field at my high school (before they changed to turf) had one spot where one could find clovers of 5 leaves and up easily. My brother's cross country team raided it, and my brother came home with 2 8- or 9-leaf clovers, although apparently another kid found a 12-leaf.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

We were afraid to deploy them! ;)

I even seem to recall some mentor comments about how had we used them then FIRST would have been destroyed forever or some such hyperbole.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

I remember the discussion vividly. There was a bit of confusion about the match schedule in the semis. At first we thought we'd be playing you guys in our first semi match, so a 2-2 can split seemed like a good idea for both alliances. However, we then realized we were playing each other in the last semi match. Going into that match we had a 25 point lead, thus a 2-2 can split would have put you at a bug disadvantage. As such we agreed that we'd fight for the cans. This left our alliance with a big decision on whether or not we should deploy 900's harpoons. I made the call that the harpoons were too big of a risk and the rest is history. The definitely one of the coolest matches (despite being on the losing side) we've ever been a part of.