Suggestion for a new overall approach

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Dan.Tyler

Or... You can visit those teams and mentor them regardless of whether the game will require it or not.

Yes, we're planning on that anyway. But we can't change the entire FRC culture acting as a single team, and it's evident that many other teams are not acting in this way.

As an economist I'll tell you that people act much more strongly out of incentives than just through voluntary acts, and also through self-interest. This has been shown empirically over and over. (For a good article on this, Hal Varian, now Chief Information Officer at Google, wrote about this in a 1986.) FRC, and the GDC in particular, should be thinking deeply about the incentives it creates and how it wants to direct the whole organization. Just sitting back and wishing for things to happen won't make them happen. My suggestion is intended to make many more teams to act in this manner, not just us.

[Pault]

But what incentives would this actually give teams? It is J̶u̶s̶t̶ a̶s̶ more likely that the team you are helping is going to be against you as it is that they are going to be on your alliance. If I magically made everybody in New England 10x better except for my own team, we would have a much harder time, regardless of the game.

I am personally of the opinion that FIRST should stop trying to force coopertition on us with the games. All I see it doing is getting teams mad at other teams who can't do what they say they can do/refuse to play defense for a match because they want to show off their skills and screwing up the rankings. The teamwork and good sportsmanship can happen off the field, where it really matters.

[waialua359]

Personally, I think the approach is fine and there are more resources than ever to being a competitive robot on the field.
As a participating mentor since August 1999, I can tell you that there are WAY more resources out there for teams to be successful.

Teams that are unsuccessful in producing a robot that is relatively effective on the field is not something that FIRST can help with, other than cost.

Previous inspiring team designs, and vendors like AndyMark and VEXPro are the ones that truly created an improved overall approach to helping teams with more turn-key parts, 3 day robots (among others), and design ideas.
Today, there are way more teams already assisting and collaborating with each other compared to before where each team saw themselves as an individual against others.
I cant see doing anything more other than just building it for them.

Time management, getting the right mentor support, school support, funding support, commitment to success, etc. is something a team needs to figure out.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Personally, I think the approach is fine and there are more resources than ever to being a competitive robot on the field.
As a participating mentor since August 1999, I can tell you that there are WAY more resources out there for teams to be successful.

Teams that are unsuccessful in producing a robot that is relatively effective on the field is not something that FIRST can help with, other than cost.

Previous inspiring team designs, and vendors like AndyMark and VEXPro are the ones that truly created an improved overall approach to helping teams with more turn-key parts, 3 day robots (among others), and design ideas.
Today, there are way more teams already assisting and collaborating with each other compared to before where each team saw themselves as an individual against others.
I cant see doing anything more other than just building it for them.

Time management, getting the right mentor support, school support, funding support, commitment to success, etc. is something a team needs to figure out.

I'm sure that the Hawaiian Kids have had a huge positive impact on the teams around them. However, as I mentioned I have seen a wider dispersion of teams' competencies this year than in the past as borne out in the data.

What I see is not so much a failure among those teams in building and execution, but rather in understanding the game and choosing a strategy to address the problem. Too often these teams chew off too much, and then are overwhelmed in their attempt to execute. So of course their robot doesn't run well. This year's game compounded this problem because many teams didn't understand the complexity of interrobot exchanges. Providing that guidance, including lowering expectations, can have a better overall experience for these teams.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Pault

But what incentives would this actually give teams? It is J̶u̶s̶t̶ a̶s̶ more likely that the team you are helping is going to be against you as it is that they are going to be on your alliance. If I magically made everybody in New England 10x better except for my own team, we would have a much harder time, regardless of the game.

I am personally of the opinion that FIRST should stop trying to force coopertition on us with the games. All I see it doing is getting teams mad at other teams who can't do what they say they can do/refuse to play defense for a match because they want to show off their skills and screwing up the rankings. The teamwork and good sportsmanship can happen off the field, where it really matters.

