Collaborations and Alliances

[onecoolc]

Our teams "collaborate" to a certain extent. There are three teams in our area and we share a practice field and have held a mid-build-season scrimmage. At the scrimmage our head programmer ran around to help people out, and we obviously shared tools and zip ties.

But we don't do deals. If a team makes it to the finals they do it because they earned it.

For example, this year both Alpha+ and the Teraviks made it to regional finals, but they did it on their own steam, ended up on separate alliances, and did not choose us to join them. Which is a-okay in my book!

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

I can remember back in 2006 when 1114, 1503, and 1680 all had identical robots, 1114 chose 1503 every single time (becoming the 2nd and 3rd teams in history to win 3 regionals in the same year). After that, 1114 went their own way, and 1503/1680 built identical robots in 2007, before going separate ways in 2008, and 1680's demise in 2009. Since 2007, at the Canadian regionals, 1114 has chosen 2056 (with the exception of 2009 WAT [1114 didn't attend, 2056 seeded #1 and chose 2609], and 2007 GTR when 2056 seeded #1 and chose 1114.) How much of that is because they were objectively the best choice, and how much stems from their NiagaraFIRST relationships, I'm not sure. The 1114/2056 pair seems to have preferentially chosen other NiagaraFIRST bots for their 3rd partner when opportunity arises and other factors are more or less equal (2166 at GTR 2008 comes to mind), but they've also chosen partners they've won with before (2185 at WAT+GTR 2009).

At least one time in 08, 2056 seeded 1st, I don't remember where.

But consider that possibly their relationship via NiagaraFIRST actually makes them a better partner. If you had the option between your best friends and some team you haven't played with in a long time, and you KNOW you have great chemistry with your best friend, I'd be more than willing to overlook being slightly worse in terms of robot performance. Of course, 2056 has consistently had the second best (or in 2009, arguably the best) robot in Canada, but don't discount the friend pick.

[sgreco]

Collaboration is easy to certain extents and hard to others. My team has never formally been an active member of a collaboration project, but we've done chats and such sharing ideas with some other teams, both local and over the Internet.

collaboration is a cool topic. I find that sharing ideas is a easy, but very helpful to both sides. Once you get into helping manufacture parts or even building twins it gets complicated, especially over long distances. This, however, can be a great learning point and especially very fun. I find collaboration projects really fun and always look forward to opportunities to help, receive help and just work with other teams in general.

I don't konw what the purpose of this thread creation is, but I would more than encourage you to talk to other teams both local and far away and see if any of them are interested in collaboration. It's really a great thing to do, it's fun, and typically beneficail to both sides.

[Akash Rastogi]

We found out quickly that even just a simple sharing and debating of ideas can be rather frustrating at times as well. Make sure the entire team (both yours and the collab partner's) is willing to listen and implement proposed ideas from both sides, otherwise things will not work out as you intended. Yet another thing you learn very quickly.

Do it.
.

[Nica F.]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Do any of you teams out there do collaborations with teams close by? Like having an under the table deal saying if any of you go to finals or something the others follow?


I am totally down to do this, but I am afraid of Back stabbing and stuff like that.

As for the "go to finals or something the others follow" portion I'm going to agree with Vikesrock with:

If a team wants to be competitive they have to objectively evaluate the best robots at that specific competition when making their pick lists.

because no matter how awesome you think yours and your collaboration partner(s?)'s robots are you will never be able to predict what the other teams at your event will bring out to play.

Your fear of backstabbing and the like all comes with the decisions that will be made if and when one of the teams is an alliance seed captain. Do you pick the team you promised to put on your alliance way-back-when or do you pick this really-zomg-super-awesome robot that would totally help you win the event? What would YOU do? When it comes down to it, I personally am not a supporter of the "we'll pick you guys if we seed" deal during BUILD. But by all means if you guys roll out into your regional with the next triplets and on Saturday decide that your partner is the "1503" to your "1114" in GTR 06 by all means pick them, but the precompetition deciding is... sketchy and will most probably put your team in a unfavorable position.

[davidthefat]

My mentor said it would take A LOT of work if I am trying for collaboration, first support from our OWN team, and then the other teams and working together is also hard.

[Katie_UPS]

We call "collaborations" "friends". We try to work with all the teams in our area (and generally succeed). We share mentors/tools/facilities etc. We also like cheer for each other and stop by to say hi at events. There is no "if we make it, we'll pick you" because that's not how finals work. We (or at least I) like to think of it as one big team with multiple robots.

