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

I credit 4th robots in either case, but 4th robots rules at Champs are fundamentally different than at others. If I call in a 4th robot to my alliance at a Regional, I'm trading (for a match) a robot I picked, so there must be a specific important reason. (Separately, I have no direct control over which team is the backup.) On the other hand, 4th robots are required of all alliances at Champs, and nothing is required to be done with them. We can rightfully assume that they do play important roles even off-field, and that any alliance good enough to win Einstein is smart enough to select their 4th strategically. Yet contrary to actively subbing a 4th at a Regional, the only thing mandated at Champs is passive selection.

In fact, I wonder if that isn't some people's distinction. General question: Regardless of how you view the contributions of Champs 4th robots when they lose matches or don't play, do you value Regional/District 4th robot contributions (who lose matches) more, less, or similarly?


I remember our 4th robot for Einstein Finals (2014, 5136). They were a rookie and HRS, and it was, to paraphrase them, "the best day of our lives!" Good guys; we liked working with them. We did not have (to call in) a 4th for Einstein in 2013, and while it was totally normal at the time, in retrospect I kind of miss it. I really do like this system with the benefit of direct comparison.

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

5136 definitely deserved and earned their spot on our alliance in 2014.

Even though they never touched the carpet in eliminations, when our alliance got 5136, we then had the two strongest goalie bots in our division. Denying our opponents the opportunity for a goalie robot was a key component to making it out of our division in 2014.

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

No pick has any inherent value. A 1st seed can be overranked from an easy schedule. Their 1st pick can be from bad strategy and not add value to their alliance.

I think that trying to put all 4th bots under any umbrella is a bad idea, whether it's the original post's stance that they aren't as good as their alliance partners, or the view that they are all super valuable, key contributors that deserve just as much recognition.

#NotAll4thBots deserved to be picked that late. Some give an alliance much more potential.
#NotAll4thBots add unique value to an alliance.
#NotAll4thBots do something that half of the unpicked teams couldn't do.
#NotAll4thBots just stand on the sidelines.
#NotAll4thBots are just backups.

Einstein had 8 different 4th bots. 4 didn't play in any matches. 2 played once and lost. 2 of them were super active and played in 5 matches. They all did something to get picked and then had extremely varied contributions to their alliances.

It's possible to have a nuanced view that isn't at an extreme.

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

Yes, but #All4thBots that are on a winning/finalist alliances deserve to be treated as winners/finalists.

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

At the 2015 Carson Division, 20 was selected as the third robot for 1325 and 3339- two excellent feeder station stacking robots. As our backup, we were lucky enough to get 1711, who had some of the fastest can grabbers in the division.
20 played in one match, and we decided as an alliance to play 1711 instead, for their faster can grabbers for the rest of eliminations, and onto Einstein. 1711, regardless of the position they were drafted in, was one of the most important robots on that alliance. And 20, despite only playing one match, was involved in every strategy discussion and decision during the whole process as well.

At the 2016 Tech Valley Regional, the alliance of 5254-20-229 was forced to call in a backup robot due to 229's drivetrain failure. We were lucky enough to get our friends on 1665 as our backup, and their aggressive, yet smart defense against 2791 got our Alliance to the finals. 1665 was rewarded for their hard work by receiving a wild card from that (359 and 20 were already qualified, 3990 and 229 received EI and Chairman's respectively).
There were other robots at that event that had competitive machines that would have done well at championships, but without our fourth robot, 1665, we wouldn't have made it to finals and qualified for championships ourselves on 5254.

5254 was the 4th robot on our IRI and Hopper alliances. In Hopper, we played one match, then sat out the rest of eliminations because we needed 193's defense and climb. At IRI, we sat out the first match, then played the next five because our Alliance needed the additional scoring power.

In all of these situations, every robot on these alliances deserved their banner, their win, or their recognition, and I would assume many other stories are the same.

