Solutions for No Shows

[Mike Betts]

Mike,

It depends on the game. This year, a no show was a big deal.

My "solution" for this year would have been a placebo: A Kit-bot with a BOM drive train and 3 VEX ultrasonic sensors programmed for continuous autonomous mode "avoidance" software would have been preferable to a no-show.

JMHO.

Mike

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by Mike Betts

Mike,

It depends on the game. This year, a no show was a big deal.

My "solution" for this year would have been a placebo: A Kit-bot with a BOM drive train and 3 VEX ultrasonic sensors programmed for continuous autonomous mode "avoidance" software would have been preferable to a no-show.

JMHO.

Mike

I think that would have been a good "solution" and it would have added an interesting twist to this game.

[Vikesrock]

I like the "placebo" solution Mike described.

One of the key aspects in my mind is that any replacement method should never allow for an alliance to gain from using the replacement over the original team. This basically eliminates any selection from the other teams in the competition. The described placebo would be worse than any working robot, but significantly better than a sitting duck trailer.

[AcesJames]

I think a randomized selection of a robot should be made, and the match will be played with the 2 bots and random choice at the end of the day, rather than using an auton bot that will just run around being obstructive, and not really helping the alliance. Sure, its better than a sitting trailer, but how many points does it prevent from being scored? Only so many balls can fit in a sitting trailer, and chances are the auton bot will get pinned anyway, because of it's lack of driver.

[Brandon Holley]

I would've liked to seen matches where if a bot didn't show (aka 3 vs 2) the "extra" trailer was removed from the field.

Yes it means there is one less trailer for the 3 team alliance to score on, but it also means there is one less robot scoring for the 2 team alliance.

I would like to just see a couple of matches like that and see where the results were heading.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

I would've liked to seen matches where if a bot didn't show (aka 3 vs 2) the "extra" trailer was removed from the field.

Yes it means there is one less trailer for the 3 team alliance to score on, but it also means there is one less robot scoring for the 2 team alliance.

I would like to just see a couple of matches like that and see where the results were heading.

What happens when all 3 robots don't show up, and win because the other alliance has zero trailers to score on, while their own human players have three?

[Herodotus]

I don't really think there needs to be a solution. This year was probably the worst so far for being down a robot, but it still wasn't impossible to win. I saw several matches like this, including one of ours. The "solution" is to always talk to your partners before hand and see if they need help getting working. All that needs to work is their drive, which shouldn't be too hard to get up and running.

[Koko Ed]

I do not like the idea of replacing robots. What if you got a team that doesn't work well so you just go with some other robot instead? That team may never see the field and that's just plain not right.
If you really want to execute a solution, go to their pits and use your expertise to see to it that they make it to the field and help you to succeed. Isn't that the point of this program in the first place? To inspire not only our students but other teams as well.

[EricVanWyk]

I think it would have been fun to optionally "double trailer" for no-shows. One of the remaining two teams would have an extra trailer attached ( modify trailers so they include a hitch ).

Then the remaining bots could make the trade off between decreased performance for the double trailer bot and the zero performance for a lone trailer.

[Matt Howard]

Instances when robots are not going to show creates a sense of urgency in the pits, which helps teams help each other. I can think of a Variety of Instances from this year alone when teams even crossed alliance lines to help get each other ready for a match.

Truth be told, I don't think a solution is necessary.

And I don't say this from never having witnessed it happen.

In Qualifications 8 in Las Vegas BOTH of our Alliance Partners didn't put a robot on the field. If anything, it motivated our drivers and caused them to pour on 150% effort. We won that match 78-60.

[klanicam]

Originally Posted by Cory

What happens when all 3 robots don't show up, and win because the other alliance has zero trailers to score on, while their own human players have three?

I feel the trailer and the human player should be "linked" together. If you remove the dead trailer, then you have to remove the human player. Making it a true 2 on 3 match.

If a team wanted to keep their human player without a robot on the field, then the trailer should stay. This would allow those 20 moon rocks to be played, plus the possibility of launching supercells, but with a drawback of having the dead trailer.

[Vikesrock]

I feel that an autonomously controlled placebo would be significantly worse than any robot I have seen this year. This means that there would still be a large incentive to get your alliance partners working.

In this game a no-show team had a much greater impact than in previous years and in my opinion too much of an impact. The "placebo" bot would have done a bit to lessen this impact. I also think that the solution to this "problem" needs to be evaluated on a game-by-game basis. In the past couple year's games I would have left no-shows as is. The goals being attached to the robots this year made this game very different in terms of no-show teams.

As to the comment that it shouldn't be too hard to get their drive up and running this all depends on the complexity of the drive system. If a team overstretched themselves and went with a drive system too complex for their capabilities or if they went with a strange drive system that you are not familiar with this is not the easiest task.

For a small team like my team, that doesn't build the most robust of robots ourselves (yet), we do what we can to help get our partners running, but we can usually only send a person or two over and they may not be our best and brightest because they may be working on our robot. We have also encountered teams that refuse help or say that they're fine and then proceed to miss the match anyway.

EDIT: Also anyone that won a 1v3 match this year was purely due to poor strategy by their opponents and 2v3 matches should have also been extremely difficult to win.

[Matt Howard]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

EDIT: Also anyone that won a 1v3 match this year was purely due to poor strategy by their opponents

Ouch.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Matt Howard

Ouch.

I'm not saying that your team didn't have a good robot, or that you didn't do anything strategy-wise or driving-wise to earn that win, what I am saying is that against three working robots you should have been stuck in an opposing corner for the entire match. With good strategy by the three robots there should have been absolutely nothing your team could have done.

[merybar]

At our district events we never had any no shows which was great, we always checked with them before we were leaving for the field. At the Championship however, we had several problems of no shows. We checked with teams before leaving and all said they were ok, with a 6 minute walk back and forth it was challenging to try to track them down when they didnt hit the field. 1 match we had a no show and played 2v3 and another match we had 2 no shows, untill the announcer was wrapping up the blue alliance and they came running on the field. I think the current system is good because it helps you to work more with the teams in need as well as plays into the game.