Aerial Assist and Ill Will

[AlexD744]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

1778 has mostly rookie members. This week we were teaching kids the difference between a regular wrench and an allen key, and I think that's awesome. We aren't shooting. We're gonna be great at picking up off the floor and passing, and maybe catch if we have time left over. Would it be cool to have a whiz-bang shooter? Of course. Could we build a shooter? Sure. But we'd much rather be a 10 at one thing than a 5 at two things. It is much more important to us that we train the kids so next year so our team can be prepared to build an even better robot while we mentors have even more opportunities to sit around and drink coffee. We also recognize the importance of driver practice.

Now, I'm no Car Nack, but if I were, I would predict that at least 2/12 teams on Einstein have no way of throwing the ball. They have super fast "assist" mechanisms and a killer drivetrain and driver, that's able to play some awesome shutdown defense. Good on you for realizing your limitations and building a robot that will dominate what it's intended to do!

Edit: I just found out about the 4 team alliances at champs, this clearly changes my prediction, but I'm not sure what it should be changed to yet... same idea though

[Bill_B]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

...
You can always point back to Karthik's "it is better to be a 10 at one thing than a 5 at two things." ...

He's got a lot on the ball and I think we can count on another notable robot from his team this year. However true this pseudo math homily may be, do you think it translates into other versions? Say maybe "better to be an 8 at one thing than a 4 at two things." Or "better to be an 9 at one thing than a 3 at 3 things." I mention this because there may be cases where a team cannot be a 10 at anything.

I find that the most difficult task for many, many people is evaluating external advice. Even the advice of your own mentors gets rejected without supporting rationale, so what chance has an alliance captain at a competition? I never cared too much for Vince Lombardi's quote about winning being the only thing. It turns out he had a lot more useful advice about teamwork and many other subjects. I especially like: "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence." I need to make a large version of this to grace the shop. It won't be perfect or even excellent. Could be good though.

[BrennanB]

This is a hard thing to talk about with an alliance, and I think that this mentality of "we have to show off our robot's new functionality" has been in FIRST games for a long time.

There are plenty of examples (probably for every regional) where teams compromise the total alliance strategy for the ability to show off a function that was not previously working, and might still not work.

There is a significant advantage to showing a mechanism working in a match, and certainly there is something to be said for a mechanism that works on the field during a match, than just a mechanism that works while you are in a controlled environment. The alternative is a much less satisfactory demonstration a robot's capability is demonstrating in the pits/practice field, because matches are played on the competition field, not the pits/practice field. Just because you show this function, doesn't mean that you will get picked. Just because you try to do it during the match, doesn't mean that it will actually work.

Just be aware of the reputation that you give to these teams that you essentially decide to not work with. Even if these other two teams aren't in a picking position for this regional, maybe they will be next regional. Perhaps it's not even this year that they are going to pick you, but next year, or the year after. Stories spread, people remember. (You can even see it in this thread, all the examples of "that one team that") Reputations stay for a long time, even if you may have the best intentions later. If it comes down to you and another team in the scouting meeting, you can probably bet that they will be picking the other team.

Just be very careful about doing something for a somewhat small gain, that could affect your team's image for several years to come.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

Just be very careful about doing something for a somewhat small gain, that could affect your team's image for several years to come.

The worst thing I saw a team do to another that permanently damaged their relationship with a team happened at Texas Robot Roundup in 2011 where a team accepted being selected in an alliance and then went home. The team that selected them was so furious they vowed to never pick them again at any event.
It turned out the team had actually already left and a lone stud net stayed behind and was inadvertently the lone representative for that team in alliance selection (he obviously did not understand what was going on). After he accepted he left too.

[Michael Corsetto]

Was waiting for someone to start this thread.

I am worried as well. We plan on using our scouting database to back up our proposed strategies during qualification matches, but it doesn't negate the fact that we will be asking other teams to sacrifice things like shooting into the 10 point goal and throwing over the truss in order to allow us to.

We plan to do most of the "heavy lifting" to accomplish our in-match objectives. In fact, we would prefer a box-on-wheels robot that plays into our strategy than a mediocre team that takes 5 seconds to pick up the ball and pass it to us. When you're thinking about things like that day 1, it doesn't look good...

As a coach of a moderately successful team, I think the burden of responsibility will fall on me and my students/mentors to reach out more than ever, both before and at events. I hope that goodwill extended off the field will be returned on the field.

One can dream, right?

-Mike

[DampRobot]

Thank you. I definitely perceive this as a problem in this game. Teams tend to be irrational about showing off their capabilities, and the strategic reality of not letting some teams get at the ball cannot be denied. There will be a lot of hurt feelings in this game, when teams will be asked to play a secondary role (defense, simple ball possession) in lieu of trying out their sub-par mechanisms.

