Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

I don't have much of an opinion on whether or not IRI should have four team alliances, but I do have this opinion. If there are four team alliances, all four teams should be required to play at least one match per round. Maybe it isn't particularly GP to feel this way, but to me, you should not be able to say you "won" an event like IRI without playing any matches in the elimination rounds.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

Actually, I disagree with this. We (177) were the second selection by the 968-330 alliance, who then went on to pick 910. Yet against the 1114-2056-111(-494) alliance, our drive team knew offensive defense was the only viable strategy, and that 910 would play it better than us. Any other alliance, as Joe said, would have been defendable in different ways, but against three hurdlers we needed the ability to go head to head.

The point of my anecdote: Even as a 2nd pick who never played in the eliminations, having that 3rd pick allows alliances flexibility in their strategy. Very rarely can an alliance of three robots dominate so much that they can run the same strategy against anyone and still play the game they want to. Just imagine what golf would be like if every player only got a driver, an iron, and a putter. IRI gives players that extra club to work with.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

This is a good sentiment. Now it would have to be fleshed out to figure out what to do if a robot is really disabled. And then figure out what "really disabled" means. I can see an alliance captain asking a teammate, "You're supposed to play the next game. Can you please claim that you're 'really disabled' so you don't have to play?"

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

I agree with you Chris,and also Joe . This was a nice option for our alliance captain 968 to mix and match our teams according to the alliance we were competing aginst. Plus it was a bonus for team 910 as we were able to be a part of the six keeper match!!!!!!!!

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

Will that be an invitational also?



VVVVV

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

Chris and I would make good team mates, we rarely see things the same way…more opinions produces a better solution. Being on the winning alliance in 2007 and not playing, left me feeling our team did not contribute enough to be considered one of the champions of the 2007 IRI Competition. I would never “graciously decline” and give up an opportunity to help an alliance if someone broke or if the alliance thought we would be the preferred partner for a particular match. It is better to have a chance to play than no chance at all.

IRI wants to have the best of the best compete, I understand that, and requiring the 4th partner to play could water down the quality of the matches. All I ask is that you don’t put more teams in the uncomfortable position you put us in. If we win an award we want to earn it not have it handed to us by others.

Possible solution: Have each alliance pick a 4th partner as their backup, if the backup is called to play they are part of the alliance if they are not called in they are not part of the alliance. I would also propose that just because the 4th partner is called in to play, it does not preclude any of the other alliance partners from playing in any remaining matches. If the 4th partner is used it is a 4 team alliance, if not it remains a 3 team alliance.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

Another possible solution: Apply the F.I.R.S.T. model with the following wrinkle. Have each of the eight alliances "nominte" a team to the loaner pool. If a team needs a spare, they may select any team from the loaner pool. They become a 4 team alliance as defined by the F.I.R.S.T. rules.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

Having said this, having read the other testimonies and Chris' explanation, I prefer the method that IRI used last year. I think the strategy options are interesting and I like the ability to have a "broken" partner repair and re-enter the competition without having to go two on three. I understand the disappointment of not competing in the matches - I warmed the bench plenty when I played sports. We all need to learn how to contribute in what ever role we find ourselves assigned. Isn't that gracious professionalism?

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

I really like Pat's suggestion. It is a compromise between "don't have to play" and "you must play". If the alliance decides to use their back-up, then the back-up is part of the alliance. If they chose not to use them, then the back-up is not part of the alliance.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

Go ahead and change the rules. Even the alliance selection. But please try and figure out some way to get rid of those bumps along the center wall. Maybe recess the steel plates into a sub floor if there is one. And about those supports hanging down from overpass.......:)

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

Ah but playing Devil's Advocate, what would keep an alliance from picking a team with no intention of playing them at all, only to keep that team's robot abilities and strategic flexibility from falling into the hands of an alliance that would be more likely to actually use such flexibility? I think at the very least, you'd have to retain serpentine picking of the backup bot (8 - 1) to keep higher-seeded alliances (who are more likely to have 3 robots who are effective enough to go it alone) from stashing away effective backups from the lower-seeded alliances in order for Paul's/Pat's suggestion to be viable.

Regardless, though, the use of any "Let me stash your team out of the way where you can't contribute to the success of another alliance, and oh, by the way, we don't even have to share the victory with you officially, nyah nyah nyah" methods doesn't sound like much fun for the backup team stuck in such a situation. Other than the IRI planners having to pay for the extra trophies, I don't see the downside of positively recognizing a team for serving as the backup role in an alliance, regardless of the reason they were put there. I agree completely with Rick Oliver - even the seldom (if ever)-used 12th man on the basketball team or the once every 10 games pinch hitting specialist gets to celebrate the victory equally with teammates who have much more active role on the team. Let's be careful not to treat these 4th teams as pieces of meat or pawns in a game implied to be both played and won by superior personnel.

Has anyone bothered to quantify the overall sentiment of the IRI alliance teams who actually participated in the "pick your own backup" plan last year? Are people suggesting that the planning committee should modify the rules to cater to a minority few who did not prefer them? Just a-wonderin' if anyone's considered the big picture.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

Umm. Team A picks team Z as their fourth pick. Team G could have been apart of alliances B,C,D,E,F,G or H but due to A's place in the draft they picked Z. If Z was not used and was not give any recognition or anything it would be wrong because what if one of the alliances B-G wanted to strategically use Z but Z was "stiffed" by their alliance?

I agree as Captains, teams get to choose their team mates, strategy, etc., but I do not agree that they should leave someone on their alliance out of the action. I'm pretty sure a "dominating" alliance should be able to under ANY circumstance. Your 4th robot is NOT a backup bot, it is your alliance member.

Pavan

.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

That's clearly not how 494 felt last year as the 4th team, as mentioned above. I'd be careful about making blanket statements either way.

The reason for the 4th member being there should be clearly considered and defined before a ruling on their usage is made this year. There are other ways to create a legitimate back-up pool and add more teams to the eliminations. There may or may not be other ways to add flexibility to an alliance.
As a personal side note, I enjoy the forced flexibility of only have a 3 team alliance. While you might not always have the ideal robots to fit into a counter-strategy against your opponents, the creativity forced upon you is one of the coolest parts of the eliminations, imho. Teams have to push their limits and attempt new and creative strategies to use their alliance's strengths to defeat their opponents, rather than just plugging in the members that will let them have an ideal alliance for the situation. It changes it from an the elaborate mixture of "rock, paper, scissors" to an actual match of strategy and skill. Rather than who can play game X better, it becomes who can out-think and out-perform the opposing alliance.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

Interesting how different interpretations can influence our perspectives. I checked the documentation from last year; the 3rd pick (done 8 to 1) was described as a "backup". I can certainly appreciate the sentiment expressed by Pat when considered in the context of being a "back up". In fact, I shared the same opinion, that all four teams should have the opportunity to play. It was when I looked at the situation from the perspective of having a 4 team alliance and always fielding the best alliance that I got comfortable with the possibility of not playing, yet still being considered part of the alliance.

I continue to beleve that the IRI folks made a well reasoned adjustment and I hope that we see it again this year; perhaps without the reference to "back up" :)

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

Remember, the 3rd selection was a "pick your own back-up" round from the get go. It was designed so teams could pick the robot they wanted as a back-up. at no time was it stated that the robot had to be used. If the question is, "do you want to pick your own back-up agian this year?", then my answer is "yes". If the question is, "Do you want to have a 4 alliance team where all robots must be used once?, then my answer is "no".

I have no strong feelings about if the "back-up" gets a trophy or not as I see the merits of both arguments.