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

[Akash Rastogi]

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.

The team picked probably works better with the captain, either historically, or because they are friends.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here...?

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

The team picked probably works better with the captain, either historically, or because they are friends.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here...?

How could helping my alliance in eliminations possibly hurt anyone else?

[Tom Bottiglieri]

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.

When there is a chokehold strategy that relies on getting game pieces and our mechanism is faster than your already completed and difficult to modify mechanism, the incentive would be to take the "blank slate".

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

When there is a chokehold strategy that relies on getting game pieces and our mechanism is faster than your already completed and difficult to modify mechanism, the incentive would be to take the "blank slate".

In my humble opinion I think that gives the wrong incentives.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by efoote868

In my humble opinion I think that gives the wrong incentives.

I agree with you, and I strongly believe we shouldn't have a game that drives those incentives but it does. Flat out it does. Toms post assumes all things being equal, but in real life there are things like relationships between teams, competency of the drive teams, mentors, pit crews, etc. that would go into a decision about which team to pick.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by efoote868

In my humble opinion I think that gives the wrong incentives.

I agree, this isn't a fun aspect of this year's challenge. I think I can safely say that no one likes this, but we play the game we are given.

Unfortunately, this year, sometimes the robot role that fits the winning alliance strategy is not "inbound the ball/shoot a few frisbees and play shutdown defense" but rather "be sized, willing, and able to receive a mechanism that gives us a better chance of not getting eliminated due to lack of game pieces."

[ASmith1675]

The point I think that's being missed in most of this discussion (excuse me if I missed it in the 13+ pages) is that no one is being FORCED to add things to their robot.

Maybe you find it more inspiring to find and correct that flaw that has been holding back your design. Great! Do that! Maybe you could even ask one of these "elite teams" to help you (I know that many will, having had some interaction with them). Also great!

I'm willing to bet that most of the "cheesecaked" (more on this later) teams started in this way. With members of the "elite" team trying to make their robot work. At this point said "elite" team finds that "Hey this team is pretty good, and are easy to work with, maybe we could suggest a relatively easy change that would make our elimination alliance stronger"

It is at this point that the team to be cheesecaked can say yes or no. "Sorry, we're comfortable with our now-working mechanism and will take our chances at getting picked" Or even, "Our students would prefer to continue working on our mechanism than spend the time adding the cheesecake". Great! Awesome! More power to you! However, this team to be cheesecaked could just as easily say "We've had a lot of fun and learned a ton from working with you so far! We'd be happy to do whatever is needed to help win."

I very much doubt that any of the "powerhouse" teams have randomly chosen a robot from the field without talking to them, and steamrolled their student and mentors in to changing their robot against their will. I also very much doubt that any of the cheesecaked had no discussions with the "elite" before alliances were selected.

We can't make broad generalizations (in either direction) about what is inspiring for a particular team. Some may be inspired by seeing their design come to life, and others may be inspired by doing whatever it takes to win. Neither view is wrong, they are just different.



As a side note: Isn't cheesecake really more of a pie? And isn't Boston cream pie really more of a cake? I propose making this trade.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by efoote868

In my humble opinion I think that gives the wrong incentives.

You are absolutely right. Go straight to the GDC and demand that they never design a game like this again that so diminishes the role of the 3rd robot. But don't expect teams in a competitive environment to act solely out of the "goodness of their hearts."

Look at the posts from individuals on teams that are being quite successful this year. None are saying "leave us alone because we're perfectly happy with the status quo." They are universally saying "we're stuck with the cards we've been dealt. Why cut off the best way that we can help other teams just because the deck came out so stacked and the no one is willing to look at how to really reshuffle the deck?"

[Citrus Dad]

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.

I have yet to see a robot that could only grab 2 cans in autonomous and wasn't already competent enough that it would be picked up in the first round of the draft. You're describing a pretty technically challenging task that is way beyond most teams this year (which is another point of this thread.) (I've watched quite a few webcasts.) The choices have always been between robots that might at most be able to put up 2 tote stacks.