I believe most mentors want to see a higher level of play across the board. Not supporting the younger teams leads to a lower level of play, and for the more proficient teams, a smaller pool of available competent alliance partners during eliminations. The drag from a non-functioning alliance partner is much worse than the potential loss from facing a more competent opponent in this game. The best teams have taken that lesson from this year's competition, not the lesson you propose here.

And if the more experienced teams are given an incentive to engage those teams in the pre-season, then you are less likely to see the resistance to suggested strategies that you note (and others have noted as well--see the thread "the ethics of saying no".)

Engaging other teams to increase teamwork across the organization is an important goal. Remember that FIRST is not the NFL--the objective is not about winning a championship trophy; it's about increasing education and engagement in STEM. Competition is only a means to an end, not the other way around.

[Pault]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I believe most mentors want to see a higher level of play across the board. Not supporting the younger teams leads to a lower level of play, and for the more proficient teams, a smaller pool of available competent alliance partners during eliminations. The drag from a non-functioning alliance partner is much worse than the potential loss from facing a more competent opponent in this game. The best teams have taken that lesson from this year's competition, not the lesson you propose here.

And if the more experienced teams are given an incentive to engage those teams in the pre-season, then you are less likely to see the resistance to suggested strategies that you note (and others have noted as well--see the thread "the ethics of saying no".)

Engaging other teams to increase teamwork across the organization is an important goal. Remember that FIRST is not the NFL--the objective is not about winning a championship trophy; it's about increasing education and engagement in STEM. Competition is only a means to an end, not the other way around.

But I still don't see how coopertition among an alliance makes a team more likely to help other teams. The good teams out there always have helped teams, and always will, not at all because they are afraid of getting bad alliance partners but because it is making progress towards the ultimate goal of FIRST. I can't imagine a team saying "I don't want to be with bad alliance partners, so I am going to help all the teams around me to be better alliance partners... Even though it is more likely that they will be competing against me." I imagine them saying "I am going to help the teams around me because it will help to inspire them and their community to take up STEM carreers, as well as increase the competitiveness of FIRST in order to better bring about the culture change which we all desire."

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Pault

But I still don't see how coopertition among an alliance makes a team more likely to help other teams. The good teams out there always have helped teams, and always will, not at all because they are afraid of getting bad alliance partners but because it is making progress towards the ultimate goal of FIRST. I can't imagine a team saying "I don't want to be with bad alliance partners, so I am going to help all the teams around me to be better alliance partners... Even though it is more likely that they will be competing against me." I imagine them saying "I am going to help the teams around me because it will help to inspire them and their community to take up STEM carreers, as well as increase the competitiveness of FIRST in order to better bring about the culture change which we all desire."

As an economist, I'll say that there is a very big difference between what people SHOULD do, and what they ACTUALLY do. (I think I said this earlier as well.) Right now teams are not ACTUALLY reaching out as well as they could. (And our team was one of them until recently because we were spending out efforts building up internal resources.) I think the GDC came up with this game because they made the same observation and wanted to increase interteam cooperation. I agree with the GDC if that's there objective. I'm making suggestions to further the GDC's objectives.

The status quo isn't working--come up with a new suggestion.

[BeardyMentor]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

As an economist, I'll say that there is a very big difference between what people SHOULD do, and what they ACTUALLY do. (I think I said this earlier as well.) Right now teams are not ACTUALLY reaching out as well as they could. (And our team was one of them until recently because we were spending out efforts building up internal resources.) I think the GDC came up with this game because they made the same observation and wanted to increase interteam cooperation. I agree with the GDC if that's there objective. I'm making suggestions to further the GDC's objectives.

The status quo isn't working--come up with a new suggestion.

The status quo has only been one competition season. Give the current system time to sink in. If there is 2 or 3 years in a row that we see strong intra-alliance cooperation required, we will see exactly what you are describing.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by BeardyMentor

The status quo has only been one competition season. Give the current system time to sink in. If there is 2 or 3 years in a row that we see strong intra-alliance cooperation required, we will see exactly what you are describing.

