Smart team vs. Good Team

[Ginger Power]

Alright so good teams are typically smart teams, however, hear me out. Who would typically win a match, a smart team or a good team? In this scenario by a smart team I mean a team with a weaker robot but knows the game inside and out and plays their strengths well. By a good team in this scenario I am referring to a team with a more competitive robot but isn't as well versed in the rules and doesn't play the game at max efficiency.

I believe the smart team will win every time. The smart team will be able to coordinate an alliance effectively which is vital to Aerial Assist. The smart team will incorporate the best possible strategy possible during quals regardless of who they are paired with. The good team will be more dependent on having good teams with them in quals, and that comes down to luck.

So who wins, the smart team, or the good team?

[ksafin]

You can't ask a question like this. It isn't black or white or clear cut like this.

The answer to the question is entirely scenario-specific.

[Canon reeves]

My money is on the smart team, with defense, and knowing the opponents weaknesses, a smart team could get inside their head. Cause them to make simple mistakes the lead to wasted time or penalties. I know first hand the advantage of this, our robot could only catch really well and score in the low goal, we still had the 3rd highest teleoperated score, and we were dead over half the time. This was largely because of smart driving and strategy, we used strategy mats, we looked at our opponents weaknesses and we could outsmart their drivers and put them in a situation causing them to make a split second decision, one way they get a penalty, the other, they don't, but it seems more appealing to get the penalty to any driver who doesn't know the rules. We never forced any penalties, we just made it easier for other people. A driving robot can easily make it into elimns if they drive competitively and know the rules! While a good robot can preform, it is capped by their preforming ability. Just my 2.5 cents.

[Zuelu562]

In direct relation to this year's game, Aerial Assist, a "smart team" will likely have a higher percentage chance to win the game versus the chances of a "good team" assuming you interchange them in any given match. This is primarily due to the necessary cooperation to do exceedingly well; knowing each robot's strengths and how best to align them is a key this year.

I will go out on a limb and say many of more recent years, the opposite was true - a "good team" had a higher chance of winning than a "smart team" in any given match where you could interchange the two teams in question. Logomotion? If you couldn't hang well, hang out in the middle and slow down the other alliance. Your minibot (deployment system) not great? Don't bother.

In a year like Logomotion, the "good teams" carried play. A year like this one, all robots carry play. The value of each individual robot to the overall scheme isn't influenced by robot capabilities as it once was; robots are valuable commodities, whether a box-on-wheels or the FRC equivalent of an aircraft carrier.

[Ginger Power]

You can't ask a question like this. It isn't black or white or clear cut like this.

The answer to the question is entirely scenario-specific.

By setting up this hypothetical scenario and asking who would win I am really looking for people to take the question at face value and dig deep into it. It obviously isn't clear cut. . . It's an opinion that an individual forms and defends to the best of their ability. If all questions had a black and white answer, debates would be no fun and critical thinking wouldn't be needed. I figured what better place to pose a hypothetical question about robots than Chief Delphi. It isn't supposed to be clear cut. . . I'm looking to see a debate about a topic which I'm interested.

[ksafin]

By setting up this hypothetical scenario and asking who would win I am really looking for people to take the question at face value and dig deep into it. It obviously isn't clear cut. . . It's an opinion that an individual forms and defends to the best of their ability. If all questions had a black and white answer, debates would be no fun and critical thinking wouldn't be needed. I figured what better place to pose a hypothetical question about robots than Chief Delphi. It isn't supposed to be clear cut. . . I'm looking to see a debate about a topic which I'm interested.

I don't think you can have one.
Every bit of this question depends on the circumstance. It depends how "smart" the smart team is, how "good" the good team is, how "smart" and "good" the partners are, etc. There's too many dynamics that if you condense it down into any scenario where you can squeeze out an answer, it'd be a scenario overridden with so many hypotheticals that it'd be invalid by the point.

[cadandcookies]

Generally, a smart team. A "good team" with a "good robot" that isn't as familiar with the game is liable to rack up penalties and be out of touch with common and uncommon strategies.

