Aerial Assist and Ill Will

[Oblarg]

There are some valid concerns in this thread, and I do hope the alliance-dependent nature of the game doesn't bring out an uglier side to some of the participants. I think we'll have to wait and see.

However, a lot of posts here to the tune of "less-capable teams ought to just get out of the way" really irk me. FIRST is about inspiration. How "inspired" do you think members of those teams would feel reading some of the posts earlier in this thread? If you are on a successful team, then that is a great thing and you should take full advantage of it. But the program does not only exist to serve you and your interests. I find it extremely disheartening to see an attitude of dismissal (or even outright scorn) towards teams that arguably have the most to gain from FRC.

[cadandcookies]

From a team member's perspective, I am very glad that I won't be on the drive team this year, because dealing with sticky situations like those proposed in this thread sounds like it could lead to some pretty hard dilemmas.

From someone that likes watching human behavior, I think it's going to be super interesting to see how teams adapt to the emphasis on cooperation and the conflicts that will inevitable occur at least a few times this year. I'll probably hang out in the pits for the sole reason of watching pre-match strategy sessions

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

However, a lot of posts here to the tune of "less-capable teams ought to just get out of the way" really irk me. FIRST is about inspiration. How "inspired" do you think members of those teams would feel reading some of the posts earlier in this thread? If you are on a successful team, then that is a great thing and you should take full advantage of it. But the program does not only exist to serve you and your interests. I find it extremely disheartening to see an attitude of dismissal (or even outright scorn) towards teams that arguably have the most to gain from FRC.

I do not think anyone in this thread feels that teams building robots that can't score many points should stop participating in FRC. Instead, they feel that these teams should build the best robot they can with their skills at this point in time. Most of the time, this ideal robot is much more limited in scope than the robot these teams bring to the event.

You can always point back to Karthik's "it is better to be a 10 at one thing than a 5 at two things." There are absolutely teams in FRC with very little build space, very few tools, and very little knowledge of how FRC works. For those teams, the best thing for the team is to build a solid kitbot with maybe a very simple manipulator, teach everyone on your team that basic level of skill, and drive the snot out of it. Then they can come back the following year and build upon those skills to do something better.

1778 has mostly rookie members. This week we were teaching kids the difference between a regular wrench and an allen key, and I think that's awesome. We aren't shooting. We're gonna be great at picking up off the floor and passing, and maybe catch if we have time left over. Would it be cool to have a whiz-bang shooter? Of course. Could we build a shooter? Sure. But we'd much rather be a 10 at one thing than a 5 at two things. It is much more important to us that we train the kids so next year so our team can be prepared to build an even better robot while we mentors have even more opportunities to sit around and drink coffee. We also recognize the importance of driver practice.

FRC for a four year student is a marathon disguises as four sprints. I'd much rather win the marathon than a sprint.

[AlexD744]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

1778 has mostly rookie members. This week we were teaching kids the difference between a regular wrench and an allen key, and I think that's awesome. We aren't shooting. We're gonna be great at picking up off the floor and passing, and maybe catch if we have time left over. Would it be cool to have a whiz-bang shooter? Of course. Could we build a shooter? Sure. But we'd much rather be a 10 at one thing than a 5 at two things. It is much more important to us that we train the kids so next year so our team can be prepared to build an even better robot while we mentors have even more opportunities to sit around and drink coffee. We also recognize the importance of driver practice.

Now, I'm no Car Nack, but if I were, I would predict that at least 2/12 teams on Einstein have no way of throwing the ball. They have super fast "assist" mechanisms and a killer drivetrain and driver, that's able to play some awesome shutdown defense. Good on you for realizing your limitations and building a robot that will dominate what it's intended to do!

Edit: I just found out about the 4 team alliances at champs, this clearly changes my prediction, but I'm not sure what it should be changed to yet... same idea though

[Koko Ed]

Ill will goes both ways and those team that sabotage strategies to go off and do their won thing will found themselves off lists very quickly and before someone goes throwing around GP like a righteously wagged finger of justice just remember: you signed up for a competition with the intention of doing your best not to drag other teams down to the bottom of the standings with you because you can't be bothered.
In the three team alliance era there is a place for teams who do one thing a do it well so long as they are willing to be honest with themselves and their alliance partner of what they can and cannot do. But if you go off freelancing just don't go expecting a pat on the back and a "that's ok". Sometimes the best love you can give teams is tough love and let them know there are consequences to your actions.

[Bill_B]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

...
You can always point back to Karthik's "it is better to be a 10 at one thing than a 5 at two things." ...

He's got a lot on the ball and I think we can count on another notable robot from his team this year. However true this pseudo math homily may be, do you think it translates into other versions? Say maybe "better to be an 8 at one thing than a 4 at two things." Or "better to be an 9 at one thing than a 3 at 3 things." I mention this because there may be cases where a team cannot be a 10 at anything.

I find that the most difficult task for many, many people is evaluating external advice. Even the advice of your own mentors gets rejected without supporting rationale, so what chance has an alliance captain at a competition? I never cared too much for Vince Lombardi's quote about winning being the only thing. It turns out he had a lot more useful advice about teamwork and many other subjects. I especially like: "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence." I need to make a large version of this to grace the shop. It won't be perfect or even excellent. Could be good though.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Bill_B

He's got a lot on the ball and I think we can count on another notable robot from his team this year. However true this pseudo math homily may be, do you think it translates into other versions? Say maybe "better to be an 8 at one thing than a 4 at two things." Or "better to be an 9 at one thing than a 3 at 3 things." I mention this because there may be cases where a team cannot be a 10 at anything.

It does translate a little better with the context added of considering your resources when he uses that quote. Teams that have people, money, machining resources, and experience accrue "robot points" over time in a way, so when you come to the "robot store" you can cash them in for creating a number of core functionalities that meet higher and higher levels of quality as you have more points to spend. So yes, o na scale from 1-10, a team may only be able to do one thing at an 8/10 instead of a 10/10.