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

I've avoided this thread for awhile now, but I feel like I have to jump in now. This whole conversation is pretty silly (or insert other words here).

There is no way the 4th robot/team has zero impact on any alliance. Be it strategic help, manpower to fix other robots, or playing on the field. End of story.

--Satire zone--

If you are going to discredit the 4th robot, you may as well discredit the third robot. Hey after that I mean the first pick too, they could have likely been a better robot too. They don't deserve the win. Other teams ranked higher than them. Other robots in other divisions were better then them. Lets just say that everyone doesn't deserve it. Oh and that alliance captain? They only got lucky by having a good schedule/other team better than them had abhorrent luck. They don't deserve to win either. Everyone sucks, lets all get out pitchforks out and hate on everyone.

--Satire zone--

Seriously this is stupid. Not sure why people have a habit of bashing other people publicly to (what seems to me) validate their success and tell themselves "we could have been the 4th robot for the world champion alliance/division winners/division finalists"

If it's so easy to be the 4th robot and these teams did nothing to deserve it, why don't you do it next year? Shouldn't be hard to be picked up by an alliance as a 4th robot if you don't have to do anything right?!?

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

At the Tesla division in 2015, the third pick on our alliance played more matches than our second pick. Both teams contributed a ton to the alliance and we were able to make it out of the division because of their work.

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

6086: The backup bot nobody saw coming.

http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2016micmp_f1m3

That alliance needed all 4 robots to win MSC. For darn sure.

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

What a 1678 thing to say! :D I think that denial of robots and being able to "threaten" your opponents with them is an important aspect of 4th bots. For 2013 in particular, picking a goalie bot as your 4th to stop full-court shooters would have been an easy way to sub in and out for different alliances, and discourages your opponent from using their full court shooters.

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

That is the most impressive defensive driving by any team I have seen in 2016. Incredible job 6086! :ahh:

Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

This year too was an important year for "goalie" bots as the 3rd pick with defensive blockers. At least for our alliance in Curie it was great having a low-goal and breaching bot (5803), 2 pretty good high-goal shooters (3310, 2168), and us (5940) as a "utility player", as we could score low goals and breach but also had a big net we could bolt on for defense scenarios. That's what I think the 4th bot is great for, as it allows flexibility in an alliance's strategy being able to both put up a lot of points and slow down the opposing alliance's scoring depending on the circumstances and the level of the opponents.

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

What do people think about a rule stating that 4th robots have to touch the carpet in eliminations?

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

A big part of the value of fourth robots is being able to tailor your alliance on the field to respond to the opponent. Anything forcing an alliance to play a particular lineup at any point severely reduces this advantage.

I say this coming from an alliance on Archimedes that never played our second pick. There should be no rules to prevent an alliance from playing the lineup they believe gives them the best chance of winning.

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

I'd disagree with it. For one thing, it restrict's the alliance's capacity for strategy.
And for another thing, while it's true that the 4th robot can often bring something new and valuable to an alliance, there are also cases where the 4th bot is literally chosen a backup bot. If an alliance's 3rd pick is a batter scorer with a climber, it would make perfect sense for them to choose a 4th robot that's just a backup batter scorer in case #3 breaks down. People are free to make this decision, and it doesn't make sense for FIRST to force an alliance to field an inferior robot.

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

That's been a rule at a lot of off-season events, and I think it only works with big, deep fields or where the outcome of the tournament doesn't really matter. I think it would be fine in a 100 team halfchamps division, but it would be awful at a 32 team district event or 50 team halfchamps division that don't have the depth to field 32 robots that can each meaningfully contribute to an alliance. Being required to field a robot that can't drive could be cool for that team, but could really hurt their alliance partners and leave a sour taste if it cost them a match that wound up eliminating them. I think it would also make it easier for the higher-seeded alliances with the top few bots to win events, because benching the 16th pick wouldn't tend to have as big of an affect as benching the 9th.