Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by marshall

For me personally, if I were on the GDC then I'd stop adding more rules and let teams do as they have done in the past and allow them to add components to other robots freely provided the newly formed amalgamations pass inspection.

Perhaps an even better response from the GDC would be to step up and take responsibility for unintended consequences that they've created this year. I gave them full credit last year for what I thought was a great overall concept that got more teams involved than ever. But that also means that they should express their mea culpas rather than trying to prohibit an informal process that has been one of the most fruitful means of teams helping each other. As others have said its probably too late to save the game this year, but the GDC should take to heart an important lesson about future games.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by efoote868

Where is the line between providing them with a mechanism and with an entire robot?

The definition of "robot" in the rules?

I mean, if you have ever heard of one team completely giving a robot to another team for use in elimination matches I'd love to see it. Because it really seems like you want this to be either 0 or 100.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by efoote868

Should a team in the future be allowed to show up at a regional with just a functioning drive base, be completely non-competitive the entire regional then expect to be the last pick of the #1 alliance because the overall #1 team can outfit them with all the parts needed to be the niche player they need?

Seems it is unfair to any other participant, and is exactly why FIRST has to try so hard to define what a VENDOR is.

Important point: in past year's games this was basically an infeasible strategy. Teams had to bring something useful to the table before they could be considered for an alliance. This year is VERY different and it can be prevented in the future by keeping that in mind in the game design without ANY special rules about assistance.

That said, Mike has listed several examples of how adding cheesecake to what was otherwise a complete meal of a robot has made a team a more attractive alliance partner. Are you saying that the robots that show up a competition MUST be a complete menu with no dessert provided by other teams? That's way beyond the tradition of FRC.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by efoote868

Then the question is, how are you going to get the 3rd bot to accomplish your ALLIANCE strategy. Are you going to gift them a complete mechanism which completes the task, or are you going to work with them to create a new mechanism which completes the task?

In my opinion, the former violates the spirit of the competition (you are only allowed to field one robot). The latter is to be encouraged.

The new rule interpretation does not allow a team to do either of these approaches. That's the point of this thread.

[MrJohnston]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

There's a 6 week build season and 2 days prior that I'm more than willing to spend helping teams build their robots. As Brando mentioned above, we host numerous teams in our already crowded lab. As well as outright help 10+ teams build their drives week 2 of build each year. And spend the event helping teams (in fact that's a good chunk of my job at Rhode Island this weekend).

This isn't about the six week build season and, to my knowledge, this isn't about you, specifically. It is about how strong teams should treat weak ones in elimination matches.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Sorry, if with all that our pick still can't move, I don't think we should have to put them on the field. And in a lot of cases, it's not a function of pick a better robot. (27 event district, more than 3 didn't move or show up to numerous matches).

Personally, I am yet to be at an event where there were no mobile robots available as the last pick. And, most immobile robots, generally just need a little help. Of course, in the extremely rare situation when there are no robots that can be chosen aside from those that are broken beyond a reasonably quick repair, I would expect them to be left off the field. It just seems to be at FIRST events, by the time we get to the end, those robots have had so much help that they are all moving.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

And if you want the most blunt response you'll likely get in this thread - Sometimes the nicest thing you could do for the team is to not make them play. Just let them observe how an alliance communicates, the stresses of elimination play, and what decisions go into it. I think we're awfully focused on the robot being out there, but less focused on the more important issue of what teams take away from playing with strong teams.

I so disagree with this. The kids came to play. Help them to find something to do. With only two other robots on an alliance, certainly you can send this weaker one to one corner of either a feeder station or the landfill to work on dragging a single tote to a scoring platform. Yes, for some teams, putting up 2 points will be a victory. I'm yet to see a mobile robot that is not worthy of attempting this.

[MrJohnston]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

The new rule interpretation does not allow a team to do either of these approaches. That's the point of this thread.

I disagree. The rule interpretation does not at all disallow bringing in COTS parts and a design for a device, going to a different team and suggesting they install the device. You can even help them to build/install the device. What you can't do is build it yourself and deliver it to them, already created.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Qcom

This is a concern, I'd agree. While I enjoyed the direction the game design took this year in respect to encouraging coopertition, these rules will make teams a lot more cautious about loaning or asking for parts. That makes one wonder why there is an announcer calling out needed parts in the pits at all.

I cannot disagree more. The GDC completely reversed the gains it made last year along these lines. The failures to encourage the use of the 3rd robot in the alliance were obvious to us from day one.

And loaning parts (and the associated expertise that often comes with it) is one of the greatest ways for teams to interact and for students to learn outside of their own team organization.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by dodar

The definition of "robot" in the rules?

I mean, if you have ever heard of one team completely giving a robot to another team for use in elimination matches I'd love to see it. Because it really seems like you want this to be either 0 or 100.