That being said, as the OP points out, most "good teams" with good robots are also smart about how they approach the game and competition. This is why we know them as good teams.

Of course, this all depends on your definition of a "good team"-- if by good team, you mean competitive, then we're basically arguing if a team that is by definition good at the game is going to a team that is, again, by definition, nebulously "smart" about their approach. If, on the other, hand, by a "good team," you mean a team that focuses on the Chairman's Award, then their on-field performance is relatively random taken as a whole (I wish I had a statistic on this-- someone either back me up or disprove me here). Then, the smart team wins.

Ultimately the issue is that the terms aren't really well defined and they aren't even mutually exclusive.

[mrnoble]

Ultimately the issue is that the terms aren't really well defined and they aren't even mutually exclusive.

Yup. We can't debate this.

But we can say that teams with robots that "do" things, such as throw the ball full court, are not necessarily going to win over teams that have a one point kiss-passing bot and a good bit of drive practice and strategy. And I sure hope there's not much debate about that.

[Jeffy]

I'm inclined to think a good team can be outsmarted, but I couldn't tell for sure.
I can assure you this though, being a smart team will make you perform better no matter what kind of robot capabilities you have.
And in this game, A LOT better.

[Alan Anderson]

I've been looking for the source of this quote, but I've given up trying to find it. Someone once said that a good robot with a bad drive team can lose, and a bad robot with a good drive team can win...but a good robot with a good drive team can dominate.

[Mr V]

Average robots playing smart can take down good or great robots who aren't playing smart. I've seen it play out that way more than once so far this season.

[45Auto]

Who would typically win a match, a smart team or a good team? In this scenario by a smart team I mean a team with a weaker robot but knows the game inside and out and plays their strengths well.

Shouldn't be too hard to figure out after 3 weeks of regionals. Look at the winners. Are they predominately teams with good robots, or "smart" teams with less capable robots?

But we can say that teams with robots that "do" things, such as throw the ball full court, are not necessarily going to win over teams that have a one point kiss-passing bot and a good bit of drive practice and strategy. And I sure hope there's not much debate about that.

“The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.” - Damon Runyon

[Adam Freeman]

Show me a "good team" that isn't a "smart team" in FRC.

For this game, one individual robot machine can only do some to help an alliance. A really good scorer still needs someone to pass to it to get the extra points for assists. A really good passer still needs someone to score for it.

With that being said, I think your hypothetical question should be a "smart team" v. a "good robot".

In that case, the "smart team" will win everytime. They will put their alliance partners in a position to help best enhance each teams strengths, while reducing their opportunities to expose their weaknesses.

A team with a good robot, that isn't very smart will play to their own strengths, without thinking about what their alliance partners strengths/weaknesses.

By the time Championships come around, every good machine (Top25?) will be able to execute a score/pass/truss action as well as the next one. This game will really come down to which alliance best utilizes it's entire alliances strengths and capitalizes on the other teams weaknesses.

Execution is always important, but getting the ENTIRE alliance to execute perfectly, with one purpose, will be what it takes to win this year.

[who716]

Alright so good teams are typically smart teams, however, hear me out. Who would typically win a match, a smart team or a good team? In this scenario by a smart team I mean a team with a weaker robot but knows the game inside and out and plays their strengths well. By a good team in this scenario I am referring to a team with a more competitive robot but isn't as well versed in the rules and doesn't play the game at max efficiency.

I believe the smart team will win every time. The smart team will be able to coordinate an alliance effectively which is vital to Aerial Assist. The smart team will incorporate the best possible strategy possible during quals regardless of who they are paired with. The good team will be more dependent on having good teams with them in quals, and that comes down to luck.

So who wins, the smart team, or the good team?

I would say a smart team would win and, i would belive we are living proof of this, we have a good robot this year it is in no way great but its good does its job, we ended WPI as the number one seed, by being efficient with our strategy, not wasting time attempting the ten point if we miss it the first time ect.

[Dominick Ferone]

I say the smart team wins. Last year and this year we didn't have the best bot, it was good did its job and held it weight. But when we made a plan our team organized the jobs for our alliance well and we ended #1 last year and #2 this year. Its more being able to rally your alliance and making sure everyones on the same page.

