Re: Alliance Selection 2005- Like it?
 

You will need to make good decisions. Can your broken robot be fixed in the given amount of time? Or do you sacrifice them and choose the 4th member? If you choose the 4th member, then your broken guy can't compete anymore, even if it's fixed later. But they're still part of the alliance and therefore will still receive awards.

You will be assigned the next highest seeded team waiting in line. So - it would behoove you to have good scouting, know what those extra 8 teams can/can't do, and find out who your 4th member would be before you choose to take them. You should be able to make a decent decision based on all the above as to whether or not you want/need to take the 4th member. If you find that your 4th team is more of a hindrance (maybe unlikely), maybe you can just put 2 robots on the field... I dont think I read anything about not placing a working robot on the field. If you have 3 of 4 working robots, would you have to place all 3 out there, or can you choose to just put 2 out? Even if Robot 4 is "weaker", I'm sure you can find something for them to do on the field...

It forces you to make a decision, rather than saying... OK - Robot 1 broke a chain, so we're gonna take Robot 4 just for this match.. and then 3min later Robot 1 gets fixed and for the rest of elimination rounds they have 4 robots to choose from. That wouldn't exactly be fair to all those who only have 3 robots to choose from since they didn't have the bad luck of breaking one. So the stipulation is that you can't play the original guy anymore and you now have only 3 robots to play.

Even if Robot 1 isn't fixable, if you think Robot 4 is weak, and won't add to your value, then you don't have to choose them.. You'll just play with 2 robots the rest of the rounds.

You get one chance to choose from the standby guys. Does it matter when you choose? Can I go through a few rounds with two robots and then in the finals, decide I want a 4th member? Dont' know if you'd do that, but... I didn't see a restriction for when you had to choose a 4th member. Maybe I missed it, if there is one.

I think it's a pretty balanced little selection process. If everyone was allowed to choose 4 robots per alliance for elims, that's a lot of robots for elims. This just makes you think about who you're choosing for the main 3 - you'd want them consistent, reliable, and robust. You need to be able to trust Robot 1 when they say "I only need 4min to fix this". But it still gives you a little bit of flexibility so that you're not completely at a disadvantage when one breaks.
We shall see how it all works out. I dont' see any major problems with it at this point. The choice will boil down to knowing your information.

Re: Alliance Selection 2005- Like it?
 

what if the backup robot fails/breaks? just 2 v 3 for the rest of the time?

Re: Alliance Selection 2005- Like it?
 

Aye, per the third paragraph of section 8.4.1:

Re: Alliance Selection 2005- Like it?
 

Another case study?

Team A is not one of the top eight teams. They refuse an invitation from a selecting team. Does Team A still go into the replacement pool?

Ken

Re: Alliance Selection 2005- Like it?
 

If Team A refuses to join an alliance, they probably can't compete anyways because they are broken. I've only seen one instance when a team that was ready to go actually said no to an alliance pick, and that was because there was confusion on the field. And if a team is picked but refuses it usually means they are seeded and would like to have their own alliance.

Re: Alliance Selection 2005- Like it?
 

wow i did not think of that i feel first will not allow any team to play if they pull that stunt

Re: Alliance Selection 2005- Like it?
 

A similar thread was started by Joe Johnson shortly after kickoff:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=32311


I'll re-post what I posted in that thread, as it equally applies here.

*********************************************

I like the On Deck idea; however, I question why alliance captains aren't permitted to pick from a list of the On Deck teams instead of having the highest ranked team force fed to them. If an alliance robot breaks, I don't believe it would cause much, if any, additional confusion or delay for a FIRST official to present a list of teams to an alliance captain (a list they'll have generated per the existing rule, anyway) and have him/her select a team from the list. Those who didn't prepare such a detailed pick list could simply choose the top ranked On Deck team as is already the rule without any additional delay.

There is a reason teams spend so much time scouting - it's so they can determine which high ranked teams are deserving of their position and which were in those high spots due more to good fortune than anything else. It's also so they can identify teams whose robots and strategies best complement what they like to do during a match, some of whom may be at the bottom of the rankings due solely to bad luck and would be ineligible for selection under the current rule. I'm sure the scout crews for many picking teams will create pick lists that are detailed enough to include their most desired On Deck teams - why not reward the hard work of those teams by letting them choose whom they want? In addition, this would let these better-prepared alliances contact their preferred On Deck selections and guarantee they won't be packing up their robot before the end of the eliminations - with the current system, can FIRST guarantee that scenario won't happen? How much of a delay would that cause if it did? I'd be more enthusiastic about keeping my robot out and in top running condition if an alliance captain came to me and told me they wanted us to be their On Deck team instead of having to wait around with the rest of the "scrap heap", waiting to be salvaged by a team who may not even like what they're getting.

By allowing teams to pre-determine who they want their On Deck partners to be, matching the On Deck team's robot and strategy to those of the existing alliance, I think FIRST would give all elimination alliances a better chance at achieving success while facing adversity, and they would improve the quality and excitement of the elimination rounds.

Re: Alliance Selection 2005- Like it?
 

First of all, my bad- I overlooked Joe Johnson's thread, haven't been on CD enough the past few months..


and I would doubt FIRST would allow Team A to be selected- why? because if the 1st selected team picks the obvious best robot in the competition- and wants Team A to be their third robot, but Team A gets selected by the 2nd seeded team, Team A could simply deny the invitation and wait for the 3rd team in the first alliance to mysteriously break.

