Team Update: Drive Team Placement in Playoffs

[MooreteP]

Searched and surprised to not find a discussion on this:

Team Update 2015-02-03
(http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2015/TeamUpdateBundle0203.pdf)
The higher seeded ALLIANCE will always be assigned to the Red side of the FIELD. Additionally, ALLIANCE CAPTAINS will always be assigned to the center PLAYER STATION, the first pick will be assigned to the station to their left while they’re facing the FIELD, and the second pick will be assigned to their right while they’re facing the FIELD. If a BACKUP TEAM is in play, they will be assigned to the PLAYER STATION that was assigned to the DRIVE TEAM they’re replacing.

In past games, the 1,3 (left,right) positions weren't as differentiated as they are this year. Also, I think their placement varied between Playoff (Elimination) matches.
The 3rd (right) position has a higher potential for drive team vision issues as totes accumulate on the platforms nearest the driver stations. Which they may for yes, chute door, loaders.
The 1st (left) position has the best view of the "aisle" between the stacks. for negotiating the "traffic" between the stacks.

Am I overthinking this?

[StAxis]

I don't think you're overthinking this at all. For the first time we will see position correlate strongly with your pick. I'm glad they made this change as it will allow for more interesting alliance selections and more consistent team planning. Having set stations for elims is something I've been wanting for years.

I'm really curious if we will see a trend of first seeded landfill bots tanking their last match or two in order to get into that left driver station.

[MooreteP]

I don't think you're overthinking this at all. For the first time we will see position correlate strongly with your pick. I'm glad they made this change as it will allow for more interesting alliance selections and more consistent team planning. Having set stations for elims is something I've been wanting for years.

I'm really curious if we will see a trend of first seeded landfill bots tanking their last match or two in order to get into that left driver station.

The potential effects for scouting adds a level that I don't even want to begin to parse. :eek:

[jvriezen]

Seems like a better choice would have been to let each alliance captain declare which slot each team is in--but it would apply to all matches (vs. having to deal with logistics of informing FTA each match)

[Caleb Sykes]

I really like the set positions. The alliance captain's coach should be managing the entire alliance, and this is most easily done from the center station. Additionally, since the playoff schedule is already known (5.4.4), queuers won't have to be scrambling so much to tell teams that their match is coming up and which alliance station each team owns.

I don't really like that the higher alliance is red, since red is at a disadvantage when placing robots for autonomous. At lower levels, this effect will be negligible, but I could see it giving blue a leg-up at higher level competitions.

If order placement of ROBOTS matters to either or both ALLIANCES, the ALLIANCE must notify the Head REFEREE during setup for that MATCH. Upon notification, the Head REFEREE will require ALLIANCES to alternate placement of their ROBOTS, starting with the Red ALLIANCE.

[MrTechCenter]

I really like the set positions. The alliance captain's coach should be managing the entire alliance, and this is most easily done from the center station. Additionally, since the playoff schedule is already known (5.4.4), queuers won't have to be scrambling so much to tell teams that their match is coming up and which alliance station each team owns.

I don't really like that the higher alliance is red, since red is at a disadvantage when placing robots for autonomous. At lower levels, this effect will be negligible, but I could see it giving blue a leg-up at higher level competitions.

I still don't understand why the order of placement would matter. But going back to the point, I like that the alliance captain gets the center driver station for easy communication, but this would have made more sense in Aerial Assist. For Recycle Rush, the position of your driver station could very well effect your strategy, and having the stations assigned makes it rather tough.

[Taylor]

I still don't understand why the order of placement would matter.

For well-practiced teams, it shouldn't.

[Lil' Lavery]

Order of placement matters for alliances planning on battling for the center recycling containers in autonomous. It has nothing to do with being "well practiced" or otherwise.

[Taylor]

Order of placement matters for alliances planning on battling for the center recycling containers in autonomous. It has nothing to do with being "well practiced" or otherwise.
What does alliance station position have to do with robot placement on the field?