[Samwaldo]

Just look at the competitions that the number 8 alliance beats the number 1 alliance!!! Being the smartER team is how they do it. Ephasis on smartER, because great teams are great because they know how to play the game well.

Perfect example was Groton. 195 (and 78) had great and beautiful machines that dominated. As the number 8 seed, captained by a robot that just played defense (with lunacy wheels, yet somehow there driver did an amazing job). We feared the quarterfinals. Somehow in the 4 matches we played (1 became a replay) we beat them 3 times! We look back and believe it was because although the number 1 seed had the best offense in the world, they lacked passing (not as much this) and defense. I am not saying that, any team on the #1 alliance was not smart or good, we just somehow outsmarted them when it came to strategy planning.

Strategy CAN win a match againt the greatest

[Caleb Sykes]

Shouldn't be too hard to figure out after 3 weeks of regionals. Look at the winners. Are they predominately teams with good robots, or "smart" teams with less capable robots?

I have seen multiple very good robots try to score TRUSS points with their missed autonomous balls...in the quarter-final rounds. Said teams did not make it into the semi finals.

In answer to your question, I have yet to see a team that is not "smart" win a regional.

Assuming exclusivity, smart team beats good robot, no question.

[45Auto]

In answer to your question, I have yet to see a team that is not "smart" win a regional.

Okay, have you seen a team without a "good" robot win a regional?

Assuming exclusivity, smart team beats good robot, no question.

Still a big question. All the regionals that I'm aware of have gone to teams with "good" robots, despite smarter play by many teams with less capable robots.

Good robots + decent play > bad robots + smart play

[Citrus Dad]

Average robots playing smart can take down good or great robots who aren't playing smart. I've seen it play out that way more than once so far this season.

I would agree. We won our regional last week, but our toughest match was against 3 robots that played defense extremely well and shut down our alleys to the goal. They just couldn't quite make up the deficit from the auto period. And I saw a regional final where a smart alliance lost to an excellent robot-led alliance only due to penalties.

Alliance cooperation is supreme this year, so be ready to subsume your individual interests to those of the alliance. That also means the top teams must figure out how to use all of their alliance members most effectively.

[wireties]

This is an interesting topic but my experience is that good teams are nearly always smart. A team "good" enough to build a great machine started out "smart" enough to cover their bases, raise money, recruit mentors, have a complete program etc. All the "good" teams I know have "smart" strategy and scouting efforts.

So interesting query but impossible to debate (in my humble opinion)...

[Jim Schaddelee]

I would agree. We won our regional last week, but our toughest match was against 3 robots that played defense extremely well and shut down our alleys to the goal. They just couldn't quite make up the deficit from the auto period.

This has been our strategy from the start. "Win in auton and bury them in teleop"I hope that doesn't sound harsh. The first few weeks of the season it was important to have at least a 2 ball auton because reason and past experience tell you half or less will have auton down.It is very difficult to over come a 40 point deficit after auton if you are trying to play defense and score.But, this is going to change as the season develops.I think the smart teams will be evolving to what the game is going to be and other teams will be working on proverbial 2 ball auton. I would always bet on smart, because smart with a little good is better than good with little smarts:ahh:

[MaxMax161]

How smart and how good? Never mind actual alliance compositions smart and good alone are too subjective to compare in this kind of way.

[45Auto]

How smart and how good? Never mind actual alliance compositions smart and good alone are too subjective to compare in this kind of way.

This is an internet forum. Please refrain from allowing logic and common sense to influence your posts.

[JTEarley]

In general, I would definitely go for the smart team. Especially this year that team play is critical. The teams that win are going to be the ones that are able to make game plans and execute them with whichever alliance members they are with.

They must also be able to adjust their plans during matches if things aren't working as well as planned. Because of this, my bet would be on the the smarter alliance.

That being said, from what I've seen, the good teams generally seem to be the smarter ones.

[Peter Matteson]

Okay, have you seen a team without a "good" robot win a regional?

