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... ;)