[MrBasse]

What does alliance station position have to do with robot placement on the field?

It doesn't. See the quote in Caleb's post above.

[Kevin Leonard]

While this is an interesting point I hadn't heard anyone make yet, I don't think alliance station placement will shake up rankings or picking too much. While it would be ideal for certain robots to be at certain stations, the difference with good drivers should be small.

I could, however, see a team that is between two different teams to pick making their decision between the two based on alliance station placement.

[Taylor]

It doesn't. See the quote in Caleb's post above.
I see. I was confusing "order placement" as 2-1-3 in the driver station rather than the intended order of robots across alliances placed on the field. My mistake.
I could, however, see a team that is between two different teams to pick making their decision between the two based on alliance station placement.
For alliance captains 6, 7, and 8, I absolutely agree. Especially at larger events.

[Kevin Leonard]

For alliance captains 6, 7, and 8, I absolutely agree. Especially at larger events.

Definitely for the 8 seed. They have the ability to pick who goes where if they pick intelligently.

[JB987]

As Caleb"s post points out, it looks like highest seeded alliance (red) is no longer a desirable status?

"If order placement of ROBOTS matters to either or both ALLIANCES, the ALLIANCE must notify the Head REFEREE during setup for that MATCH. Upon notification, the Head REFEREE will require ALLIANCES to alternate placement of their ROBOTS, starting with the Red ALLIANCE."

Why would the GDC give such a potential advantage for auto set up to the Blue alliance? Or am I misinterpreting something?

[AllenGregoryIV]

As Caleb"s post points out, it looks like highest seeded alliance (red) is no longer a desirable status?

"If order placement of ROBOTS matters to either or both ALLIANCES, the ALLIANCE must notify the Head REFEREE during setup for that MATCH. Upon notification, the Head REFEREE will require ALLIANCES to alternate placement of their ROBOTS, starting with the Red ALLIANCE."

Why would the GDC give such a potential advantage for auto set up to the Blue alliance? Or am I misinterpreting something?

I think you read it right, as it stands the GDC is helping out the underdog alliance in this case.

[PayneTrain]

As Caleb"s post points out, it looks like highest seeded alliance (red) is no longer a desirable status?

"If order placement of ROBOTS matters to either or both ALLIANCES, the ALLIANCE must notify the Head REFEREE during setup for that MATCH. Upon notification, the Head REFEREE will require ALLIANCES to alternate placement of their ROBOTS, starting with the Red ALLIANCE."

Why would the GDC give such a potential advantage for auto set up to the Blue alliance? Or am I misinterpreting something?

Since it's part of an update, I imagine they intended to write it so the robot setup advantages favor the higher seeded alliance and they will fix it later. If it doesn't change before week 1, well, whatever.

The static placement of teams based on intra-alliance standing is a boon for logistics at the team, alliance, and field operation levels. Drive teams always know where they are setting up, alliance captains are always at the best station for coordinating, MC and GA always know which team will be the alliance captain by just looking at the field, as will spectators, etc.

Here is a thought: if you are an alliance captain, how much stock are you putting into HP placement? Do you want the 2 HP to be next to 2 station, 3 HP next to 3 station, and your HP running some tactical function like the 2011 HP not at the slots? You could even say there might be an opportunity if the 2 and 3 HPs are similar enough to the 1 HP that your 1 HP could be coached up on helping to coordinate 1 Drive Team while 1 Coach operates as a field marshal of sorts, understanding and accepting some obvious tradeoffs with this move.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Here is a thought: if you are an alliance captain, how much stock are you putting into HP placement? Do you want the 2 HP to be next to 2 station, 3 HP next to 3 station, and your HP running some tactical function like the 2011 HP not at the slots? You could even say there might be an opportunity if the 2 and 3 HPs are similar enough to the 1 HP that your 1 HP could be coached up on helping to coordinate 1 Drive Team while 1 Coach operates as a field marshal of sorts, understanding and accepting some obvious tradeoffs with this move.