Yes, if you can find video of how we won the Philly Regional in 2006 you will see 3 very broken not so good at that point robots win a regional by playing defense that in today's FRC teams would try to shame us over here on CD.

[45Auto]

Yes, if you can find video of how we won the Philly Regional in 2006 you will see 3 very broken not so good at that point robots win a regional by playing defense that in today's FRC teams would try to shame us over here on CD.

You really believe that Aerial Assist is comparable to Aim High?

Kind of like saying that because a football team won a game with good defense, then a baseball team should be able to do the same thing ....

[Richard Wallace]

A long time ago, one of my elder relatives was fond of asking, "Would you rather be dumber than you look, or look dumber than you are?"

This is that kind of question.

I don't want to mentor a dumb team that builds a good robot, nor a smart team that builds a bad one.

[Peter Matteson]

You really believe that Aerial Assist is comparable to Aim High?

Kind of like saying that because a football team won a game with good defense, then a baseball team should be able to do the same thing ....

Yes, I do.

Remember in baseball pitching is considered defense, and how often do you hear that pitching won the championship? :D

But seriously both games are highly defensive open field games where the human player inbounds the game object. The goals are in roughly the same postions along the driver stations as well. Most importantly the advantage from a successful autonomous period can make or break the game because of the position it puts you when human control starts. In 2006 you were down points, the auto win bonus and had no balls to shoot when you went on offense in the first period. Compare that to a missed high goal can put you down 20 pts per miss and you have to get the ball off the field to start the real game. All that adds up to a lot more similarity than other other game in my 12 years mentoring.

[Paul T.]

Strategy cannot win a match alone, there's nothing you can do if you break or your simply over powered. i know its not a direct fit but its relevant. during the 2011 to 2012 vex season (gateway) before the NZ designs completely plagued the competition my team was able to win 5 competitons in a row (october to febuary) the first 4 were undefeated. admittedly the first two we won because we were way more prepared than any other team at the event (we worked all summer preparing for the first one. by the third event teams started to catch up and we won only on a good robot and strategy. by the fourth we weren't even the best team there, the NZ designs were better than "Ronny" and we knew it. it was a combination of luck and a solid strategy. the fifth was all strategy, the NZ designs crushed us in skills (were weren't even in the top 5 in robot skills) the design was faster and more efficient. a top seed picked us on only our reputation and were quite clear about it. they immediately forfeited alliance captain. they had the better robot but they knew we were the smarter more resourceful team.

i think the question should be weather you would like a team with a better robot or strategy. do not forget about a teams ability to adapt, at our last competition (in first now) we had our alliance caption die on the field and still won the match(switch the scoring efforts and use the dead robot as a road block).

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”


― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

[45Auto]

Yes, if you can find video of how we won the Philly Regional in 2006 you will see 3 very broken not so good at that point robots win a regional by playing defense that in today's FRC teams would try to shame us over here on CD.

I haven't seen the match, but it would seem to me that your alliance's robots must have scored some goals at some point to get ahead. Wouldn't that make them "gooder" :rolleyes: offensive robots than your opponents? Or were your opponents just extremely "bad" defensive robots?

If you can shut down the other alliance with three "very broken" robots on your alliance, I would submit that the other alliance couldn't have had very "good" robots.

But hey, you could be the "smartest" person on the "smartest" team in FIRST for all I know, all you need is a box with 4 wheels!

[Riverdance]

This is a really tough question because it is such a huge gray area. However, if I were to have to put money on one team, I would pick the "smart" team over the "good" team. I don't know about elsewhere because I haven't been able to livestream as many events as I would have liked, but at least in New England this season there have been several occurrences of the underdog coming up and winning against the traditionally "good" team.
Not to say that the "good" teams don't always know the rules. Clearly, everyone studies the rules as hard as they can because without a good foundation knowledge of the game you have nothing to go on and will definitely not do well. But when it comes down to it, the team that knows the rules better and has a more developed, solid strategy has a chance of coming out on top every time.
Reason number 1000001 to read the manual as soon as it's out and keep yourself updated.