Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance

[Siri]

Originally Posted by EricH

All right, I'm going to ask a really simple question.

What about the 4th robot that comes in to replace a broken robot, and possibly helps get the alliance to Champs in the first place?

That's right, 4th robots are perfectly valid at the regional/district level as well. They might not show up as often, and they're eligible to be called in primarily because of their ranking (and that's a whole 'nother debate, folks), but if anybody wants to argue that an alliance should win because of a forced 2v3 (or, on the other side, lose due to same) because somebody can't be repaired in time, then I think there's a lot of people that will be looking at them really funny.

I would say that 4th robots are valuable to the alliance that selects them, or has need of them and calls them in--and they are every bit as deserving of whatever the result is as the rest of the alliance. (Even if they were called in as a backup to an alliance down 0-1 in the finals, and lost that match.)

I credit 4th robots in either case, but 4th robots rules at Champs are fundamentally different than at others. If I call in a 4th robot to my alliance at a Regional, I'm trading (for a match) a robot I picked, so there must be a specific important reason. (Separately, I have no direct control over which team is the backup.) On the other hand, 4th robots are required of all alliances at Champs, and nothing is required to be done with them. We can rightfully assume that they do play important roles even off-field, and that any alliance good enough to win Einstein is smart enough to select their 4th strategically. Yet contrary to actively subbing a 4th at a Regional, the only thing mandated at Champs is passive selection.

In fact, I wonder if that isn't some people's distinction. General question: Regardless of how you view the contributions of Champs 4th robots when they lose matches or don't play, do you value Regional/District 4th robot contributions (who lose matches) more, less, or similarly?

Originally Posted by EricH

And the other question: how valuable is that experience to those teams? To work right alongside very good teams for an "extended" time can really boost a team up. That, in some folks' minds (and at some levels), can be just as compelling a reason as any strategic one.

I remember our 4th robot for Einstein Finals (2014, 5136). They were a rookie and HRS, and it was, to paraphrase them, "the best day of our lives!" Good guys; we liked working with them. We did not have (to call in) a 4th for Einstein in 2013, and while it was totally normal at the time, in retrospect I kind of miss it. I really do like this system with the benefit of direct comparison.