Re: IRI Alliances
 

In his defense, 4th bots really shouldn't count......by then you are in the middle of the pack for quality, sometimes lower.

I agree with his 2 of 3. :D

Re: IRI Alliances
 

Sure, let's just forget about the 4th team on an alliance, Championship winning alliance at that. Sounds perfectly logical.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

And this is my problem with 4 team alliances, someone always gets left out...

1086 is just as much a world champion as any of their alliance partners and should be respected as such.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

Means you were 32nd best.....of 75......(approximately)

Re: IRI Alliances
 

Last year's last pick of the Hopper Sub-Division 1st alliance was an important part of that alliance's World Finalist run.

Also, not every team that's a 4th pick is the 32nd overall, only one is.

And who knows how much a team contributes as a 4th member of an alliance even if they don't have much field time.

I'm not trying to start a classic Chief Delphi mosh pit or deter from this thread's topic but it's disrespectful to not recognize an official member of an alliance. Every alliance member is important.

That said- congrats to all of the alliances at IRI. Really groovy to see 2056 with the win again with their alliance, well deserved. Also happy to see 195 have a finalist run with theirs, another achievement in the great season they have had.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

Not saying they can't provide a contribution - because they certainly can and some surely do. That being said, it is somewhat "luck" that they win as a 4th pick, as there were likely 25-28 other more deserving teams that could have stood on the podium.

Not realizing this fact is part of the society we live in today, where there are participation awards for everyone, kid's leagues that don't have outs, etc., etc.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

So what you are say is "The backup quarterback for the Superbowl winning team didn't really win, for him it was just luck being part of the team. After all there are other starting quarterbacks who deserved that ring more." Correct?

Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance
 

I disagree so much with this that I don't know where to start. I can't tell if you are actually serious or just flaming for the fun of it, but I'll try my best to respond as if you really believe these statements you are making.

First of all, I'm amazed that you are comparing a 4th pick being recognized as a world champion to a participation medal. That's absolutely ridiculous. If you look at an FRC event it very much isn't medals and trophies for everyone. Only a few teams win an award at each event and there are PLENTY that go unrecognized.

These 4th teams deserve to win and be recognized as much as their partners, regardless of if they play on the field or not. Many of them contribute to strategy, devote manpower to working on their partners robot, etc.

The ranking argument is absurd as well. How about Team 120 this year? They played in almost every playoff match and won the world championship. They also were Rank 62 in their division. Does that mean they shouldn't be recognized as world champions or don't deserve to be picked because there were teams that ranked better in their division?

Anyways I don't want to run this thread off the rails too much. Congrats to all of the teams that made it to eliminations at IRI!

Re: IRI Alliances
 

And didn't. You're right there were dozens of other teams that COULD have won. But they didn't. So they don't hold the title World Champion.

Also, you're being called out for being a jerk by ME... I'm pretty sure that's some sort of record.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

First, what caused this to happen? and second, 4th Robots are great coming from Team 180's standpoint this year. We managed to pick up a third shooter as our 4th pick so we swapped them and our 3rd pick in the finals because they both did so well. Unfortunately we lost in the Archimedes finals because our captain wouldn't substitute itself out to make our alliance better compete against the eventual Archimedes winner who had all out offence. If you are wondering what our captain bot looked like look up the first year ravens and watch the matches we played. Nothing against their team at all and we are very grateful for them being the only team to show interest in us at St. Louis but they were literally a ramp.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

I think Cam Newton deserves a Super Bowl title more than Trevor Siemian.

Just because someone deserves it more, doesn't mean the winner doesn't deserve it.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

Sort of. While he gets a ring, it is 90% likely that his contribution to the win(s) was minimal. In football, you play as a team all year. If he started and helped win a few due to injury on the starting QB, different story.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

So the help strategizing and robot repair/maintenance between matches doesnt count towards helping the alliance?

Having played football I can tell you that 9/10, the backups work harder than the starters. Sometimes just inherent talent/ability overcomes work ethic; the same can be said for robots based purely on robot design and driver skill.

I'm sorry for my language here, but what you are saying is just stupid.

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

Many people consider the 4th robot to be the "back-up" bot of the alliance, however this is not always the case. Yes often times the 4th robot is a "back-up" robot but a 4th robot also allows alliances to deploy different strategies in elimination matches and different strategies in choosing a third robot.

Arguably, in previous years like 2015 the role of a 4th robot was not all that significant as the goal was to just score as many points as you can. This year, 2016, with defense, that opens up a whole new world of possibilities and strategizing for that 4th robot.

My favorite example of the value of the 4th robot on an alliance is of the number one alliance on the Tesla division (2056, 1690, 3015, 1405). Keep in mind 1405 was the 4th pick of the alliance but ended up playing in the finals on Eisenstein. Not because 3015 broke but because of that alliances strategy. From an outside observer it would appear that 2056 picked 1690 and 3015 to play offense early on in eliminations when they could win by merely out scoring the opposing alliance but picked 1405 to sub in for 3015 when they could not win by just out scoring the opposing alliance and needed someone to play defense. This well planned and executed strategy of using the 4th robot clearly helped the alliance to get as far as they did.

