Aerial Assist and Ill Will

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by Donut

I've never understood the aversion to doing a box on wheels or similarly simple robot. 179 made Einstein in 2007 with a robot only capable of scoring inner tubes on the bottom row. 842 consistently captained alliances in the elimination rounds at the Arizona regional in 2005-2007 by building robots that could only score the 1 point or low goal challenge but then had a solid drive train and shut down defense. We took note of that and built a simple low scoring lap bot in 2008, and until last year that is the robot that broke down the least of any I've worked on in the last 10 years.

Building a robot that never breaks down and performs consistently is more impressive than building a hardest scoring challenge mechanism that works once a match a best, imo.

Or 148 in 2008 as well.

Really, you can argue both sides, and there's never one right or a wrong answer. It's going to be dependent on how each team works it out as situations will vary. It depends on what the motives and goals of the team are.

Your goal can be to demonstrate all abilities of your robot, and there's absolutely nothing wrong there.

Your goal can be to sacrifice that if it means a higher probability of winning the match, and there's nothing wrong there either.

[DampRobot]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

Really, you can argue both sides, and there's never one right or a wrong answer. It's going to be dependent on how each team works it out as situations will vary. It depends on what the motives and goals of the team are.

Your goal can be to demonstrate all abilities of your robot, and there's absolutely nothing wrong there.

Your goal can be to sacrifice that if it means a higher probability of winning the match, and there's nothing wrong there either.

I'd argue that teams don't have a right to lose a match just because they decide it's to their advantage to show off. If these matches were 1v1, sure that would be fine. You'd only be hurting yourself. Of course, it doesn't work that way aren't. That team, which might just barely make the top 8 if they win this match? You're screwing them over if you lose this match. The other member, which might see their first win of a long, hard season this match? You'll be hurting them too. Like it or not, teams have some obligation to their alliance partners.

I can tell you for a fact that teams that decide to show off their robot and cripple their alliance are not going to be teams we'd like to work with for eliminations. A box on wheels (well, traction wheels) that can work with their alliance partners is exactly what you want as a third pick for this game. You don't want a robot that's a mediocre shooter, you want one that's a beastly inbounder and a great defensive bot.

Ultimately, the decision to hurt your own alliance for your own potential gain isn't just self-serving, it's the wrong way to achieve your goal. If your shooter is inaccurate and it takes you 40 seconds to pick up a ball, you won't get chosen for those capabilities, even if you demonstrate them at your alliances expense. You will get chosen for showing off your awesome drivetrain, defense and assist capabilities, which are going to help your alliance anyway.

If you're going to hurt your own alliance, don't shoot yourself in the foot while doing it.

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

I'd argue that teams don't have a right to lose a match just because they decide it's to their advantage to show off. If these matches were 1v1, sure that would be fine. You'd only be hurting yourself. Of course, it doesn't work that way aren't. That team, which might just barely make the top 8 if they win this match? You're screwing them over if you lose this match. The other member, which might see their first win of a long, hard season this match? You'll be hurting them too. Like it or not, teams have some obligation to their alliance partners.

I can tell you for a fact that teams that decide to show off their robot and cripple their alliance are not going to be teams we'd like to work with for eliminations. A box on wheels (well, traction wheels) that can work with their alliance partners is exactly what you want as a third pick for this game. You don't want a robot that's a mediocre shooter, you want one that's a beastly inbounder and a great defensive bot.

Ultimately, the decision to hurt your own alliance for your own potential gain isn't just self-serving, it's the wrong way to achieve your goal. If your shooter is inaccurate and it takes you 40 seconds to pick up a ball, you won't get chosen for those capabilities, even if you demonstrate them at your alliances expense. You will get chosen for showing off your awesome drivetrain, defense and assist capabilities, which are going to help your alliance anyway.

If you're going to hurt your own alliance, don't shoot yourself in the foot while doing it.

Right, I agree, but what I'm saying is that from the point of view of the team that chooses to showcase rather than fill a role they believe that's right, and you'll have a hard time convincing them otherwise. Likewise can be said about the alternate case.

Personally, I think winning by fulfilling the alliance requirements is better, but that's just my opinion.

[sanddrag]

In 2008, there were 3 robots and 2 balls, and there were still robots on the same alliance fighting over the ball, because people's scouting data sucked, and egos were too big. We were once partnered with a team who insisted we should just make laps, because they could make 3 (!) hurdles.... During match play, they literally stole the ball from our posession. Yes, they stole it from their own partner, and we could not score it all match while they fumbled around with it. Their arrogance and lack of data cost us that match, when we regularly made 6-7 hurdles in every match prior and thereafter.

To me, part of gracious professionalism in being on an alliance with a team who is clearly better than you is defaulting to the better team's plan, for the benefit of the whole alliance.

[EricH]

My take on some of this:

If the ALLIANCE agrees on a strategy, and nothing happens to disrupt the strategy, then the TEAMS on the alliance need to stick to the strategy. Of course, if something happens to disrupt the strategy, all bets are off.

In my opinion, any alliance partner who cannot stick to the alliance strategy and doesn't have a good explanation (such as heavy defense altering the strategy, or a broken robot--showing off is not a good explanation if it wasn't brought up in the strategy meeting) should be off of the other alliance partners' picklists, on the spot. Ditto for any team that just can't work well with their alliance partners' drive teams. Again, that's only my opinion; the scouts on my team probably have a different one, and I won't even try to get into what scouts/strategists on other teams think, because there's no way of knowing.