It depends on the alliance captains robot. If they are a slot feeder, they will have their trained HP at the slot. It's like 2013, you don't want just anybody feeding your robot.

[PayneTrain]

It depends on the alliance captains robot. If they are a slot feeder, they will have their trained HP at the slot. It's like 2013, you don't want just anybody feeding your robot.

I mean, teams that made their robots almost idiot proof w/ regards to catching a pass from an HP (from literal targets to software compensation to "just throw it in this large hole, you can't miss it) in 2014 were fine. You want someone who can tell your robot is properly aligned or within an acceptable range of degrees of the slot before they start opening the chute door, but the chute this year is so much slower than the 2013 chutes having a fast HP is almost not even a real thing.

You are making a tradeoff if you pull a familiar HP for the purposes of better coordination between teams, and I don't even know if it could be worth it yet. It's just something I'm going to simmer over for a bit.

[AdamHeard]

As Caleb"s post points out, it looks like highest seeded alliance (red) is no longer a desirable status?

"If order placement of ROBOTS matters to either or both ALLIANCES, the ALLIANCE must notify the Head REFEREE during setup for that MATCH. Upon notification, the Head REFEREE will require ALLIANCES to alternate placement of their ROBOTS, starting with the Red ALLIANCE."

Why would the GDC give such a potential advantage for auto set up to the Blue alliance? Or am I misinterpreting something?

I hope this isn't an attempt to level the playing field by dragging the top down (like the serpentine draft).

[mmaunu]

This is something that I would like to ask in the Q&A but it also seems inappropriate for Q&A since the rule is incredibly clear. Is there a forum for asking "Why did this rule (about red placing robots on the field before blue) get made when it clearly gives a disadvantage to the higher seeded alliance even though they earned the right to have the advantage?"?

Did they, perhaps, give the advantage to the lower-seeded alliance in an attempt to balance the play? That seems particularly rough in the Finals matches and/or at high levels of play where both sides will be vying for the center containers.

[EdwardP]

Beyond the impact at regional events, the implications for Einstein are huge. At least in a subdivision or at a regional, you can plan and prepare for the situations you will be facing when making your selections.

On Einstein, where this rule will have the greatest impact, presumably, the "seeds" will be randomly set, and some divisions will have an inherent advantage, by no doing of their own.

I'm not committed to this idea, but one way to at least make it feel more fair would be with a ABBAAB format. It would also save time, since the current way presumably could take up to 6 minutes, since each team needs to set up their robot.

[Rachel Lim]

This is something that I would like to ask in the Q&A but it also seems inappropriate for Q&A since the rule is incredibly clear. Is there a forum for asking "Why did this rule (about red placing robots on the field before blue) get made when it clearly gives a disadvantage to the higher seeded alliance even though they earned the right to have the advantage?"?

I'm guessing that Q316 (https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/316/section-5-1-states-that-require-alliances-to-alternate-placement-of-their-robots-starting-with-the-red-alliance-implying-that-the-order-of-robot-placement-is-red-blue-red-blue-red-blue) and Q317 (https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/317/sec-5-1-states-that-require-alliances-to-alternate-placement-of-their-robots-starting-with-the-red-alliance-implying-that-the-order-of-robot-placement-is-red-blue-red-blue-red-blue-sec-5) ask your question:
Sec 5.1 states that "...require ALLIANCES to alternate placement of their ROBOTS, starting with the Red ALLIANCE.", implying that the order of ROBOT placement is Red, Blue, Red, Blue, Red, Blue. Sec 5.4.4 states that during Playoff MATCHES "The higher seeded ALLIANCE will always be assigned to the Red side of the FIELD" This implies that the lower seeded alliance (blue) is given the advantage of placing last and reacting to their higher seeded opponent (red). Is this the intent of the rule?