*sub-note I don't like to consider a 4th robot the back up robot because that isn't necessarily what they are as proved in 1405's case*

Re: IRI Alliances
 

I'll second that. After seeing them up close at IRI, I can tell 1086 is a great team with a great robot. Let's not forget that they also played a few matches while 120 was out of commission. I'll admit, 1086 is an exception; the 4th bot of the 2014 and 2015 world champion alliances never touched the Einstein field except for field configuration, to my knowledge. However, even if they don't get time to play, these teams are always picked for a reason.

Exactly. It's up to the alliance whether they want their 4th bot to be there as a back-up or to promote strategic diversity in the alliance. Case-in-point: the 3rd seed alliance at IRI picked up 3683 and 5254. 3683 enabled the deadly "feed the batter-shooter" strategy with their fast d̶r̶i̶v̶e̶t̶r̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶a̶k̶e̶ ̶c̶l̶i̶m̶b̶e̶r̶ everything, and 5254 was picked to balance out an alliance of otherwise very short-range shooters. That diversity allowed their alliance to take down two of the world champions after losing decisively in the first match. By the way, the QF4 series is a great watch, for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

Since it's been poked at, I'll give a shoutout to 4587 for their IRI win this weekend. You have a great robot that should have definitely been picked up a lot earlier in the draft. I saw that 2-ball auto work ;) It always hurts me to see lower-seeded alliances unwilling to take even the smallest risks to try to pick up a win, and a 4587 pick was certainly a risk worth taking for any of the lower 4 alliances at IRI.

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

There are about 120 high schoolers on my robotics team, maybe about 20 or so mentors.

There are only 4 members of my team on the field actively participating during a match - 2 drivers, 1 coach, 1 human player. When 868 wins an event, the entire team wins. Not just the driver, not just the coach, not just the human player. The 136 people not driving the robot had a hand in that victory, the team wins.

The 4th robot on an alliance might not be on the field, but I can assure you that the rest of that team is providing support and working just as hard towards the alliance victory as the people on the robotics team that aren't the drive team.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

Yeah, you'd never pick a 4th robot because of strategy. :rolleyes:

Get real! This thread is crap.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

Thank you for this great compliment. It hurts to know that some people really are getting into this topic. I would like to point out that in every match except for maybe one or two, our "two ball auton" shot and made one ball every time. Just because we weren't making two balls in auto doesn't mean our auto wasn't valuable. We spent weeks making sure that no matter what we would make our first shot in the goal and get the auto crossing points. We found it more important than trying to shoot two and miss both balls. Additionally just because we were a fourth robot on the first alliance does not mean we couldnt have provided just as much help and support to an alliance as a second or third bot on a lower alliance. In a match we would get at least 20 points in auto and shoot as many as 8 balls into the high goal in addition to never missing a park on the batter. We as the 4th robot contributed during the match to the strategy by counting balls behind the opposing alliance driver station to know when some had to be bowled out. We also sat ready to go in if one of our alliance partners broke down, Which in this game could have happened at any moment due to how hard this year was on the robots. Play it down as much as you want but we feel just as important to the number one IRI alliance as the other three were.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

Don't let them get to you. You guys had an amazing robot this year and it was one of my personal favorites. Enjoy your IRI win and I wish you guys the best of luck in the future.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

And this is why anonomous accounts shouldn't be allowed. You are free to make Asinine comments and, frankly, be a jerk without consequences. I know you wouldn't say that to me, or one of my team members, in person but you feel empowered by your Anonimity online. You are a small person. I will think of you no more after I click "submit post."

Sincerely,

Matt Wilson

Coach
FRC 1086 Blue Cheese
2016 FRC World Champions

Re: IRI Alliances
 

Just as an FYI saying "nothing against them", does not make all of the not very nice things you said go away. I actually just took the time to rewatch the Archimedes finals and in finals match 1 your alliance was down by 9 boulders now 3211 is a good team but they were not scoring 9 high goals a match at championship. In finals match 2 when 3166 was playing defense the opposing alliance scored 11 boulders and yours scored 8, but if we take the number of the undefended number 1 seed alliance (16 boulders) once again you are asking for your third robot (999) to score more boulders then they have been capable of.

But this is me playing Monday morning quarterback with stats to back me up. That being said I don't think insulting a member of your alliance by saying that the fourth bot was better is a good way to represent your team.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

"Let's ban anonymity on the internet. Sometimes people bully me online." Calm down. Just ignore it and move on with your life.

While I'm at it, I'll ask you a question - what did team 1086 do to help 2481-330-120 with the Einstein victory? I'd like to know since I wasn't involved in the strategical discussions, and from an outsider's perspective, team 1086 only played one match and lost.

