pic: REX (Team 4334 - Alberta Tech Alliance)

[Taylor]

I would argue that a lot of folks would like to have built that robot, but they didn't have the guts. It takes some cojones to be that specialized and rely on partners for qual wins and other teams' scouts for alliance pairings. Most teams take the "safe route" and try to do it all - often with less than stellar results. This is the most exciting non-traditional robot since Tumbleweed in 2008 (which made the 148-4334 interactions at IRI even more delicious).

[IndySam]

I usually don't disagree with you Taylor (excluding politics but I don't think it takes guts to understand your teams resources and capabilities. It doesn't take guts to analyse the game.

A robot that could manipulate and climb the bridge and balance would have won a lot more matches than a robot that scores poorly and can't do these simple things.

[stundt1]

I supported 4334. I think they were the top if not one of the best support robots. And they were only a rookie!

I feel its kinda a risky gamble that you will picked be on a top alliance with a support robot. Since a support robot doesn't necessarily score a lot of points they will usually seed lower making it a luck of the draw on what alliance they get chosen on.

Great job!!! Looking forward to seeing more robots from 4334.

[rachelholladay]

Every year one of our main mentors (ahem, my mum) says "Why can't be just build a simple robot that just does defense? Or just does the end-game?" We've never done it and really have never had a great answer as to why not. Now I'm not afraid to say that we have fallen victim to over-complication several times, which is probably what leads my mom to ask her question at the beginning of every build season.

The answer might be a little bit of fear and pride. I'll use 2008 as an example to contrast two robots. Robowranglers built a zippy little octagon that won CMP. We (my team) built an overly complicated machine that tried to do to much. I remember sitting in our strategy meetings. Everyone wants to build the bot that can do almost everything. Unfortunately, we all know that almost impossible. It takes some humility to say 'We aren't going to try to do everything because that just won't work'. (I'd like to say that we have learned some of humility throughout the years)

But I think there's also an element of fear. Sure you can build a robot that only plays the end game, but what if competition comes around, the endgame isn't as important as you thought and that strategy blows up in your face? The same would be true for a specialized robot. The Robowranglers 2008 robot worked because it did its job really, really, really well. What if we would have tried to build it and only done a okay good? Not only would we would probably not do as well at competition but we would also feel like limited our own abilities. Building a robot that does one thing well only works if that one thing is done super-duper-well. I think teams struggle from the fear that they can't achieve that. (myself included)

[Ekcrbe]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I think you'd be pleasantly surprised how much more competitive events would be with more simple and reliable robots on the field. Which is more exciting: Watching teams struggle to move and score even a single three pointer all match, then fall off the bridge, or a match where three robots are shuffling balls around the field, supporting one or two elite scorers, possibly scoring on their own in the lower goals trying to win with volume?

But this won't increase the number of high quality scorers in the game. One of my favorite lines in pick list formation is "Any (scoring) robot can be a feeder robot." Another team's stubbornness or your lack of persuasion prevents this from being perfectly true, but if they can try to score, they can feed you. All that more feeder bot designs would do is prevent some mediocre scorers from evolving into elite scorers during the season.

Back to the topic at hand, everyone loves Rex, no?

[LeelandS]

Originally Posted by Ekcrbe

All that more feeder bot designs would do is prevent some mediocre scorers from evolving into elite scorers during the season.

This.

This is one of the things I was trying to say, but couldn't quite get across as well as I'd have liked.

[stundt1]

Id have to agree with Erik.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by LeelandS

Personally, yes. I would rather see 70% of robots try to make 3 pointers and only 15% make it. Because the 55% now have something to improve upon. And, in a nice, not necessarily perfect world, many of them would be working hard to become reliable shooters.

I think you're missing a bit behind their (assumed) intentions.

Lets talk about the team that due to current skills, resources, etc. can't effectively score no matter how hard they try. They can work hard, improve these skills, get resources, yada yada, and in the long run become much more capable. However, this can take seasons.

In the mean time, they can develop other skills (the intangible "how to win an event", or being competitive) by making simple, support robots. The team with less skills and resources can easily make these support robots.

As the team improves, they will some day flip a switch and decide to aim higher; and I'm darn sure they'll be more prepared to be a top tier team (in both robot design and competitive execution) than the team who spent the same amount of time always aiming to be a top robot.

Not only does it work out better for the team, it works out better for the other teams. It's incredibly depressing picking an alliance where your choice for a 3rd is more or less, "Well we can pick the team that reliably can't really do anything, or the other team that did something once". It'd be nice to round out every alliance at every regionals with robots that can provide meaningful capability.

I can't speak for 4334's intentions, but I doubt their five year plan involves being a support bot for every season.

[cmrnpizzo14]

I feel like I should contribute a little more Rochester input to this thread. I would also like to preface this by saying that I absolutely LOVE Rex.

