Hosting team using no shows for practice

Thoughts on QA

In particular would you have an issue if a hosting team played in every match in which robots didn’t show up?

Would people try and pressure younger teams into not showing up or even not help alliance partner fix robot in the hopes of them no showing?

If you were a hosting team would you think about doing this as a way to get practice but still allow members to help host?

An idea I had for a fairer way to deal with this would be to allow a club to have a “No Show” robot with very strict requirements. For example, such a robot might only be allowed to use 8 motors, no pneumatics, and only low strength gears and chain.

The team would be responsible for providing a driver for their “No Show” robot.

Just an idea.

As a team who has both hosted, and been stuck with a no-show. In the past we have always made the team with the no-show partner play alone. It may not be the best solution but it’s the easiest and it makes teams work to help their partner be ready. May be if you doubled the score of the solo team it would make it more fair?


That could definitely be abused. That would mean that it would be possible to earn a higher score as a solo team than with both teams (ie by scoring more than half of the possible points, then doubling it thereby ending up with a massive score)

It would also put the dual team at a disadvantage because it makes it difficult to gauge how well they are doing.

As much as it sucks to play 1v2, I’m not in favor of any kind of substitutions. Match schedules are random. Your seeding is at least partially dependent on getting good partners, a good schedule, and of course your robot.

No shows are annoying, but it’s part of dealing with other people. How about helping your future partner fix their robot so that they can come to the match, rather than hoping you can substitute someone else?

Every tournament I have gone to has had the no-show filled in by no one, except for worlds where they have a small VEX robot as a substitute (so I’ve heard, never actually had this happen to me).

All of these tournaments have had the best robot win. Is there any tournaments where you guys have gone that have had the not-best robot win?

Seems like this would be trying to fix a rule that isn’t really a problem.

Yes and no. I have been to tournaments where there were zero no-shows and seen a ‘not best’ team pull off a win, it’s just part of the game.

I have been to several tournaments where no-shows have lowered my ranking because of losing them. But I have also found that being able to tell a potential selector(s) that you have won a no-show match cares so much weight that it more that makes up for the inconvenience.

What I am trying to say is if we try to eliminate these kinds of things, we might discover that we had removed the very things made our game so interesting.

On a side note:
I went to a event this year where the organizers left the option open for one of the opposing teams to sit out if they so chose. I don’t think anyone went for it:D

There are lots of tournaments where the best robot does not win. There is a lot of luck in match schedules which can put better teams lower ranking than worse teams. For example, the best team could be forced to 1v2 two other good teams and would almost certainly lose. This would mean a worse team would rank higher.

If the worse team had scouted properly, they would pick the best team. If the best team declines hopping to pick another good team, the worse team could deny that choice and grab them up for their alliance. If the best team is ranked too low to decline, they would be forced to accept and perhaps lose against two other good teams.

In addition to this, disconnects and other issues that have nothing to do with robot design could happen during any crucial match and knock out the best robot.

I have seen quite a few competitions where the best robot did not win, and it is quite possible in the system. Robot design and programming is only part of what makes teams win. Driver skill and luck also play big roles.

Another possible solution would be to have the two teams facing the no-show alliance, pick the best robot of the two and have a one on one match. Obviously this would skew the data for the team that sat out, but would it skew it less than a two on one match?


Interesting. Would have to best based off of rank or we would get some of the biggest arguments about who sits out.

One big problem I see with sitting out is sitting out. The team that sits out has one less match. Teams go to tournaments to play matches, and missing a match means missing the fun/practice/learning experience of that match.

I don’t think there is a great solution. A stock robot that subs in for no shows might be the best, but it should be an “average” robot to keep things fair. It seems like too much work to expect organizers to go to this type of effort. Although I guess if there was team that wanted extra matches that didn’t count it might be okay.

Something that can and should be done to make things more fair is the replacement of the SP system with a real strength of schedule ranking system. I believe this has been discussed elsewhere. This way a team might still lose the 1v2, but it would be reflected in the rankings, placing that team over teams which also lost a match but had an easier schedule.

Not at worlds, if a team does not show up for a match we have to wait until the scheduled time for that match (in the case we are ahead of schedule) and then it proceeds without the no-show. Every effort is made to find the team and give them a chance to compete, but with so many matches the event has to be kept on schedule. For practice matches I have seen exceptions made and teams waiting in line drafted in as substitutes.

An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure in my opinion

I don’t completely understand why someone would even have a no show. In under almost every circumstance, a no show would mean a drop to the bottom of the rankings due to a lack of WP and SP. They even have cueing sessions to warn people of their slots, and if they were competitive enough to actually fix a robot, they in their right mind would attend. Im not sure if they do this in other competitions, but they even have volunteers and/or announcements, warning is that if we don’t attend, we’ll get dqed

I think it would be wise for a volunteer to even warn the team that missing a match will affect other team’s opinion of your team, reducing your appeal in alliance selection, as well as harm your ally.

with all these reminders, as well as harsh penalties for missing a match, I highly doubt a team would even want to no-show, unless they of course have a severely crippled robot, which would mean it’s almost a 2vs1 anyways. If a team had good strategy, they would emulate that with a working robot, and they would also emulate that by coming up with defensive measures in the case of a faulty robot. If they couldn’t do that on the field, then it might as well be a 2vs1, meaning the No-Show isn’t too big of a deal.

In my opinion, if tournaments are runed well enough to execute a rule to rectify or mitigate the no show rule, I think they should run smooth enough to execute a rule to warn the teams of their matches. Finding or doubling duties for volunteers shouldn’t be a problem because this is a skill-less job. they could even get an undercover judge watching for safety and sportsmanship to do this. I might be cruel, but under the case a team does not show up, I think it’s fair to pull a 2vs1. A team with an amazing robot should be scouting or helping out their future ally. I’ve even seen teams do this for matches scheduled 3 or 4 more matches away. If anything, I believe this is just another issue teams should learn how to face.