[YMTC]: Robot Ability

[Alex Cormier]

Good one i must say!

I would try to explain a little bit of the story to the alliance coaches, and agree upon. We would have 2 chances to score a tube, if scored as planned then go ahead and play offense for the remainder of the match. If the two 2 ringer attempts fail, then play the defense as prescribed in the meeting. Also watch the rack very closely, if losing by a big number, ditch the offensive mode and go play D against their best scoring robot.

[Jeff Rodriguez]

Have they been winning playing defense?
I'm a 'stick to what works' kind of person. If they've been playing defense and winning matches, than there's no reason to change.
If they want to play some offense, than you have to let the alliance know. Yeah, playing offense shows off their robot, but if they go against the gameplan the alliance has, than they'll upset their partners and won't get picked by them.

[ALIBI]

Redabot only has two choices. 1: Go Against Alliance or 2: Go With Alliance. A negative reputation of going against what the majority of an alliance wants to do is probably more damaging to a team than the benefits of showing off their offensive ability. Redabot should go with the alliance strategy.

We had several teams that had agreed to a certain strategy before the match and then went out and did something totally different. I.E. Bot A: play deffense - climb ramp. Bot B: play offense - climb ramp. Bot C: play offense - deploy ramp. Within 30 seconds Bot A deploys their own ramp withour ever playing deffense. Needless to say, the alliance looses. Bot C ended up in the top eight, Bot A was not on their list.

Redabot should have pointed out that the opposing alliance would be expecting the strong offensive bots to score and the previous deffensive only redabot to play deffense. As a scout, I would all ready know that the two strong offensive bots could score and that redabot was a strong deffensive bot. Assuming the redabot could score effectively, wouldn't it better the allinace to 1: surprise the opposing alliance by switching roles 2: give redabot a chance to show they can also play offense and give one of the other strong offensive bots a chance to show that they can play deffense or 3: go on an all out offensive attack and get at least a row of seven, watch to make sure that the opposing alliance doesn't get more than a row of three, if so, plan to switch at least one robot to deffense.

[Billfred]

Funny, you seem to have described 1618 at Palmetto this year.

Always thinking we'd figured out the arm problems, we would tell our alliance partners we'd try and get one human-fed ring, then go with our standard defense for the rest of the match. If the arm wasn't going, we'd just scrap it and go immediately to defense. (Then, if the arm ever did work at that one tube, we'd plan accordingly in the next match. We wouldn't dare change strategy in the alliance station.)

I'd ask my partners to let us score one or two rings as scout fodder, then go on defense. It's neither of the options really, but I've yet to find a set of partners not receptive to input from all three partners.

[Travis Hoffman]

My personal opinion - a team's own seasonal and robot design goals should never, ever be sacrificed to satisfy the standards or will of any other FIRST team or teams who believe they should be changed, especially when a team has been struggling all year to implement a robot function and is on the verge of seeing that function work on the playing field. The team wishing to use their arm to score and finally show off a capability their team members have collectively been working so hard all season to develop must proudly, confidently, and respectfully stand up for themselves and their right to pursue their own goals. This is not a case of being "selfish" or "un-GP" as many might be quick to label it. It's a case of having pride in one's own program and being free to practice any style of gameplay they choose given their robot's capabilities and the current game and rules.

One would hope that when politely confronted by the other team asking to use their arm and play offense, the two successful offensive teams would ultimately respect this right, understand how much this means to that team, and would do their best to work with the alliance to readjust their strategy around an all-offensive mindset. Just consider it another opportunity to rise to the dynamic challenges a FIRST competition presents to its participants. No amount of rankings glory is worth the disappointment of an entire team when they don't receive the opportunity to prove the effectiveness of their design.

Too often, I feel we all default to taking the perspective of the veteran teams' viewpoint when evaluating these situations. How can we humor the struggling team's wishes while still maximizing our chances of maintaining a high rank, etc.? We call it a compromise and move on. But are we asking the struggling team to sacrifice too much? It is really a fair compromise? I need to ask myself these questions more often. Being a member of a veteran team, I don't know if we've ever been placed in the position the two offensive teams are in here - I typically don't follow the pre-match scouting conversations of the countless matches we've prepared for; all I can say is that if we ever have been faced with this situation, I hope we made the right choice. I'd venture a guess that at some point(s) in time, however, we did not. I'm thinking that perhaps many veterans have fallen into that trap from time to time. For those teams struggling to achieve their own "little" victories at an event, victories that may get lost in the hype of other teams' pursuit of ranking stats and competitive elimination glory, don't let those teams lose sight of the big picture of why we're all truly there together. Help keep everyone tethered to reality. Just stick up for what you believe in. Communicate your conviction honestly and gracefully, and be persistent. No one team or person is above the need for a little "re-educational reminder" every so often. No one team or person is perfect, but that's ok. Good luck to all teams as you pursue your individual dreams.

[Beth Sweet]

I'm going to go with "do what works to win". Sometimes the goals that you set out for your robot to do originally just don't pan out. Example: Our original plan was to be a 2 robot, 12 inch ramps and platforms. We went 2 regionals before we could get that to happen in Atlanta. But we took our lemons and made lemonade. We used our arm for 2 regionals, seeding 9th (#8 alliance captain) and 6th respectively. Sometimes, you just have to go with what works.

In the case of this, I would suggest that, given the options, the team do what it needs to in order to contribute to the alliance as much as possible. While I don't condone forceful defense, I think that the "get in the way and prevent a score" strategy grately contributes to an alliance this year.