Solutions for No Shows

[MikeReilly]

Of course, my title assumes this is a problem. But, many other threads go meandering about other topics, and I'd like to try and proactively answer this question.

In trying to keep the focus on one solution for one situation, I'm throwing it out there: assuming no-shows are an issue, what's the best solution? The best solution may be to leave it alone.

Personally, I'm a fan of "filling in", not choosing another to leave out for equal teams. But how? I like solutions.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Frank Neuperger]

Even if the auton surrogate bot did get pinned, it demands a resource from the opposing alliance to do the pinning. The whole point is to level the playing field and this does it.

As it was , a stationary trailer was basically the equivalent of an open artery. In 2:15 minutes the short alliance is toast

I am guessing that there are few incidences of an alliance being down one bot w.r.t. the other alliance and not losing. It would be interesting to see the numbers on this.

Another possibility was to not allow scoring on the empty trailer during auton period.

Frank

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Frank Neuperger

I am guessing that there are few incidences of an alliance being down one bot w.r.t. the other alliance and not losing. It would be interesting to see the numbers on this.

Our first qualifying match in Arizona was like that, we won without our 3rd robot. Scouting data could possibly provide the numbers.

I consider it to be just another challenge of the game.

[FRC4ME]

I don't think other teams should be used to fill-in no-shows. As it is now, teams are encouraged to help their alliance partners fix their robots before each match. I know my team does this every match in the early weeks: "go check on our alliance partners and see if they need any help," our head mentor says. The penalties of a no-show actually help foster GP, in my experience.

Having said that, I think this year's game made the no-show penalty a little harsh. Having less offensive power is one thing, but giving your opponents an effective 50 free points is another. Perhaps future games should be designed such that offense and defense are not so intricately tied together. For this year's game, I like the auton bot idea, but it would have to be very underpowered. The idea here is to bring the no-show penalty back down to that of previous years, not to remove the penalty entirely. When a team realizes they have a no-show on their alliance, "oh crap! fix it at all costs!" should be their immediate reaction.

You may say that it is unfair that some teams are unlucky enough to have a no-show on their alliance, but there are equal chances that a team will end up with a super powerhouse wins-every-regional-they-attend bot who could win the match themselves if they had to. Unfortunately, the seeding system involves more than a bit of luck, but at least that luck is balanced.

[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.

[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.

[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.