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

A team does not have to be on the field to be an important part of a teams alliance. One of the things we admire most about this year is the phenomenal pit crew that led the team to 2 district wins, a spot in eliminations at our district champs, and enough district points to get us to worlds (in addition to the chairmans award). The match we played and lost was not by a large margin, it was 195 to 181 and the reason being that our drivers had not practiced side shots and attempted them to stay out of the way of our alliance partners. Our pit crew worked hard to make sure that our alliance partners were working and were all hands on deck when 120 went down, providing 2 motors off our own robot the aid their repairs.

We are deeply appreciative that our alliance partners saw how hard our pit crew worked and allowed us to join them and take home the world champ title.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

I suggest we ban anonymous accounts on a forum where PROFESSIONALS and STUDENTS communicate. If that takes explaining, PM me.

As for what 1086 did for the alliance:
1. We were involved in all strategic conversations. Our scouts were feeding us info on the other teams throughout the event.

2. We were a darn good pit crew. We assisted keeping 120 on the field. We scavenged from our stores to replace parts (they still have out versa transmisson and 775pro motor on their robot as far as I know). When 330's climber broke, it was our students who helped fix it and get them back in on the field. When 120 broke their chain for their intake, I personally, went to every team down on the field looking for a master link. We found it on the other side of the arena (sorry I forgot which team I got it from, but thanks!)

3. When 120 couldn't take the field, we stepped in. It was MY bad call that put the team in a bad situation that they weren't ready for. Take a look at any match we ran before then. We NEVER missed that many shots before. I made them do something they weren't prepared to do. It would have been VERY different if I had to do it over again. Take a look at IRI match 88. This is what we should have done with the other bots on the field. (that's not even our best shooting match btw. That happened at our second event in the CHS).

As for bullying, If you see it, you need to stay something about it. If you don't, you condone the behavior. As a person with a physical disability, I believe that rather deeply. Sorry, If I don't

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

An ALLIANCE is, as defined by the manual:
Regardless of whether the 4th robot is on the field, they are a member of an ALLIANCE, and an ALLIANCE is what wins a competition, thus, regardless of whether it is considered fair for them to be included in the win, they are winners.

Of course, it is completely fair for them to be included as winners. Let's use the analogy of a robot to explain why the 4th robot should be included as a winner. We'll pretend our theoretical robot is designed to play FRC STRONGHOLD, and is composed of a...

-Drive
-Intake
-High-Goal Shooter
-Hanger

Let's say that there is one match where a defensive robot on the opposing alliance has managed to master the art of blocking high goal shooters. Thus, this robot decides to simply intake boulders, and out-take them into the low goals. The robot does not use the high-goal shooter that match.

Since they did not use the high-goal shooter that match, does that mean that the shooter should not be considered part of the robot (of course not!)? That is what people who think the 4th robot should be discluded from the winning alliance are essentially saying.

Just because a 4th robot does not play a match (or many matches), it does not mean that they shouldn't be considered part of the alliance. Perhaps in the match-ups, it simply wasn't strategically advantageous to play that robot.

For example....
-3rd robot has an excellent drivetrain, but a horrid shooter
-4th robot has an excellent shooter, but a weak drivetrain

In a matchup against a very strong alliance, with excellent shooters when left undefended, it may make more sense to play the 3rd robot to limit their scoring by approaching with a defensive stance. Under no means does this reduce the merit of the 4th robot being considered part of the winning alliance.

Just like a robot choosing to not utilize their shooter one match because it makes more sense to low goal, a 4th robot not being played is just a strategy being implicated for that match.

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

what is the value and/or credibility of the fourth person on the drive team because all they do is stand there and talk cant even touch the controls or the game pieces

Re: IRI Alliances
 

Now I know. Thank you.

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

You know, that's a really good point. I hear there used to be two of them per team, can you believe it? There's still an extra one if the alliance captain's robot isn't playing in an elims match.




[For anybody that thinks this post is serious, try looking up the definition of "sarcasm" and/or "satire".]

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

There's a fourth drive team member?

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

I think their job is to yell at a trash can until it lights up.

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

You get to say to them, "Put me in coach!"

You get a pretty neat button and get to yell at people. It's really great.

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

Yup. I never knew that side of me existed. I have never yelled at someone as loud as I have at the NYC regional this year.

Lost my voice for over a week, but it was worth it because I got to yell at people with the only repercussion being people saying "hey thanks for that call."

All in all: Coach= 8/8 would recommend m8.

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

Some of the best coaches don't actually yell.

(Source: behind the glass experience)

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

I've found that while you don't mean to yell, if often happens out of urgency.

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

hijacked thread? I think so...
I blame Wil.

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

Tl;dr

YES! All the robots on an alliance have a worth. All the teams deserve trophies. All of them get medals.

((When in doubt, blaming Wil usually works too))

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

i was pretty offended you implied this board was limited to people who were either professionals or students so i took it out on the thread

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

I put you in the "professional" category. Too soon?

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

Nah, he's a professional all right.

