Aerial Assist and Ill Will

[DavisC]

On the side about Showing off a team's robot:
If it is between Winning - ranking 15th and losing -ranking 25th, if the match allows our team to show off the full potential of the robot, we will take the loss (not trying to be mean here).

As captain and head of drive team it isn't even my decision, I present the situation to the team in the Pits and allowed people to talk in front of everyone (sorta a debate) and the team essentially votes on our strategy, it becomes evident they want to be in the finals (who doesn't?).

Last Year, we lost our last match to show off our climbing to the 3rd tier even though 1 of our alliance partners was in the top few seeds and wanted us to drive around on defense only and go for 10 point hang.
We were specifically chosen for the finals just because of our 30 point hang. (our alliance said after choosing us, from the start, make that 30 point hang happen).

[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.

[Donut]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

If the teams that should build a box on wheels all build a box on wheels, this wouldn't be an issue.

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Donut

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.

Historically, 1551 has been inconsistent with our ability to score, but since our third year we've always built the absolute best, no-holds-barred drive train we possibly can. There have been years where we've been relegated to defense only because of our own inability to score (or we just couldn't score fast enough, or reliably enough)--and most of those years we made the elimination tournament.

Defense should have been huge last year; I watched so many streamed matches where I was frustrated by teams that couldn't score well enough to change the outcome, who didn't play defense instead, where that could have made the difference in the match.

Defense should be monstrously huge this year, but probably won't be as big as it should be for some teams/alliances.

The things that teams can do to avoid any sort of ill will whatsoever are pretty simple:

1. Be brutally honest with yourselves and your alliance partners about your capabilities--not what you hoped/planned to be able to do, not what you think you might be able to do because of what you changed after last match, but what you know you can do reliably.
2. Use those capabilities to determine your strategy for a match.
3. Play that strategy to the best of your abilities.
4. Play every match to win.

A brick on wheels is usually a defense-only robot, but this year that's simply not true. If you can ram a ball in a given direction, you can assist and you can score in the low goal.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Chi Meson

Any robot that spends their build season focused on a 50% successful catching mechanism should see eliminations, repeatedly.

50%? I dunno, sounds pretty unreliable to me.

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

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."

Exactly what I want to say. Thanks Ian!

[BrennanB]

This is a hard thing to talk about with an alliance, and I think that this mentality of "we have to show off our robot's new functionality" has been in FIRST games for a long time.

There are plenty of examples (probably for every regional) where teams compromise the total alliance strategy for the ability to show off a function that was not previously working, and might still not work.

There is a significant advantage to showing a mechanism working in a match, and certainly there is something to be said for a mechanism that works on the field during a match, than just a mechanism that works while you are in a controlled environment. The alternative is a much less satisfactory demonstration a robot's capability is demonstrating in the pits/practice field, because matches are played on the competition field, not the pits/practice field. Just because you show this function, doesn't mean that you will get picked. Just because you try to do it during the match, doesn't mean that it will actually work.

Just be aware of the reputation that you give to these teams that you essentially decide to not work with. Even if these other two teams aren't in a picking position for this regional, maybe they will be next regional. Perhaps it's not even this year that they are going to pick you, but next year, or the year after. Stories spread, people remember. (You can even see it in this thread, all the examples of "that one team that") Reputations stay for a long time, even if you may have the best intentions later. If it comes down to you and another team in the scouting meeting, you can probably bet that they will be picking the other team.

Just be very careful about doing something for a somewhat small gain, that could affect your team's image for several years to come.