The Game Breaker
 

I don't know who all has thought about it but is anyone taking the "469 approach from breakaway” this year? While I have seen threads talking about the idea. Have any teams been able to hit the full court shot with consistency? If so and you wouldn't mind sharing a little what type of shooter do you have; baseball machine, catapult, other?

Re: The Game Breaker
 

The way the game works, the balls you score are returned to your opponents. You rely on your opponents scores to make points. This means a 469-like strategy won't be possible unless you sit in the opponent's alley and shoot the balls your inbounders feed you into the hoops from the side, though that's very dangerous, and can lead to penalties that along with the inaccuracies make the strategy not worthwhile.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

If a robot could be human loaded and the alley is a protected zone even if a team missed 1 of 4 shots (this could be beneficial if the other team makes anything lower than the top goal and the shooting team was aiming for the top otherwise it would just cancel out what the other team did) the other two robots could either work on scoring the missed shots or playing D on the other team. If nothing else and the team could get the robot accurate enough in theory they should be able to end in a tie minimum.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

True, however then the bot turns into a feeder bot, and I think as the game progresses, we'll find inbounders taking away the need for feeder bots by passing the ball through the slot, and making it bounce over to the other side. While it doesn't make a point, it's very unlikely a feeder bot would make the point from that distance and angle, and with the lack of a feeder bot, the third bot could easily be another offensive beast, making scoring persistent throughout the whole match. If you want something close to 469 in 2010, the closest you'll get is teams stealing balls from their opponent's alley next to them and scoring those, thereby restricting the flow of balls to that small area, until a robot of the opposing team comes into the alley and gives everyone penalties.

Yup, looks like the GDC thought long and hard on this game. I don't see a chokehold strategy that doesn't involve a large possibility of penalties occurring to those who try the strategy.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

How about a bot that takes inbounder feeds and launches them into another bot's large hopper sitting on the key. With an appendage to have a wide catch net it can be quite a large target. The key bot makes consistent 3 pointers. Every basket is answered with three points. Then it comes down to hybrid and balancing.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

Why do you need a robot taking the inbounder's feeds to do this? ;)

Re: The Game Breaker
 

Even if someone manages to do this, it is not a chokehold strategy.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

A single bot scoring 3 reliably by shooting for an 18" hoop from the inbound lane seems quite iffy given the distance and variation in ball characteristics. Aiming for a 52" or wider catch net is very doable.

Not a perfect game winning strategy but a very good one.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

If the question is why can't the Inbounder feed the KeyBot themselves, from what I've seen those passes are entirely defendable (able to be blocked). Not always easy, but quite possible and very important if the KeyBot is good.

If the question is whether the FeedBot can score, let's ask Team 41.


I'm a little confused by the definition of "chokehold". If I can answer every basket with 3 points, I'll tie in teleop if nothing else. Is it because you can't count on that one extra point?

Re: The Game Breaker
 

I don't think we'll see many precise and accurate half-court shooting robots, let alone full-court shots.

The precision is difficult due to the differences in the coefficient of restitution (aka squishiness) of the basketballs; each ball is slightly different, and each ball changes at different rates as they are picked up, fired, run over, etc. on the field. While the balls will likely all be in similar new condition at the start of the competition, over the course of the competition some balls will be (ab)used more than others and replaced by attrition, thus leading to big differences in ball quality by Saturday.

The accuracy is difficult due to the cone of error of lining up your shots from 25-50' away. Being off by 5 degrees from the fender will probably not cause your robot to miss a shot; but the same error from across the field may as well be a mile.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

It's not a chokehold strategy because it doesn't absolutely guarantee you a win. It doesn't even guarantee you a tie unless you're working against a completely clueless opponent. Since your ball supply depends on your opponent's scoring, they can easily disrupt this strategy. All they have to do is start hoarding balls towards the end of the match. If they arrange things so they have 9 balls in robots and 6 balls behind the wall with 20 seconds to go, then you're in serious trouble. They score 9 balls in rapid succession and then head to the bridge to balance. You somehow have to score those 9 balls and go balance in the final 20 seconds to make up the deficit.

That's not to say it's not a very strong strategy. You'd need a pretty strong alliance to defeat it. But it doesn't meet the definition of "chokehold".

Re: The Game Breaker
 

This. Any alliance that does not send a feederbot will be subject to having the inbounder intercepted. And ther'll be little to no reason not to go into the lane as no opposing robots will be near. Just watch for them to come across the barrier.

It's not weather a feederbot can score, but whether a feederbot can score conisitantly. Condisering the accuracy needed, and inconsistancy of the balls ... my gut says not very consistant.


"chokehold" means not giving the ball back to the opponent. This is not possible in this game as every score gives the ball back to the oponent.

Answering every basket with a 3 pointer is not likely. Inaccuracies in the shooters, inconsistancy with the balls, and defense will ensure that.

Prediction: early on, games will be won in autonomous and by balancing. As the weeks go on, games will be determined by who rebounds the best (limiting additional shots by your opponent).

Re: The Game Breaker
 

Agree, that even a 50% accuracy rate (unlikely) isn't a chokehold. That isn't to say such a bot wouldn't be very valuable to the right alliance, so long as the shots are accurate. Don't expect to be higly-ranked with this strategy unless you have a great autonomous and have consistent partners (my prediction anyways).