At what, I'm not sure yet. Maybe he's a professional amateur? ;) :p

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

It is possible to be both professional AND a student. Trust me on this.
;)

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

As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the discussion. If the manual says the 4th bot is part of the alliance, then they are. I do think that right now the 4 bot alliance puts the 4th bot in an awkward spot of feeling unworthy and needing to justify why they deserve the win, but people do the same thing to the 3rd bot as well. I do think that something needs to change, whether it's just a culture shift or a change to the system, but overall I like the 4 bot alliance and the potential strategy opportunities. I wish that DCMPs would change to the 4 bot alliances as well.

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

ANECDOTE TIME
Last season, 2338 picked 234 as our 4th bot at IRI. Although 234's robot was never on the field during our elims run, their human player was an absolute monster. 234's HP played an extremely important role in the success of our alliance, by providing us with an outstanding noodle sniper. We dropped our human player into the "no touching things" role, and he helped everyone stay in the loop on where stacks were going, particularly during "where did all the feeder totes go?" incidents.

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

Soon the manual will say that there are two championship events. That'll be "right", but is it right? The manual gets updates during the season. It isn't some infallible, unquestionable document.

Wasn't the decision to switch Champs to 4-bot alliances mostly a logistical one? During elims it's a lot easier to call up a backup bot that already has a mobile pit and to let other teams pack up immediately to make load-out easier. Not every alliance used a backup bot before the change, and I'm sure not all do now.

My team was a 4th bot (thanks 4334, 294, 2013!) that only touched the carpet once during elims (and shredded some gear teeth and could barely drive during our match). If our alliance went on to win the division or Einstein and that was our only in-match contribution I would have felt great about taking home some blue banners, but pretty embarrassed by our own on-field performance. We were definitely a member of the alliance, but we were there as a backup/defense bot, and the first 3 teams deserve basically all of the recognition for the matches the alliance won.

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

There is a big difference between saying that 4th bots should not exist and belittling the achievements of the 4th bots that do exist. It is the exact same as the difference between saying that 2 Champs shouldn't exist and saying that the winning alliances don't deserve to be called winners (which will be a thread within 30 minutes of the end of Einstein next year). By saying that the 4th bot shouldn't be considered a winner, you are not telling FIRST that you think that they should get rid of 4 bot alliances, you are insulting a team who already probably is doubting their self-worth. If you don't think 4th bots should exist email FIRST, but right now they do, so according to the manual they are considered a full member of the winning alliance and should be treated as such. Plenty of teams hate the bumper rules, but just because you think the bumper rules should change, does not mean you can just show up for a competition with no bumpers. This is no different.

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

I think 4th bots are a great idea because they make a ton of logistical sense and can allow for some really interesting strategies if alliances plan and use them well. For example, if we hadn't broken, being able to field us as a defensive threat or a decently capable backup bot could have been a huge strategic benefit for the alliance. But we didn't work. So we didn't contribute on the field. So I don't doubt our worth during those matches; I know it was next to nothing.

The only people who really know how much a 4th bot contributed are the members of that team and their alliance. Everyone else can really only form their judgments based on what they see on the field. If a member of a 4th bot team doesn't feel like a full member of the alliance, why would you question that? 3rd and 4th bots can and do get carried. If the alliance wins, they're a member of that alliance, so they also win. But contributions to that blue banner vary, and it diminishes the work of, for example, 1st and 2nd bots to say that their backup bot who didn't play did just as much as they did and is just as deserving as they are. People need to be honest with themselves about this.

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

Sure, people should be honest with themselves, or not. I don't care. It's just not up to random strangers on the internet to tell them to be or to try to dictate their worth.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

Directed at a member of the CD Community:
Bully Alert!!

Re: IRI Alliances
 

That's an interesting statement. I disagree that I am bullying anyone. Insulting a team, or anyone for that matter, under the cloak of an anonymous account is indeed small. It takes little character to do that. I would have you notice that I put my name to my comments. Why won't the person in question do the same? That answer is simple, he doesn't want to receive the consequences for his statements. I am. Your opinion,however, is duly noted.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

If he made up a name and put in some random team number, you wouldn't have a clue it was a fake name because you would never check to see if that name is real. You'd just assume that person is real. At what point does this stop?

If I posted what you did, but in response to someone with a name, I could risk suspension here. But someone without a real name is ok to insult like that?

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

Even though we didn't make it very far, it was thrilling in 2015 Tesla to be the 4th bot on the #1 alliance along with 2481, 624, and 3847. Our strategy was to have 2481 cheesecake 3847 with some really fast can grabbers in case our alliance made Einstein, and we (2930) were to fill in the can grabbing role until 3847 was ready - probably division finals or Einstein.