[pfreivald]

Do keep in mind that a robot that can do nothing but drive can still assist and score. Three boxes on wheels can score 31 points per cycle; two boxes and one robot that can throw but not accurately enough to score can score 41 points per cycle.

[DampRobot]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Do keep in mind that a robot that can do nothing but drive can still assist and score. Three boxes on wheels can score 31 points per cycle; two boxes and one robot that can throw but not accurately enough to score can score 41 points per cycle.

Most teams won't build that robot though. Most will try to build a mechanism for intaking and shooting balls. Unfortunately, most of these won't work (if if they work, not well), and these teams still will want to try out their mechanisms in the match.

If the teams that should build a box on wheels all build a box on wheels, this wouldn't be an issue.

[cmrnpizzo14]

The key for teams will be to make sure things do not get personal. Yes, this is hard. Have scouting data with you when you are making your pre-match strategy.

Our team started doing this after 2012 when we were at championships and we were negotiating with another team on our alliance about the coop bridge. We wanted to balance but so did they and they had their scouting data to show that they were better at it. We let them balance it and they got it done no problem.

Sure, your first match or two will be very tough especially in the early weeks. If you can show the numbers though I think most teams will be reasonable enough to recognize that they have a role to play to help the alliance.

[dodar]

Honestly, most teams that have been around through a few years and have drive coaches and/or mentors who have been through a few seasons will be able to see past the need to constantly show off what their robot can do and see the bigger picture. I do forsee some matches at each regional and champs to have a little bit of heat between teams, but I think most will rather win the match and forgo completely showing off their capabilities if it means a higher W/L ratio.(And a higher ranking) Most teams will know "how to play the game" in qualifications.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Most teams won't build that robot though. Most will try to build a mechanism for intaking and shooting balls. Unfortunately, most of these won't work (if if they work, not well), and these teams still will want to try out their mechanisms in the match.

If the teams that should build a box on wheels all build a box on wheels, this wouldn't be an issue.

Well, sort of. If teams build a solid drivetrain and then fail at the upper mechanical work, they should have a box on wheels to fall back on. (We've been in that boat several times in the past ten years; do not plan on being in that shape this year!)

[Whippet]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

If the teams that should build a box on wheels all build a box on wheels, this wouldn't be an issue.

I don't really like this statement, but it is really true in a sad way. Although really no team thinks they "should" build a box on wheels, many lack the resources to build anything else that is effective. Coming from one of those teams, it really hurts to know that whatever we build may not be allowed to compete simply because we would be better off using our robot as a rolling brick. However, that is the reality of the game, a game in which it is too risky to let the less privileged teams hold the ball.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Whippet

I don't really like this statement, but it is really true in a sad way. Although really no team thinks they "should" build a box on wheels, many lack the resources to build anything else that is effective. Coming from one of those teams, it really hurts to know that whatever we build may not be allowed to compete simply because we would be better off using our robot as a rolling brick. However, that is the reality of the game, a game in which it is too risky to let the less privileged teams hold the ball.

Make sure your drivetrain is nails and that your drivers know how to drive it. Defense will be big this year; and like I said, even boxes on wheels can help an alliance gain mucho points just by being able to push a ball in a direction--and they can score it in the lower goal.

That way, if your upper mechanical systems are all utter, catastrophic failures, you can still be a solid addition to an alliance.

(This advice goes for every year of FIRST I've ever seen, by the way. Drivetrain first; then everything else.)

[dubiousSwain]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

If the teams that should build a box on wheels all build a box on wheels, this wouldn't be an issue.

This is (at risk of perpetuating a quite loaded and vague phrase) against the spirit of FIRST.

FIRST is about pushing your boundaries and learning. If the teams who "should build a box on wheels" build a box on wheels every year, then they'll never learn how to do better. Trying new things is one of the premiere things that makes FIRST fun. If I were on a team that stuck to building a box on wheels every year, I would get bored very quickly.

So cut out your elitism.

[Donut]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

If the teams that should build a box on wheels all build a box on wheels, this wouldn't be an issue.

I've never understood the aversion to doing a box on wheels or similarly simple robot. 179 made Einstein in 2007 with a robot only capable of scoring inner tubes on the bottom row. 842 consistently captained alliances in the elimination rounds at the Arizona regional in 2005-2007 by building robots that could only score the 1 point or low goal challenge but then had a solid drive train and shut down defense. We took note of that and built a simple low scoring lap bot in 2008, and until last year that is the robot that broke down the least of any I've worked on in the last 10 years.

Building a robot that never breaks down and performs consistently is more impressive than building a hardest scoring challenge mechanism that works once a match a best, imo.