Having been on a team whose strategy was to build a complete robot around a specific role to make ourselves an attractive alliance pick, it hits close to home.
Back in 2004, my team created a robot solely around hanging on and defending the bar. With today's teams, I have no doubt that an elite team today could design a mechanism to install on a 3rd bot that could mimic our robot's ability to move on the bar; installing this singular ability would make the least competitive team a perfect fit to the most competitive team.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

I mean no disrespect to anyone who does supply other teams with said cheese or cake, but what I find interesting is that this action is primarily a competition day thing. 5 1/2 weeks ago someone started a thread asking what people were up to and most teams were secretive about designs and such. If you want true synergy between teams these lines of communication need to opened up far before the bag gets put on the robot. I would be behind cheesing if it was done consistently throughout the season but generally speaking (and maybe I am just deaf to the noise) the most I hear help wise is when a team runs out of a set of wheels and another team pitches in. You get a little chitter here and there about "has anyone tested out x,y,z against this game element" but in the end as long as the games are team based we would all do better if we all supported each other.
I don't mean to cast shade on any helping other teams. These actions are amazing, in times of stress you go and help another team. It is truly beautiful to see it happen in competition to see a team help another team get on their feet.
So why doesn't it happen more in the build season?

I have two answers to that question:

1) For this year, there is a premium on surprise in the game because the outcome is likely to be determined in less than a second--in the opening auto period. Do the math and you'll see the answer. Any revelations could spoil that strategy. That's a problem particular to this year's GD.

2) After what I thought was a successful GD last year, I called for the GDC to announce in September if the game would require teams to interact on the field to increase scores. You can find my posts on this on CD. As I've said above on this thread above, I don't believe that we can rely on the "goodness of our hearts" to achieve our goals. We need carrots and sticks, mostly through GD. And beyond that the GDC should be taking actions prior to build season to encourage teams interaction.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

I disagree. The rule interpretation does not at all disallow bringing in COTS parts and a design for a device, going to a different team and suggesting they install the device. You can even help them to build/install the device. What you can't do is build it yourself and deliver it to them, already created.

What we did at Champs last year would be prohibited this year. That is fundamentally wrong because those teams would not have had the great experience that they did.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by efoote868

Having been on a team whose strategy was to build a complete robot around a specific role to make ourselves an attractive alliance pick, it hits close to home.
Back in 2004, my team created a robot solely around hanging on and defending the bar. With today's teams, I have no doubt that an elite team today could design a mechanism to install on a 3rd bot that could mimic our robot's ability to move on the bar; installing this singular ability would make the least competitive team a perfect fit to the most competitive team.

So? That means there were negatives that that "elite team" saw in picking your team vs the other team. Just because your team made that strategy, doesnt give you the stranglehold on anyone else using that same strategy.

[Akash Rastogi]

Some of the responses and questions in this thread are so preachy it's a little absurd.

Having been on the receiving end of cheesecaking before, I can assure people that it is one of the most inspirational aspects of FRC that your mentors and students can witness. That first blue banner or medal sparks much more than a single trip to a championship event. Witnessing a captain be SO GOOD that they can fine tune their alliance and strategy to knock out wins is the best example of a role model team ever. Have all the cheesecake you want, I say.

[MrJohnston]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

What we did at Champs last year would be prohibited this year. That is fundamentally wrong because those teams would not have had the great experience that they did.

If the parts you contributed to the rookies teams were COTS, it would be just fine. The Q&A interpretation encourages you to help other teams build new devices. It only prohibits building things for them.

From the Q&A:
"3) No, but you may certainly assist another team in building new parts for their ROBOT at the event, and we encourage that."

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by dodar

So? That means there were negatives that that "elite team" saw in picking your team vs the other team. Just because your team made that strategy, doesnt give you the stranglehold on anyone else using that same strategy.

You need a robot that can grab 2 cans in autonomous, and nothing more. I have a robot that can grab 2 cans in autonomous. Instead of picking my robot, you pick a robot that can't do anything, (which includes driving), then install your extra mechanism which can grab 2 cans in autonomous.

How does making your alliance more competitive hurt anyone else? You skipped over my robot in favor of your extra mechanism.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by efoote868

You need a robot that can grab 2 cans in autonomous, and nothing more. I have a robot that can grab 2 cans in autonomous. Instead of picking my robot, you pick a robot that can't do anything, (which includes driving), then install your extra mechanism which can grab 2 cans in autonomous.

How does making your alliance more competitive hurt anyone else? You skipped over my robot in favor of your extra mechanism.

Now you are assuming they cannot drive. Show me a regional and/or district where a robot was picked as a 3rd alliance member that could literally do nothing.