This is the sort of strategic picking that the four-teams-per-alliance system allows, and I think it is awesome. How many alliances took advantage of this during this past year? Off the top of my head, 2990 didn't play a match in their division playoffs and then hit the ground running with some great defense and ball control to help 148, 1678, and 364 get within 5 points of the finals. It's all about strategy, and four team alliances allow for some pretty awesome strategies. I for one was very excited when I heard in 2014 that four team alliances were going to be a thing, and it hasn't seemed to me for even one moment that the 4th bot on the winning alliance was less of a winner. Alliances win competitions.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

perhaps I am missing something but when did he specifically insult you/your team? Even the post this thread started with was questionably mean. In fact id go out on a limb and say you were being obnoxious even correcting him saying 1/2 instead of 2/3. First has an element of luck built in. Even Frank Merrick says that. I think you would agree that teams like 118, 195, 2056, ect have better robots then you but, you are the one hanging up the world championships banner. I don't fault you for that and I have seen your robot doing well in person multiple times but others do. Threads like this very rarely stay completely respectful you and me both know that and sadly you usually can not expect them to do so.

Just some food for thought.

+1

Re: IRI Alliances
 

Matt has grown dismissive of the persistent political BS that infects this forum on a daily basis and inflames in the offseason when people with no life outside of robotics spend their days s***posting on the boards. The definition of bullying most people with a loose grasp of English is "use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants." A synonym we might be looking for is persecution, especially since people on this board are actually persecuted regularly and the only people that claim to be persecuted are people who by most accounts, are not being persecuted, just being told to go waste someone else's time with their particular brand of drivel (Summer CD specializes in only the highest quality of drivel, you know) It is pretty easy to perceive that members of 1086 might feel persecuted by some kid implying that the work they put in this season to be considered a backup is for naught because of where they got picked on the draft board.

Here are three things people in FIRST with no life love to do:
1) Create exclusive clubs for themselves and their "friends" in an effort to put themselves up on a pedestal
2) Use those networks as a tool to talk $@#$@#$@#$@# about other teams to make themselves feel better, driving wedges between people in an otherwise inclusive program.
3) Pretend to themselves they exercise some great and all encompassing power when in reality they are very small people that do not have the control of themselves they need and therefore choose to concoct a false influence over others to mask the inadequacy.
These are all flaws that are not unique to FIRST, but in lieu of parroting the idea of "Gracious Professionalism" I will just say "Don't be an unrepentant and self absorbed jerk" because it's the most direct the filter on here will let me be.

If it's not abundantly clear, let me explicitly state that I really couldn't give a toss about what people think of me personally, but people who talk $@#$@#$@#$@# about my team and likely will continue to infest our community with their incessant political BS can be easily told where they can stick their opinion. If you think Matt standing up for his team is bullying, I can tell you where you can stick that opinion as well.

Sam, I'm going to go ahead and post something you will wish was a PM, but allow me to go out on a limb here and call your post obnoxious. Would you think it would be a jerk move if I just did a wholesale discount of the entire New York City/State regional system, which has only produced one world champion since 2000 (and that team is defunct)? Do you like the idea of people being openly and publicly dismissive of your team and their efforts? This is a simple yes or no question.

Of course there is an element of luck built in to FRC. The two years there was little good luck involved happened to be two of the most reviled years of the competition. That isn't relevant to people being blabbering idiots on the internet. It does require a certain level of competency to make it to championships on a merit bid. It just so happens that 1086 was in the top 5 of their district system this year, beating us in the same brackets two times out of three.

I guess it is too much to ask that people quit being blabbering and disrespectful idiots on the internet at all, even a place like CD which is supposed to operate as an extension of an already existing and intimate face to face kind of community. We should all just throw our hands up and expect BS. We should all feed the drama machine be it in public or in PMs. Why not give in to the idea that every part of FIRST has problems that cannot be fixed or can only be fixed with one's personal gracious flick of a finger?

Maybe people will claim that this was bullying or targeted. It's really not. I'm just 10000 miles over the politics and this cesspool of privilege and pathetic drama that is this website.

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

This year, 1257 was the third pick of the second alliance on Archimedes. I never got the impression at any point that we were thought of as a backup. All four teams were involved in developing the strategy of our alliance.

Our captain/first pick used their second pick to choose a robot that played defense throughout qualifications, as they were confident they could play defense. They then selected us in the third round due to the versatility of our robot: we could score up to 7 low goals, feed balls for shooters, or play defense. Our captain had heard that we played effective defense at MAR CMP, but had not had a chance to see it on Archimedes.

It was decided that we would play in our first quarterfinal match and our second pick would play in the next, to see which was more effective. However, our robot played the role well in that match, and the decision was made by our alliance for us to continue to play defense. In fact, our second pick never made it to the field on Saturday (I hope there are no hard feelings there).

This shows one strategic use of the fourth robot: making a risky pick while also having a safe contingency plan. They hadn't seen us play defense on Archimedes, so they hedged their bet in us by picking a team they had seen do it. We almost made it to division finals, losing SF2-3 by a mere five points.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

Salt Delphi

Re: IRI Alliances
 

"You are a small person. I will think of you no more after I click submit post" is hardly a killer insult. If someone is legitimately offended by that, then the internet is not the right place for them.