[waialua359]

I'm not sure why these new rules came out in this update?
If anything, why not let teams decide which alliance station they want. Its been done before at offseason events and allows teams to comfortably choose where they want to be, optimizing vantage points for the entire alliance. To some extent it does matter. Some drivers are tall, some short and anyone that has ever coached behind the glass will tell you that the view is much different than for a spectator seeing the whole field.
The field isnt symmetrical with respect to each alliance.

The only reason I see that red places their bots first, is to level the playing field as others have suggested.

[Joseph1825]

I hope this isn't an attempt to level the playing field by dragging the top down (like the serpentine draft).
Wait, did I miss something? I always thought of the serpentine draft as one of the best things for FIRST competitiveness. If you check the numbers the first alliance (and thus the first seed), still win over 50% of all regionals. IMO the serpentine draft is one of the only things making the lowest five alliances competitive.
I don't think of it as pulling the top down, I think of it as pushing the top and the bottom closer together.
(sorry if this is derailing a thread, it's kind of a pet peeve of mine.)

[Lil' Lavery]

I hope this isn't an attempt to level the playing field by dragging the top down (like the serpentine draft).

Barring some sort of pre-recorded position cards you hand to the ref before a match, robot positioning is a zero-sum thing. One team will have to place their robot first. This is just as much of raising the floor as it is "dragging the top down."

This is something that I would like to ask in the Q&A but it also seems inappropriate for Q&A since the rule is incredibly clear. Is there a forum for asking "Why did this rule (about red placing robots on the field before blue) get made when it clearly gives a disadvantage to the higher seeded alliance even though they earned the right to have the advantage?"?

Did they, perhaps, give the advantage to the lower-seeded alliance in an attempt to balance the play? That seems particularly rough in the Finals matches and/or at high levels of play where both sides will be vying for the center containers.

You think the rankings will be a perfect estimation of what was "earned" on the field? You don't think scheduling will still have a large impact on average scores? Do you think that being the higher seed automatically entitles you to all of the advantages?

[JB987]

So if one is uncomfortable with the higher seed "earning" an advantage then why not argue for alternating second placement status during auto set up with each match played?

[mmaunu]

You think the rankings will be a perfect estimation of what was "earned" on the field? You don't think scheduling will still have a large impact on average scores? Do you think that being the higher seed automatically entitles you to all of the advantages?

I don't think that the rankings are a perfect estimation of what was "earned" on the field but the ranking system is what it is and it is used to determine relative ranks. These ranks typically come with perks for being higher ranked (so that there is a tournament-specific incentive to rank well).

I think that scheduling will have a large impact on average scores...just like it has these last many years.

I do think that being the higher seed entitles you to having advantages in general and having the advantage in this particular situation. This rule gives a very significant disadvantage to the higher-seeded team, a disadvantage that is not balanced by any other factor and one that might decide finals matches in many events.

[Josh Fritsch]

The Q&A was answered, and confirms this Blue alliance advantage:

Q317 Q. Sec 5.1 states that "...require ALLIANCES to alternate placement of their ROBOTS, starting with the Red ALLIANCE.", implying that the order of ROBOT placement is Red, Blue, Red, Blue, Red, Blue. Sec 5.4.4 states that during Playoff MATCHES "The higher seeded ALLIANCE will always be assigned to the Red side of the FIELD" This implies that the lower seeded alliance (blue) is given the advantage of placing last and reacting to their higher seeded opponent (red). Is this the intent of the rule?

A. Sections 5.1 and 5.4.4 are correct as written, and as you have described in your question.

[Lil' Lavery]

I don't think that the rankings are a perfect estimation of what was "earned" on the field but the ranking system is what it is and it is used to determine relative ranks. These ranks typically come with perks for being higher ranked (so that there is a tournament-specific incentive to rank well).

