Value & Credibility of 4th robots on an Alliance

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by ASD20

If the rule was written like that, it would mean that every team that loses their first quarterfinal will have to play the 4th bot in the second quarterfinal. Not great for trying to make a comeback. If that alliance wins match 2, then the other alliance has to play their fourth bot. Not great for a tiebreaker either. This pattern would then continue up the levels of elims for teams that haven't lost a match yet or decided to play the 4th bot on their own. Ultimately, it is a system that handicaps the loser.

I really like the concept of 4th bots and I want them to succeed and be valued, but I just don't think there is any easy answer right now. I am sure if a rule like you suggested was implemented, it would not be as literal as I took it, but by at some point forcing teams to play a certain robot, you are taking away the whole strategic element of having a 4th bot.

I think the only way for the 4th bot to become more used is a mixture of culture change and better game design. If more teams start picking their 4th bot as an alternative strategy instead of a backup, they will use it more. The GDC also needs to create games with a lot more strategic variety, which I know is not necessarily easy to do.

Seemed to be fine in 04 (replace 4th with 3rd...)