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

But in all seriousness, 1086 is a world champion. Just like 3467 was the backup of 4 Archimedes champions in 2014. They, like us, worked hard, very much so, to get that banner. This issue exists in all sports teams - do you think the backup safety of the New England Patriots was a better overall single player than the starting quarterback of the Seattle Seahawks, Russell Wilson? Of course not! But the Patriots TEAM won the Super Bowl, not just one single player. They won as a team. The Carver ALLIANCE won Einstein this year, and 1086 was a part of that alliance. They deserve their title.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

We're working on it. ;)

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

All right, I'm going to ask a really simple question.

What about the 4th robot that comes in to replace a broken robot, and possibly helps get the alliance to Champs in the first place?

That's right, 4th robots are perfectly valid at the regional/district level as well. They might not show up as often, and they're eligible to be called in primarily because of their ranking (and that's a whole 'nother debate, folks), but if anybody wants to argue that an alliance should win because of a forced 2v3 (or, on the other side, lose due to same) because somebody can't be repaired in time, then I think there's a lot of people that will be looking at them really funny.

I would say that 4th robots are valuable to the alliance that selects them, or has need of them and calls them in--and they are every bit as deserving of whatever the result is as the rest of the alliance. (Even if they were called in as a backup to an alliance down 0-1 in the finals, and lost that match.)

And the other question: how valuable is that experience to those teams? To work right alongside very good teams for an "extended" time can really boost a team up. That, in some folks' minds (and at some levels), can be just as compelling a reason as any strategic one.

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.

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

FTC has had this requirement since at least 2009-2010. Here's the relevant language from the 2016-2017 game manual:

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

If the rule was written like that, it would mean that every team that loses their first quarterfinal will have to play the 4th bot in the second quarterfinal. Not great for trying to make a comeback. If that alliance wins match 2, then the other alliance has to play their fourth bot. Not great for a tiebreaker either. This pattern would then continue up the levels of elims for teams that haven't lost a match yet or decided to play the 4th bot on their own. Ultimately, it is a system that handicaps the loser.

I really like the concept of 4th bots and I want them to succeed and be valued, but I just don't think there is any easy answer right now. I am sure if a rule like you suggested was implemented, it would not be as literal as I took it, but by at some point forcing teams to play a certain robot, you are taking away the whole strategic element of having a 4th bot.

I think the only way for the 4th bot to become more used is a mixture of culture change and better game design. If more teams start picking their 4th bot as an alternative strategy instead of a backup, they will use it more. The GDC also needs to create games with a lot more strategic variety, which I know is not necessarily easy to do.

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

Seemed to be fine in 04 (replace 4th with 3rd...)

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

Well, what it comes down to is exactly when the 4th bot needs to be played. If the rule is something like the 3rd and 4th bots must alternate playing or the 4th bot of both alliances must play the second match, it removes the disadvantage that the losing alliance would have if the rule was literally every bot must play at least once. I still am not a fan because it would remove a large amount of the benefits of picking a strategic 4th bot which is what I think is the best part (or at least, holds the most promise) of the whole 4-bot alliance system right now.

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

Sorry, I think you're mistaking me for someone who gives a crap about whether 4th bots are played. I was merely remarking that the "all bots must play at least one match" rule worked fine in 2004.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

This seems to be an argument that the third team on a small regional or district alliance shouldn't be included in the list of the championship alliance. Often those teams come from below the 50th percentile in the event performance list.

As for Champs, you're too focused solely on what happens on the field. In fact there's a lot more going on in the competition metastrategy. As an example, I'll walk though what we did the last 3 years:

2014: 5136 - the other goal blocker in our division, with a highly competent defensive performance. This gave us a back up goalie to 1114 for auto if it was damaged and the option to bring in a faster defensive robot if needed. 5136 did not play
2015: 5012: we actually thought they would be playing the
Einstein rounds to maximize can grabbing and that 1671 would be playing only in the division playoffs. We switched up with 1671's amazing success. But 5012 was still part of our credible threat in the semifinals that kept 1114 from deploying 900's harpoon grabbers.
2016: 2990: ended up playing on Einstein, substituting for 364 who played in the division playoffs. They earned equal credit on the field.

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

Andrew, as I recall the pre-'05 rules, not only did every team have to play at least once, but every team had to play at least once in each round of elims. That is:

QFs, if you played A-B in your first match, either A or B had to sit out your second match so C could play.
SFs, if you played A-B in your first match, either A or B had to sit out your second match so C could play.
Finals, if you played A-B in your first match, either A or B had to sit out your second match so C could play.

Third matches were up for grabs.

If there was such a rule about "4th robots have to play", I would expect to see something like this rule, as it disadvantages both alliances relatively evenly.

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

I'm sure someone already said this, but I'm just going to say it, because you know when has repetition not been annoying.