[sanddrag]

First, to clear up any misconceptions, in the 254/968 collaboration, any time the two teams have competed at the same event/division, each team evaluated and picked the most suitable partner, whether it was the sister team or not. To my knowledge, there have never been any agreements that one of the collaborative teams would pick another. I believe that would not be a preferred way to run a collaboration, as it could lead to many unfavorable outcomes.

Second, collaboration is not for every team. In fact, it is not for most teams. The primary reason it works between 254 and 968 is because of a select few individuals who each have been in this program for a significant number of years. Collaboration presents many benefits (which are pretty clear) and several hardships, some of which are assumed, and others of which arise during the season.

Collaboration is by no means easy. And do not for a second expect that it will make things easier or make things get done quicker for any team.

Every team has a different philosophy on how they organize themselves and do things. To put two of them together on the same project is not something that is bound to work by definition. It takes a special two teams.

A lot can definitely be gained from a collaboration but remember, just as easily, a lot can be lost.

[davidthefat]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

First, to clear up any misconceptions, in the 254/968 collaboration, any time the two teams have competed at the same event/division, each team evaluated and picked the most suitable partner, whether it was the sister team or not. To my knowledge, there have never been any agreements that one of the collaborative teams would pick another. I believe that would not be a preferred way to run a collaboration, as it could lead to many unfavorable outcomes.

Second, collaboration is not for every team. In fact, it is not for most teams. The primary reason it works between 254 and 968 is because of a select few individuals who each have been in this program for a significant number of years. Collaboration presents many benefits (which are pretty clear) and several hardships, some of which are assumed, and others of which arise during the season.

Collaboration is by no means easy. And do not for a second expect that it will make things easier or make things get done quicker for any team.

Every team has a different philosophy on how they organize themselves and do things. To put two of them together on the same project is not something that is bound to work by definition. It takes a special two teams.

A lot can definitely be gained from a collaboration but remember, just as easily, a lot can be lost.

Brow Down!

Yea I am not sure If I can list the Pros and Cons though... There are unforeseable consequences involved

[sgreco]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

My mentor said it would take A LOT of work if I am trying for collaboration, first support from our OWN team, and then the other teams and working together is also hard.

It depends how you get into it. If it's just sharing ideas it's not hard at all.

[Travis Hoffman]

I think it might be good for the community to try and standardize on definition of "collaboration" vs. "alliance".

Apply the term "collaboration" to any robot design/build partnership among a group of FRC teams. This seems to be the popular definition. This definition includes collaborations that lead to very similar/identical robots (60/254 '04, 229/217 '05, 1114/1503/1680 '05-'06, 148/217 '10, etc.) as well as those where teams share information and technologies that they incorporate into their own unique robot designs.

An "alliance" or "regional partnership" would define a more comprehensive partnership among FRC teams, where common events, fundraising, resource sharing, mentor sharing, social activities, team training, rookie support, pursuit of sponsors and grants, shared transportation to events, shared support of FTC and FLL teams in the region, etc. can be the norm. As part of the natural dynamics of an alliance among teams, robot collaboration projects can form.

The Baltimore Area Alliance and Northeast Ohio FIRST Robotics Alliance would be prime examples of functional alliances. It's much more fun and beneficial to long term sustainability of FIRST in your region when you start viewing local teams as friends and partners instead of as rivals and competitors. As someone else likes to say, "do it".

[RoboMom]

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...0&postcount=34

[David Dawson]

Well this year 2673 and 3398 formed an alliance this year and built twins. The alliance started because our sponsor Michigan State wanted to expand its FIRST involvement. As of now they run the Cass Tech district and also field two teams. But Regarding our alliance we just thought we would do better against the power house teams if we pooled our mentor support and other sponsors together. So this year if a sponsor made something for 2673 it was also made for 3398. It also helps when Michigan State wants to become the next IFI

[mwtidd]

I'm curious does anyone have examples of teams that designed their robots together to accomplish some sort of game collaboration, for example suspension?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by lineskier

I'm curious does anyone have examples of teams that designed their robots together to accomplish some sort of game collaboration, for example suspension?

I don't think anyone's collaborated with the intent of making complementary robots for an alliance, but there are countless instances of sharing designs for subassemblies to accomplish particular game tasks. Notably this year is the IFI ball magnet.