[Brandon_L]

If the intent of this Q&A is actually targeted at stopping ramps being passed between teams, I'm not sure what the wording of it is actually accomplishing. A COTS ramp can be built with two items, one if which is the string/tether.

It's doing more harm then good, and it doesn't even accomplish it's intent.

Seems like week 4 q&a controversy is becoming an annual event.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

But don't expect teams in a competitive environment to act solely out of the "goodness of their hearts."

I don't, but that's why there is a need for this type of rule.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I have yet to see a robot that could only grab 2 cans in autonomous and wasn't already competent enough that it would be picked up in the first round of the draft. You're describing a pretty technically challenging task that is way beyond most teams this year (which is another point of this thread.) (I've watched quite a few webcasts.) The choices have always been between robots that might at most be able to put up 2 tote stacks.

I'm describing a hypothetical example, although my team from 2004 would be a good example from a different game.
There are teams that build a robot around their technical capabilities, specifically dissecting the game to determine how to maximize their utility to a high ranking team.

I don't like the idea of high ranking teams creating extra mechanisms to fit their needs of an alliance and then picking a robot based on its adaptability to add (read - easiest to bolt on) that mechanism, instead of picking another robot based on its present ability or future ability after a little help.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by efoote868

I don't like the idea of high ranking teams creating extra mechanisms to fit their needs of an alliance and then picking a robot based on its adaptability to add (read - easiest to bolt on) that mechanism, instead of picking another robot based on its present ability or future ability after a little help.

The problem is that in this game the present and future abilities don't exist. When we are talking about canburgling, the race is going to be sub .2 seconds at the high levels of play. Trying to improve a mechanism to that speed isn't likely possible. In other years it would definitely make sense to take a team that already has a mechanism, (collector, launcher, etc). This year not so much. If the team's established mechanism this year can get an RC in .5 seconds it won't matter since the RCs will be long gone at the highest levels of play. At that point you don't have abilities even if you think you do, it's the nature of this game. As many people have said, nobody really likes this idea, but that is the game we have been given.

[jvriezen]

Just as an anecdotal example, I had first hand experience in a case where an alliance captain (Team A) made a first pick of Team B which had a pretty reliable mechanism to accomplish a key specific game task.

Team A thought their mechanism was superior to Team B's and realized that due to the great similarity in a portion of the mechanism, they could 'transplant' Team A's solution onto Team B's bot, by only drilling a couple holes and attaching a couple very trivial parts. Team B was not asked about this plan prior to picking or after picking. Team A simply arrived at Team B's pit after alliance selections and basically said, "we are going to do this." and proceeded to do the work in Team B's pit.

In the quarter finals the transplanted mechanism failed, twice, the second time with magic smoke, but both matches were still won due to the overall strength of the alliance. Team B decided to revert back to its own solution, and in a later match, Team B's original mechanism outperformed Team A's mechanism.

Team A was a well respected and routinely highly ranked team.

So it is not in all cases that the 3rd bot's team will be consulted or given a chance to accept a suggestion for change.

[magnets]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

The problem is that in this game the present and future abilities don't exist. When we are talking about canburgling, the race is going to be sub .2 seconds at the high levels of play..

.2 seconds to engage the hook, sure, but the containers will likely still be on the step, unmoved, for some time after that.

.2 seconds is less than the amount of time it takes for an object to fall 8 inches in free fall. Pick up a pencil, and drop it from the height of a foot. That's not much time to move your hook 6+ feet, wait for the hook to engage/settle, and begin backing up the robot.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by magnets

.2 seconds to engage the hook, sure, but the containers will likely still be on the step, unmoved, for some time after that.

.2 seconds is less than the amount of time it takes for an object to fall 8 inches in free fall. Pick up a pencil, and drop it from the height of a foot. That's not much time to move your hook 6+ feet, wait for the hook to engage/settle, and begin backing up the robot.

I hope you're not planning on building a can grabber then...prepare to be disappointed if you think you can win that arms race with a mechanism that takes more than .25s to secure the can.