I'm the driver for my team. If we perform good in a match, I'm generally the first person to be commended, followed by the rest of the drive team (of course if I mess up, I'm always reprimanded :D Jokingly of course). But I always, always point out, nothing I did would have mattered, if the other 20 people on the team hadn't worked their asses of either working on the bot, or the code, or the outreach etc. A 4th alliance member is just as crucial. Just because they might not have been on the field, you have no idea what hard work they might have done in the pits to get the alliance through that match.

And doesn't necessarily have to be physical support. More often than not, mental support is just as crucial. Trust me, I know from experience :D.

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

I thought the choice was partially a response to the situation faced by the 2013 1986/1528/217 Championship Alliance.

For those that don't know, 217 was doing well at champs that year until they peter panned from the pyramid (like what happened to 2481 at Crossroads Regional) on the practice field not long before alliance selections, resulting in significant robot damage (again, like what happened 2481). Fearing an inability to contribute to an alliance, they told their field not to pick them, but the #1 alliance of 1986 and 1538 picked them as their second pick, banking on the highest seeded unpicked team (who would be the first backup to be called) being a competent replacement if things went south.

Great strategy on paper, but it proved to be their downfall. While they were able to get 217 running again, the stresses of Division level play caused 217 to break down. However, since backups cannot be switched back, they (based on what I've seen in retrospect) never found 217 to be broken enough to give up on as once they called the backup, they'd never see 217 on the field again during their run. Ultimately, they lost in the finals, which was a shame as 1538 was in a great position to pull a sweep, as they also won Chairmans that year. I mean great, as I'd argue 1986 was the best bot of 2013 and 1538 was also in the upper tier that year.

Had the current 4 team alliance rules been in place, the outcome would have likely been different, as the alliance in question would have had a backup that they could switch in and out as needed, allowing them to have the best of both worlds. Also, this could have permitted 217 to have been an earlier pick, as they would have been less of a gamble, due to the aforementioned reasons.

I'm sure logistics were also a reason, but to me, the change was to prevent this tricky scenario from happening again.

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

I do think logistics and getting more teams invovled were the main factors, but it also prevents a 3rd robot from 'breaking down' on Einstein and getting replaced with a superior robot from the finalist alliance.

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

so I have been putting more thought into this and a rule that would require 4th robots and I have came up with a unique solution. What if an alliance at championships gets a small bonus for using a 4th robot. This year I think that a 4 point bonus would be fair. This adds a strategic element to this choice and rewards teams for including a 4th robot. Thoughts?

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

Third robots wouldn't see much of the field, as points is points. You'd have to phrase it such that both the third and the fourth robot played in the set of matches, which I rather suspect would end up very similar to the "every team plays at least once per round" setup. Possibly, use that as the first tiebreaker in eliminations (he who uses the most robots in the round wins)--see also "another can of worms".


I think the requirement that every team play in every round would be quite sufficient. Sets up some interesting strategy decisions and I'd be willing to bet that third matches have a matchup that didn't happen in either first or second matches.

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

As EricH mentioned, I would word it as the alliance that plays all 4 teams would get the bonus, not just the team that plays the 4th team. Otherwise, you might see the second and third rounds of Alliance Selections turn into an absolute mess.
Either way, I'm not a huge fan of just an objective point bonus for playing all 4 robots, but depending on the game, it might work. I think an ideal solution would be for games to be strategically diverse enough and all teams capable enough that it becomes strategically worthwhile to play different teams. Or (I'm scaring myself as I type this) even a scoring system that changes from match to match. For example, there could be two *equally* difficult end games for teams to choose between at the end of the match. One end game would be worth, say, 5 points and the other worth 10. These point values would swap from match to match somehow, making it more advantageous for alliances to select 3rd and 4th robots that can perform different functions and swap between them.

But then again, this comes with the drawbacks of being hard to implement, hard to design for the GDC, lots of rules, lots of work. But hey, maybe things will move in that direction.

Re: IRI Alliances
 

This may be going off on a bit of a tangent, but there are times when you really feel the difference between a 66 team regional and a district event. The first year the PNW was going to districts I knew elimination alliances would be different but it didn't really hit home for me until our third district event.

I was enjoying the fact that with only 30 teams it wasn't too hard to keep all the teams in my head as alliance selection happened. We were the 2nd alliance captain and as the 3rd robots were chosen a teammate asked me "are there only two robots left that can handle a ball?" The hairs stood up on my spine for a moment as I double checked the robots left. There were exactly three that would be useful to us. And that meant that with our pick we'd get the last one of them. And alliance #1 got hosed.

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

It worked out for you folks since you got to Einstein in 2015.
Same for us. In 2015, we got to Einstein where are 3rd alliance partner played only the 1st elimination match. The next 8 were played by our 4th alliance partner. No one was broken. We just decided to play the 3rd pick instead.

Here's the real challenge. How does an alliance politely and respectfully ask an alliance captain to sit out, when its obvious or best the other 3 robots play in a specific match? I would guess that there are many instances every season where this should happen, but alliances limit themselves because its not an option anyone would consider on the table.