What ATA did was perfect. No matter which rookie team you are, you still extremely limited. Being on a now 4th year team, I still feel extremely limited because of our lack of experience. ATA chose a perfect strategy. They chose a simple reliable role that suits a rookie team perfectly. Obviously, rookie teams cannot create the robot that 1114, 2056, or even 1507 create. 4334 picked a role and the did it well. That is something that I think more teams could definitely benefit from.

I don't want to say that all of FIRST should build support robots. Nor do I want all of FIRST to try and reach for something and fail. I think that teams should understand what sort of robot they are making and make it well. This year, teams could have performed better if they picked to be either a balancing robot or a shooting robot. A robot that can make 3's consistently would be just as valuable to an alliance as a robot that can balance consistently. The bottom line is that whatever sort of robot you make, you need to just make it well. Any robot, whether it be offensive, defensive, or super unconventional is just as rewarding for the team and as enjoyable for spectators as long as it is well made.

The process is really what matters. If a team designs their robot before building it, prototypes, and works together to create their machine, it will turn out pretty good in the end.

[Nick Lawrence]

Only on CD can a photo of a robot start a debate of whether most teams should have built it - even five months after the regular season.

Great robot, though. Looking forward to seeing how you guys build and play with an offensive style robot.

-Nick

[BASE]

I may be biased when saying this, but ATA was easily my favourite team this year. Thank you for making our Rookie year amazing!! Glad to have shared our first eliminations with a fellow Canadian rookie team, as well as our alliance captain 2852!

Now i feel like i should address that it is a big deal that ATA is a rookie team. I mean, 4334's Rookie All-Star award became their initial step towards success at Archimedes and eventually admission into IRI. This made them really the only support bot to advance from our Regional, as it was from their success as a Rookie team.

I feel that a huge growth in support bots would be unhealthy for FRC. I think that success with supports are limited, as the only way to really be successful as a support is to be freakin' amazing!! *cough* REX *cough*

Wouldn't a mediocre support just be a mediocre shooter, without the ability to shoot? So is this design plan really the obvious choice? Or is it maybe a choice that only rookie teams should consider?

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by BASE

Wouldn't a mediocre support just be a mediocre shooter, without the ability to shoot? So is this design plan really the obvious choice? Or is it maybe a choice that only rookie teams should consider?

No, a poor shooter usually also makes a poor support bot because the team that built it focused on shooting instead of being a good partner for a better shooter.

Having attended 6 regionals and the championship I would say that a bot that was singly good at manipulating and balancing on the bridge and in short orientation would have been a winning robot. Those simple bonus point would have won the majority of qualification matches I saw. Also the ability to coop would have helped them rank even higher. Add in the ability to simply collect and feed balls and you have a huge advantage over 90% of the teams that competed this year.

I would have killed to have one of those to pick as the number one seed at Boiler and the number 2 seed at Queen City.

[sg999]

First off, REX was an amazing example of what can happen through hard work and a little bit of humility. Now to the debate.

I feel that it's better to have a robot that can only play in autonomous and the end game than to have a robot that can play the entire game badly.

Our strategy for our regional (CT regional) this year was to try to play the entire game, which didn't work out so well because we could play everything badly. (Yes, I'll admit it, I was a strong proponent of being able to do everything) Yes, we worked hard last season to become one of the reliable shooters. However, it didn't work because we don't have the basic skills needed to build even a strong drive train. After our regional, we redesigned our robot to play only autonomous and the end game. This strategy, for us at least, was much more effective (see sig).

I think 4334 took the right approach their rookie year by trying not to do everything. If they had tried to immitate their alliance partners' success by building a robot that could sort of do everything, they might not have done as well (I don't know, just hypothetically speaking). While being a defensive robot might not be for everyone, it's still important for developing teams to have a robot that can do something at least. Even though there are teams out there that might be ready to take the next step and become an offensive robot, there are still teams (like ours) that need lots of improvement to be a great support robot.

Just my two cents.

[BackInCalgary]

I was in Calgary this summer and worked a bit with 4334 planning the new Calgary/West Canada Regional (I can't remember the official name, but check it out, it'll be awesome), mostly I helped with finding ways to get new students/teams involved. Unfortunately, this little thing was nowhere to be found...

I liked the strategy, especially since they are set up to transition out of their "support" role with the experience they gained in their rookie year, which will be very fun to see (they had just one student with FRC experience for their rookie season by my unofficial count). There will also be an influx of rookies sharing resources next season, so there could be some new competition dynamics in Canada. Remember the Niagra Triplets? There's like, 15 this time.

[Arefin Bari]

That is one little firecracker. I was amazed and very impressed by this team during the past season. Good job for making your rookie year a memorable one.