I think that scheduling will have a large impact on average scores...just like it has these last many years.

I do think that being the higher seed entitles you to having advantages in general and having the advantage in this particular situation. This rule gives a very significant disadvantage to the higher-seeded team, a disadvantage that is not balanced by any other factor and one that might decide finals matches in many events.

Not balanced by any other factor? Getting an earlier pick in alliance selection is certainly balancing it via another factor, I'd say.

[mmaunu]

Not balanced by any other factor? Getting an earlier pick in alliance selection is certainly balancing it via another factor, I'd say.

I do think that first seed getting an earlier alliance selection is an advantage, but I also think that the serpentine draft is a balancing factor for that. Since the rules have an existing balancing mechanism for getting to pick first, this new rule seems to come without a complementary balancing factor. In fact, I submit that, at some events, there might be a distinct advantage to being the second alliance captain. That design decision seems like a bad idea to me.

I don't think that the draft order completely balances the issue, by the way, but I also don't think that it should balance out perfectly. I believe that the tournament rules should provide incentive to be the first seed. This new rule provides a unique penalty to being first seed; they will never by anything but the red alliance and be at a significant disadvantage in all of the playoffs matches and in the actual finals for an event.

This will also play out very strangely on Einstein this year where teams come from different fields; will four alliances will win the lottery and be assigned the color blue? Actually, I am not sure that they have defined the process for picking alliance colors on Einstein...I can't find that information in the manual.

Edited to add: I do think that there are a variety of equalization strategies that could also be employed as well (as others have mentioned). Robot placement could alternate from game to game: Red-then-Blue in one game and then Blue-then-Red in the next game. You could also just flip a coin before each match to make the advantage less predetermined or less one-sided.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Blue only can use the advantage if they have robots that are able to capitalize on it. They still have to be faster than the other team. All the placement advantages in the world, won't make the RCs come off the step any faster for you. By giving blue this advantage assuming both alliances has some sort of staggered RC grappling (some of them come off the step faster than others) we are likely allowing Blue to get some but not all the containers, if Red does have at least a faster initial pull of one or more RCs.

Basically what I'm saying is yes the GDC is giving blue an advantage but if Red is faster they still get some of the RCs and you probably have a more even distribution of RCs because of this. (2-2, or 3-1 instead of 4-0). Since Blue can put their faster puller against Red's slower puller (or later RCs if it's one robot doing all 4).

Man we really need to lock down a vocabulary for some of these things.

[BrendanB]

Blue only can use the advantage if they have robots that are able to capitalize on it. They still have to be faster than the other team. All the placement advantages in the world, won't make the RCs come off the step any faster for you. By giving blue this advantage assuming both alliances has some sort of staggered RC grappling (some of them come off the step faster than others) we are likely allowing Blue to get some but not all the containers, if Red does have at least a faster initial pull of one or more RCs.

Basically what I'm saying is yes the GDC is giving blue an advantage but if Red is faster they still get some of the RCs and you probably have a more even distribution of RCs because of this. (2-2, or 3-1 instead of 4-0). Since Blue can put their faster puller against Red's slower puller (or later RCs if it's one robot doing all 4).

Man we really need to lock down a vocabulary for some of these things.
True Blue still needs to be faster however Red would seriously be re-evaluating if they want to risk getting entangled with Blue in an autonomous fight over the RCs and risk damaging their (and Blue's) robot.

If Red is a few seconds faster this could be a mute issue depending on how both Blue and Red collect their RCs but as the season progresses and teams get faster the GDC is giving favor to the Blue alliance.

IMHO have the head referee do a coin toss if an order needs to be determined. Blue alliances shouldn't be guaranteed the upper hand in autonomous.

[mmaunu]

Blue only can use the advantage if they have robots that are able to capitalize on it. They still have to be faster than the other team. All the placement advantages in the world, won't make the RCs come off the step any faster for you. By giving blue this advantage assuming both alliances has some sort of staggered RC grappling (some of them come off the step faster than others) we are likely allowing Blue to get some but not all the containers, if Red does have at least a faster initial pull of one or more RCs.