Why not give a signal this coming season? Why wait until next January? Why wait 2 or 3 years for something that can happen in 6 months?

The status quo I was referencing was the history of FRC in which more experienced teams generally have not shared with and supported newer teams.
(Yes, there are exceptions, but that's not the general case.) The GDC went part way to fix the status quo. I'm suggesting going further.

[BeardyMentor]

I just don't think it is necessary to send out game information before kick-off. The assumption should be every year that robot interaction will be required. Sending out a 'Robot interaction required' signal on certain years will only really help on those years. What happens with rookie team who starts on an 'interaction' year vs one that doesn't?

Your goal is one that I think FIRST shares, but giving game information before kickoff is something that to my knowledge has never been done and is likely not the best way to change how teams work together outside of competition on a sustained time scale.

Maybe the focus should be on encouraging the less able teams to ask for help when they need it. My team has never been refused a reasonable request for assistance. Nor have we ever refused to help anyone who has asked us for help we were capable of providing.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by BeardyMentor

I just don't think it is necessary to send out game information before kick-off. The assumption should be every year that robot interaction will be required. Sending out a 'Robot interaction required' signal on certain years will only really help on those years. What happens with rookie team who starts on an 'interaction' year vs one that doesn't?

Your goal is one that I think FIRST shares, but giving game information before kickoff is something that to my knowledge has never been done and is likely not the best way to change how teams work together outside of competition on a sustained time scale.

Maybe the focus should be on encouraging the less able teams to ask for help when they need it. My team has never been refused a reasonable request for assistance. Nor have we ever refused to help anyone who has asked us for help we were capable of providing.

Again, you're relying on individual teams to take actions, and particularly inexperienced teams that probably have no idea which teams are good to ask for help.

And yes, I'm saying the FIRST should make a simple change in its game announcement. To be honest, I don't think that it will affect the surprise element of the new challenge. FIRST has released game hints before (although not always accurate). This would be more explicit.

You don't specify why this isn't the best way to accomplish this goal, so I'm assuming you don't really have a better suggestion beyond relying on what is already occurring and in my opinion is not working as well as it could. I think the complaints about this year's game back up my position.

[RallyJeff]

Originally Posted by Pault

But what incentives would this actually give teams? It is J̶u̶s̶t̶ a̶s̶ more likely that the team you are helping is going to be against you as it is that they are going to be on your alliance. If I magically made everybody in New England 10x better except for my own team, we would have a much harder time, regardless of the game.

The stronger the teams, the more meaningful the competition.

If all you're after is a trophy, you can get a very fancy one at any engraving shop for way less money and effort than it takes to compete in FRC. It's having as many excellent teams as possible - and the pursuit of excellence - that makes the whole thing worthwhile.

[Pault]

Originally Posted by RallyJeff

The stronger the teams, the more meaningful the competition.

If all you're after is a trophy, you can get a very fancy one at any engraving shop for way less money and effort than it takes to compete in FRC. It's having as many excellent teams as possible - and the pursuit of excellence - that makes the whole thing worthwhile.

Your taking my quote out of context. I absolutely agree that helping other teams is a huge part of FIRST. I just don't agree that including coopertition as part of the game incentives teams to do so.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Pault

I absolutely agree that helping other teams is a huge part of FIRST. I just don't agree that including coopertition as part of the game incentives teams to do so.

How does it not? If you think having to rely on your alliance partners in order to win a match isn't a good incentive to help them do well, I don't know what you'd suggest as a better one.

[A Dog IRL]

I don't think that we need to have FIRST announce what the game will be way ahead of time, even if it's a minor detail. As the founder of a rookie team, I really enjoyed the game this year as it put a lot of our minds to work on the team in the design and testing processes.

I do, however, love this game over past years. The game actually feels like a sporting event, and I was on the edge of my seat the entire time at Einstein. I hope next year the game is something similar. I kinda wish it was the same game so we could build an even better robot, but that wouldn't be very fair.