Solutions for No Shows

[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.

[IndySam]

Every Thursday of competition, after we get unpacked and working we go in search of a team or teams that need a lot of help and start helping them. Then throughout the day I go to the inspectors and ask which teams need help. We usually stay until the pits a closed helping other teams.

On Friday once we get our schedule we go out to find our alliance partners and see if they need help.

This year we didn't have a single no-show in any of our matches.

[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.

[Bob Steele]

I think the problem could have been solved by changing the game from the beginning. If we had started our robots in our OWN corners...it would have mediated the issue.

This would have meant that an empty trailer would have been a disadvantage but not as much.... AND a non-moving rookie robot with no autonomous would not have been such a serious disadvantage for an alliance.

This would also have partially fixed another problem... which was the over dependence on the human player scoring. A team could still push another robot into range...but the initial scoring would have been less and the game would have been played with more emphasis on the robots.

I also think that the game could have been played very successfully without allowing any of the humans to score. The human players could have loaded robots and placed the moonrocks into play on the floor instead of scoring directly. This is similar to Aim High or Rack and Roll....

I do think that this change would have required a supercell rule change also.
Because the robots would be scoring the SC the time could have been expanded to the last 30 seconds so robots could be loaded and go hunting.
Robots would still only be able to have one SC to use...

I think this would have ameliorated the issue of the empty trailer somewhat.

[FRC4ME]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

I think the problem could have been solved by changing the game from the beginning. If we had started our robots in our OWN corners...it would have mediated the issue.

This would have meant that an empty trailer would have been a disadvantage but not as much.... AND a non-moving rookie robot with no autonomous would not have been such a serious disadvantage for an alliance.

Moving away from the opposing alliance's HP was the only incentive to do anything in autonomous this year. There were none of the scoring advantages usually present in autonomous mode. If we started in our own corners, I know my team would have just sat there during autonomous mode; I'm sure many other teams would do the same.

[Greg McKaskle]

I'm with Eric. In fact, I think it would have been interesting if an alliance had three trailers, perhaps only two, and the trailers could be attached to individual robots or to ganged together into trains. This would have allowed additional robot specialization into tugs and sprinters, and the no-show means that at least the trailer would be moving, and there would even be robots designed for pulling multiple trailers.

Greg McKaskle

[Herodotus]

Originally Posted by Greg McKaskle

I'm with Eric. In fact, I think it would have been interesting if an alliance had three trailers, perhaps only two, and the trailers could be attached to individual robots or to ganged together into trains. This would have allowed additional robot specialization into tugs and sprinters, and the no-show means that at least the trailer would be moving, and there would even be robots designed for pulling multiple trailers.

Greg McKaskle

Wow, that would have actually been pretty awesome, and I think would have led to a greater degree of ingenuity on the part of the teams.

[MikeReilly]

I completely agree with the emphasis and opportunity on GP, and helping out other teams. But going beyond the thoughts of this years game, looking backwards at the past few years, a no show would still be an effect on a team.

We were fortunate enough to win when down a robot at least once during a regional, while our mentors were STILL trying to fix the bot that did not show.

But despite the best intention of offering assistance (and professionalism is not just offering assistance, but asking for it before the last minute), machines will still break, etc. For example, 20 minutes before Curie began, and we were the first match, our 120 breaker literally broke! You can imagine the scramble.

Imagining this was last year's game, at least our alliance would have had a rabbit to do laps, etc. if subbing were allowed.

I truly believe in the "I" in FIRST, and do this as an educator, I don't know squat about the engineering. I don't see the educational value in this lack of reality, when something that can be addressed is not. Yes, GP to help and ask for help, but I think there's more to it.

[Brandon Holley]

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?

A valid concern. Obviously this would have to be addressed...but with the amount of times 3 robots did not show up to a match, it could still be a worthwhile avenue to pursue. At least in my eyes.