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

This depends on the alliance captain and if they are willing to switch out. I'd bet a large number of teams are willing to switch out, but the possibility never crosses their mind. Perhaps bringing up the possibility while noting the reasons for not wanting to play that team in a particular match would ve sufficient for most alliances.

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

I imagine this very much depends on the personalities of the alliance captain's key players, and the team's style of captaining an alliance. Seriously, this is probably pretty personal* and it'd be hard to give blanket advice for this.

For example, I distinctly remember a conversation we had with our Champs alliance partners. The subject of switchouts came up, and Sean's exact words were: "If someone's coming out, it'll probably be us." There are also alliance captains who built their alliance around a particular strategy, which may specifically involve their robot, and think that this gives the entire alliance the best chance of performing in eliminations. I've never had experience with a captain who runs an alliance like a direct democracy, but I'd be really curious to see that. Different styles of running an alliance aren't universally better or worse, just different. And probably tailored to how the captaining team works.

Given that, chances are the best way of bringing up subbing out the captain (assuming the captain didn't) involves etiquette, social situational awareness, and solid reasoning (perhaps backed up with data).

Tl;dr: How does an alliance ask their captain to sit out? Tactfully and with understanding of how their team works.

* regardless of whether it should be

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

This is a tough one. Hypothetically, you're not just asking the captain to sit - you're also asking the people in the stands to live with the decision as well. This year saw plenty of cases cases where the captain was one of the strongest qualifiers, but also one of the weakest in head-to-head elims.

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

Right now, the best robots can perform pretty much every task the GDC comes up with. I think the best way to encourage making strategic picks and changing out robots is to create a game where the best robots actually can't do everything.

For this to happen, the GDC needs to create a game with conflicting tasks, like something that requires a large robot and something that requires a small robot or something like lifting your partners, so you have lifters and liftees. I know that they've done this second one before and I'm curious as to how many robots could do both). Even these examples are not great and I can already see a team like 148 taking on and off half of their robot between matches. Even if some teams are able to out-engineer the GDC, if the frequency of robots that can do everything is more like the number of robots at Champs who had a 2-ball auto this year, compared to the number who could go over 4/5 defenses, shoot a decent number of high goals, and climb, I think we will see a lot more strategy in eliminations.

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

I just remembered a question I had from all of this talk about 4th robots.
People give me advice on this :D :

Say for example my team was picked by another team for their alliance. We get to a match where I STRONGLY believe that a field setup of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th bot would have a better chance of winning that match (the captain bot sits out), how would I approach the alliance captains and propose my idea to them without sounding rude?

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

I think that's where good scouting data can come into play. It's one thing to go to an alliance strategy meeting with just a strong belief; it's another to go with a strong belief backed up by spreadsheets and binders full of robot and match data. It's a lot harder to argue with someone who can actually support what they're saying.

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

I have personally struggled with this question before. I am of the opinion that the alliance captain has earned their spot and their judgement should not be subordinated, but I it is perfectly appropriate to bring this up in a strategy meeting. As long as you are respectful and have the best interests of your alliance as a whole in mind, you owe your alliance the diligence of making your opinion known.

However, once the decision is made, it should not be publicly questioned. Doing so hurts the unity of the alliance and ultimately decreases your chances of winning.

This is not just a situation for robotics. You should keep this in mind whenever dealing with superiors and subordinates. I remember a great quote from Kingsmen: The Secret Service:

This is especially important when dealing with children. There is nothing worse to a child than being embarrassed in front of their peers. My personal motto is "Praise in public, discipline in private"

Ultimately it comes down to tact. Tl;Dr: Don't air your dirty laundry in public.

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

This is an interesting topic.
In 2014, at the Archimedes Division, Team 20 was on an alliance where we wanted to bench the alliance captain.
The Alliance was 4077, 195, 20, and 4265.

Things got very heated during the strategy meeting, and in the end we had 4077 play the first match, and when that didn't succeed, we tried subbing them out. We ended up losing the quarterfinals series on foul points, and to this day I wonder how we could have done that differently, because on paper our Alliance was excellent.

This past weekend, at IRI, we had a discussion about potentially benching 3620 in favor of 3683 after we lost our first semifinal match. In the end, we decided to keep 3620 in, but there were definitely some upset individuals involved.

There's a combination of factors in play here, ranging from pride to the differing motivations teams have for playing. I don't know the best way to approach it, or anything, but I know you have to be careful when people's prides and emotions are at stake.

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

The fourth robot isn't always a pickup from the very bottom of the capability pool or rankings. For example, our alliance at IRI consisted of 1241, 133, and 868. 1241 was ranked 30th, 133 was ranked 29th, and 868 was ranked 20th. While we had 1241 and 133 play, 868 could easily have substituted for one of the two. 868 could put up a lot of high goals, on par with the other robots in our alliance.

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

um