Re: The Game Breaker
 

I don't expect high consistency either, but I would like to find out the accuracy of teams like 41. (I meant my comment literally: ask them whether shooting the for hoop is more or less effective than shooting for the KeyBot.)


That seems to been true most years, except on occasions that the endgame points are of the same rough magnitude but relatively difficult (e.g. 2010 hanging).

Thanks for the explanation. This would be a great showdown--sounds like an Einstein match-up. I have to say any alliance that could score 9 balls that fast would be pretty incredible itself.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

If I had a "game breaker" strategy (which I don't), I wouldn't present it here. I would introduce it at the proper strategic moment.

If such a strategy exists, we'll see it soon enough. If its not hardware-specific, everybody else will be trying it next week if the GDC doesn't ban it with an update.

I hope nobody finds one. There appear to be plenty of ways for smart teamwork to prevail over a lone superstarbot this year. That would be great to see.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

The 469 Breakaway strategy is being called the 'chokehold' strategy. However, they did not win.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

It took flawless play from their opponents - as well as some poorly timed bad luck - to keep 469 from being World Champions. They won everywhere else they played.

It qualifies as a "chokehold" strategy, for sure.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

Agreed, especially since they beat the team at MSC that beat them in the championships. It was very circumstantial that they lost at the world championships...not to say that the winning alliance didn't deserve it, because they did.

(I will always be a HOT fan)

Re: The Game Breaker
 

I disagree, chokehold means something along the lines of, "If I do task X, I can not lose".

X doesn't count when it involves, "score more balls than the other team".

Re: The Game Breaker
 

Some call it flawless play and circumstantial, I call it reality.

Either way, yes 469 had an incredible strategy/robot in 2010. Many thought it was inevitable that they would become the World Champs, especially after aligning their powers with 1114. There were probably very few people that thought otherwise (excluding the 67, 177, and 294 alliance) during the finals on Einstein.

A chokehold strategy, NO. A strategy that will win matches 99% of the time, YES.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

I know its not an official event, but at MARC 469 lost in the semifinals. The reason I don't consider 469 a gamebreaker robot or even the best robot since I joined FIRST in 2006 is that it depended on a great robot seeding #1. If that didn't happen (like at MARC), they were in somewhat trouble.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

Nope. We were glad with our expected 2nd place.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

Really? That is surprising to hear.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

Yes we are probably splitting hairs but I agree with Adam; according to Karthik the definition of chokehold is:

"A strategy which, when executed, guarantees victory, independent of any action by your opponents"

Re: The Game Breaker
 

As a member of the winning 2010 MSC alliance (along with 2834), I like to think that 469 was just along for the ride... (as if).

Re: The Game Breaker
 

Who's calling it that?

Re: The Game Breaker
 

After watching the championships play out, I have 2 words for this year's game breaker - Bomb Squad. No, it didn't guarantee victory, but it changed the game in the elimination rounds. In their regional appearances they were forced to play offense, and did rather well. In Galileo eliminations and on Einstein they did what they were designed to do - starve the opponent and feed the alliance - and they did it better then anyone in the entire field. If you took 25 or 180 and traded them for any of the dozen top teams who demonstrated equal or better speed and accuracy on offense, you may have ended up with the same result because at least you had the same capabilities (realizing 25 and 180 executed exceptionally well in eliminations where many others of equal capability did not). But if you took away 16, who would replace them? They were in a class by themselves.

Usually you save your second pick for defense and load up on offense first. With Bomb Squad their defense fed the offense; if you're twice as good a shooter but only have 1/3 the ammo, pretty soon you're fighting a losing battle. It really didn't matter what high scores other divisions were posting, you can't do it without balls available to score. I would say that if 16 goes to IRI and you have the first pick and don't take them, you might as well start packing up your pit.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

2012 Game Breaker?

Einstein

:D

/endsarcasm

Re: The Game Breaker
 

i would suggest a 1 wheel shooter with a curved back plate. the best way to do this is to let the motor run at a consistent speed and then fire. you should use a powerful motor(s). 1 cim, or maybe 2?

Re: The Game Breaker
 

I didn't see 16 except on Einstein, but this was a common strategy. We spent a lot of time doing it in the Curie elims, as did 233. I assume others on Archimedes/Newton did it as well.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

330 used this a lot, particularly in a couple matches where there was a jam in the shooter. Slurp, slurp, return to barrier and unload to partner, or cross and put up 3s.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

That was 4334's entire strategy. And they did it very effectively while also making it possible to triple with 2 long partners. Sure they didn't win a regional... but being that they went to a 1114/2056 regional, and were beaten by them in the semi's, I'd say they were very effective.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

I think the difference is, did you design your robot specifically to do this? It was a necessary strategy so many teams could do it, but Bomb Squad was specifically set up with swerve drive and a front loader that cleared the barrier without activation so they could outmaneuver the opponents and clear the floor faster than anyone else.

Re: The Game Breaker
 

I was surprised to see that an effective strategy though much of Newton Elims was 2 defending, one shooting. If you watch the videos, you'll see that the 548 alliance realized this and began using feeder slot scoring exclusively to reduce the effectiveness of 330's "slurp slurp unload" strategy.