Basically what I'm saying is yes the GDC is giving blue an advantage but if Red is faster they still get some of the RCs and you probably have a more even distribution of RCs because of this. (2-2, or 3-1 instead of 4-0). Since Blue can put their faster puller against Red's slower puller (or later RCs if it's one robot doing all 4).

Man we really need to lock down a vocabulary for some of these things.

Very true. This ruling also makes it nearly mandatory for a first seed robot to identify and pick the robot that can most quickly (and reliably, of course) grab containers (unless the first seed robot also happens to be the fastest container grabber). If they don't, they could face a blue alliance that prevents them from getting any containers off of the step. At the very least, it's going to be interesting seeing how this all plays out in the first couple of weeks.

[AllenGregoryIV]

At the very least, it's going to be interesting seeing how this all plays out in the first couple of weeks.

My guess is this doesn't matter until Week 5+. I'm betting there are teams that will dominate the RCs early on and position and order won't matter. As the season progresses it will be like Minibots and teams will catch up.

[Alpha Beta]

According to 5.4.4 the seeding is redone after the quarters, and again after the semi's.

You may notice that the #1 seed gets to play last in QF4 and QF8. That gives them the opportunity to pre-calculate the score they need to come in 4th and sandbag the match a little (if ensuring the blue autonomous advantage was important to them).

Moving from the semi's to the finals is not as easy to control from that spot though since Q4 plays their last match against Q3 before Q1 and Q2 play theirs. (Side note: I could foresee a scenario where Q1 and Q2 both score enough to advance in the last semi-final, but battle each other for the right to be blue in the finals by scoring as close to the minimum number of points needed to edge out Q3 and Q4.)

Now what about Einstein... Will the positioning of the 8 subdivision winners be random or based on their Qualification Average in the subdivision finals? Section 5.6 is a little thin on this area.

Help me out if I overlooked something.

[Kevin Leonard]

According to 5.4.4 the seeding is redone after the quarters, and again after the semi's.

You may notice that the #1 seed gets to play last in QF4 and QF8. That gives them the opportunity to pre-calculate the score they need to come in 4th and sandbag the match a little (if ensuring the blue autonomous advantage was important to them).

Moving from the semi's to the finals is not as easy to control from that spot though since Q4 plays their last match against Q3 before Q1 and Q2 play theirs. (Side note: I could foresee a scenario where Q1 and Q2 both score enough to advance in the last semi-final, but battle each other for the right to be blue in the finals by scoring as close to the minimum number of points needed to edge out Q3 and Q4.)

Now what about Einstein... Will the positioning of the 8 subdivision winners be random or based on their Qualification Average in the subdivision finals? Section 5.6 is a little thin on this area.

Help me out if I overlooked something.

Thats really interesting. Wow. This game is so weird.
But also interesting. What if you score the minimum number of points needed to advance, but then in the last few seconds an errant noodle or robot knocks over a stack. What is your course of action?
How important is that slight advantage to you?

[mmaunu]

According to 5.4.4 the seeding is redone after the quarters, and again after the semi's.

You may notice that the #1 seed gets to play last in QF4 and QF8. That gives them the opportunity to pre-calculate the score they need to come in 4th and sandbag the match a little (if ensuring the blue autonomous advantage was important to them).

Moving from the semi's to the finals is not as easy to control from that spot though since Q4 plays their last match against Q3 before Q1 and Q2 play theirs. (Side note: I could foresee a scenario where Q1 and Q2 both score enough to advance in the last semi-final, but battle each other for the right to be blue in the finals by scoring as close to the minimum number of points needed to edge out Q3 and Q4.)