Un-GP, i know. Probably won't happen, I know. But there's no real rationale for declining an invitation unless the alliance that invites you is absolutely horrendous, you know for sure you're the next highest team, and you figure a robot will break sometime during the competition- but even that is risky.

Re: Alliance Selection 2005- Like it?
 

While I agree that this is one way of looking at it (and this really is a subjective matter), I think that the opposite could be true if you look at it in a different way.

If one of your alliance partners becomes inoperable, your team will be forced to make a tough decision. This decision will impact the outcome of all of the matches to come, and could either harm or benefit you. A major aspect of strategizing is the ability to make quick tactical decisions. While it would be nice of FIRST to let teams keep their strategy consistent throughout elimination rounds, adding in an aspect of uncertainty will put a team's ability to strategize to the test. A team that truly exemplifies "tactical genius" will be able to think on their feet and make the appropriate decisions.

In this sense, FIRST has added a new level of excitement to the game. Your alliance partner breaks, they don't know if they will be able to fix their robot, and you need to make a decision...a decision could make it or break it for your team. To me, that sounds quite thrilling. Overcoming the setbacks presented by losing an alliance partner would be a very exciting thing. While there is a little more risk involved, risk is a part of the game. Risk is what makes competition fun... in fact, risk itself makes the competition what it is.

I see this as a choice between a more "comfortable" way of playing the game, versus a more uncertain way of playing the game. Personally, I like the uncertainty. For me it makes the experience more thrilling, and that much more satisfying when challenges of that nature are overcome. While I may have a few more heart palpitations not knowing what will happen next, I would rather feel the thrill of making it through a desperate situation. But again, this is purely a personal preference.

-- Jaine

Re: Alliance Selection 2005- Like it?
 

I kindof like how this system relates to the real world of engineering projects.

Suppose your company bid on a big contract with the assumption that Amazing Machines would be subcontracting a large part. You have history with Amazing, and know their quality. You get the contract and the next week Amazing tells you that a huge military contract came in which will use up all of their capacity for next two months. You're not that big a customer of Amazing's that you can play hardball with them on this. (Welcome to my world)

You feel that only if everything works perfectly will you still be able to meet the contract using Amazing; knowing that there is a very real chance that they will be late now, which would make you late, too. On the other hand, you know that the finished product will be great if it has the Amazing parts in it.

It just so happens that New Little Guy Machines just opened their doors and wants your business. They say they can do the job that Amazing Machines would do, but you don't have much knowledge of their capabilities. (Did I hear someone say "scouting"?)

So what do you do? Do you take a chance on Amazing meeting the deadline or one on Little Guy being able to do the job? With Little Guy, if they do the job okay, you'll make your deadline, but you'd be taking a chance on quality.

I think that FIRST just raised the bar a tiny bit for alliance captains.

Re: Alliance Selection 2005- Like it?
 

That is a really great analogy; however, your parallel to the engineering world all assumes that your company still retains the right to CHOOSE New Little Guy Machines in the event that Amazing can't hold up its end of the bargain. Unfortunately, under the current rules, your company is at the mercy of a ranked list, and the selection of your alternate business partner is made for you by an external party. No matter how much you want to do business with New Little Guy Machines and no matter how much they want to do business with you, if they are the #2-rated company on that list - you're going to be stuck with the #1 guy no matter what he makes and how well he makes it - for all you know, he's making widgets and you need whatchamacallits! Makes perfect business sense to me! :rolleyes:

So yes, alliance "CEO's" will all make do with what they are forced to work with, but I'm sure many'd feel a whole lot better if they were permitted to use their OWN powers of judgement in trying to ensure their company's success during a crisis instead of placing more of their company's destiny in the uncontrollable hands of fate.

Re: Alliance Selection 2005- Like it?
 

I'd like to be of the opinion that the uncontrollability of the ranked list also fits in with the industrial world. There's reasons why things go the way they go in the real world - and some of it is performance as a company(team), but also part of it is being in the right place at the right time (or the right pairings).

So, the situation is still about using one's own powers of judgement to trying to ensure the company's destiny...but it's being placed in a reactive state as opposed to a proactive state.

Is being in a reactive state my favorite place to be? Goodness no! But, its a great learning experience because it does happen. Do you think Blockbuster really likes having to change its entire business model to accomodate the changing tastes of the rental market due to the emerging technology of NetFlix? Not really, because that means huge internal shifts on their part in a market they were excelling in. But it also means that they can take what they've learned from their research of the industry and the analysis of NetFlix's business model (scouting, to those of you out there in FIRSTland) to improve upon it and learn from their mistakes.

So...I think we'll be ok. I'm excited to see how this plays out.

Re: Alliance Selection 2005- Like it?
 

I didn't see this question covered above...

What happens to C03 in the case that an alliance chooses not to bring in the 4th member and play with 2? Do only 2 robots have to be in the zone? Do you need to put the dead robot out there in order to get those points?

Re: Alliance Selection 2005- Like it?
 

Dave you stick the broken guy in to sit in the end zone the whole match if you still want the chance to earn the end zone bonus. I am still trying to come up with a decision and the wording i use for this rule to show how i feel. I will put a post up later.

Re: Alliance Selection 2005- Like it?
 

I think the rule says it all--three robots.

Of course, if there were some catastrophic failure, I guess you could always neatly bundle your robot's essential goods (battery, RC, breaker panel, LEDs, team numbers, etc.) and put them in something and call it the Flower Pot of DOOOOOOOOM!

...or something like that.

<edit> Of course, you would have to get an inspector to weigh it and fly through the inspection checklist. </edit>