Now what about Einstein... Will the positioning of the 8 subdivision winners be random or based on their Qualification Average in the subdivision finals? Section 5.6 is a little thin on this area.

Help me out if I overlooked something.

I totally missed this and love the complexity that it adds! It also nullifies pretty much all of my worries. I love moments like this when I realize that a) the sky is not actually falling and b) I still haven't learned the lesson that the sky is rarely falling.

[AllenGregoryIV]

I totally missed this and love the complexity that it adds! It also nullifies pretty much all of my worries. I love moments like this when I realize that a) the sky is not actually falling and b) I still haven't learned the lesson that the sky is rarely falling.

I'm thinking the reseeding is probably the most glossed over rule, I've seen in a long time. I've the read manual several times and didn't notice that until Alpha Beta posted it. Sandbagging for the Blue spot could be very interesting/strange on Einstein. Also I don't understand why the GDC didn't call this out in a more clear way in the manual. I'm not a fan of rules that encourage teams to score fewer points, as it stands now this rules does that in certain situations.

[PayneTrain]

I'm thinking the reseeding is probably the most glossed over rule, I've seen in a long time. I've the read manual several times and didn't notice that until Alpha Beta posted it. Sandbagging for the Blue spot could be very interesting/strange on Einstein. Also I don't understand why the GDC didn't call this out in a more clear way in the manual. I'm not a fan of rules that encourage teams to score fewer points, as it stands now this rules does that in certain situations.

I would almost assume that the GDC glossed over the rule as well, because if they're intentionally, passively incentivizing teams not going for the best possible score every time they go on the field (as is the case in the qualifications) then that's some 10/10 game design right there.

[2130driven]

Searched and surprised to not find a discussion on this:

Team Update 2015-02-03
(http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2015/TeamUpdateBundle0203.pdf)
The higher seeded ALLIANCE will always be assigned to the Red side of the FIELD. Additionally, ALLIANCE CAPTAINS will always be assigned to the center PLAYER STATION, the first pick will be assigned to the station to their left while they’re facing the FIELD, and the second pick will be assigned to their right while they’re facing the FIELD. If a BACKUP TEAM is in play, they will be assigned to the PLAYER STATION that was assigned to the DRIVE TEAM they’re replacing.

In past games, the 1,3 (left,right) positions weren't as differentiated as they are this year. Also, I think their placement varied between Playoff (Elimination) matches.
The 3rd (right) position has a higher potential for drive team vision issues as totes accumulate on the platforms nearest the driver stations. Which they may for yes, chute door, loaders.
The 1st (left) position has the best view of the "aisle" between the stacks. for negotiating the "traffic" between the stacks.

Am I overthinking this?...so... would team 21230 go on the RED side?

[Lil' Lavery]

While I agree that the implications for Einstein are very strange, I think far too much emphasis is being given on this. As Allen Gregory pointed out, simply placing your robot on the field second doesn't guarantee that you'll win a contest for the scoring objects at the center of the field. While I understand its importance from a theoretical perspective, in reality, I don't think it will have nearly as much impact as you guys are making it seem.

Beyond that, if winning the center step was an absolutely crucial portion of your strategy, you should have been planning on facing off against other teams from the beginning. Being faster and/or stronger should have been a design priority for your acquisition system(s). Having seen the types of autonomous routines devised in recent years and the types of devices concocted for similar early match challenges, I'm not sure why a team planning on winning these contests at the highest level would hinge their strategy on robot placement order.

I'm sure plenty of elite teams did account for this, and are prepared to win the center step regardless of placement order. And I'm even more sure that there will be far more matches in which the center step goes uncontested, especially during autonomous.

[cglrcng]

Must be Faster, AND MORE ACCURATE! (and possibly stronger too). Which can possibly lead to a whole host of other possible problems. </;-)~ The first 2 to get locked up together during auto and not able to be unhinged easily....Who will be the first to get that E-Stop Disable pressed on them? UT OH!:yikes: