You pick, which would you rather have
 

Hey CD, We are trying to figure something out

when you are at a regional and are working out strategies with your alliance partners would you rather have


A) A wide robot that has a ~60% chance of scoring then going over to the other side to fee balls by shooting them over to the other side

OR

B) A small robot (~15in X 15in) that all it could do is lower the bridge then balance... hopefully making the triple balance easier?

So which one would you rather have on your alliance during qualifications?
Which one would you rather pick (if either) for eliminations?

Thanks!
Discuss

Re: You pick, which would you rather have
 

Definitely the first one. Almost as important as balancing is preventing the other alliance from balancing...I can't really envision a 15" square robot playing good defense

Re: You pick, which would you rather have
 

Do either of them have a mechanical assist device for triple balancing? That would be the best.

A 15 x 15 robot puts the entire alliance at a disadvantage because the other team knows the strategy from the get go. If they can defend the small robot from getting near the bridge they will win the match for sure.

Re: You pick, which would you rather have
 

Option A, all the way. In the B scenario, the robot would only be useful for the bridge, which, while useful, isn't enough for one robot.

Though this is a hypothetical situation, in the real competition a wide robot that can score 80% of the time, feed really well, actuate the bridge, and works well when doing a triple balance would be the one to pick. My reason for saying this is when it comes down to it, you'll need a robot that can score in autonomous accurately, and in teleop if needed. Balancing the bridge IS easier for the smaller robot, however as proven multiple times over the weeks, it is possible with 3 wide robots.

Re: You pick, which would you rather have
 

LOL you get an A or B question and you pick C, nicely done.

Re: You pick, which would you rather have
 

Based on what I've seen so far I'd have to go with the first one. A good autonomous and a good teleop are more than enough to offset the 20 points gained by getting the third robot on the bridge.

That could very well change in later regionals and at St. Louis, but for the next couple weeks I don't see that changing.

Re: You pick, which would you rather have
 

Yes indeed. Although I don't know why he made his C only 80% accurate?

I would go with A because you get added offensive power during hybrid and tele-op and you have a wide robot to still attempt the triple balance if deemed appropriate.

Re: You pick, which would you rather have
 

If I had an alliance that I knew could effectively score the balls that option A is feeding over from the opponents side, then I would definitely choose option A.

However, if I am presented with a situation where my alliance cannot shoot very well, but a small (maybe not quite as small as 15x15) robot would make the triple balance possible (or at least easier), then I would have to choose option B.

And to be honest, I wouldn't even be considering the second scenario as a chance for success, except just yesterday I witnessed my old team pull off the upset in Oregon, coming from the 8th seed to win the regional using exactly that strategy.

Re: You pick, which would you rather have
 

[A] does not preclude the triple balance, so I don't see why we wouldn't pick A. The ball manipulation is handy too, this is a very similar role to that which 2791 played at BAE.

I think [b] could potentially be a very good robot, but you'd have to stretch it a bit farther than the terms you have laid out. If it's at weight and a solid pusher, then that's a great second rounder for many regionals. If it had a ball mechanism (not necessarily a scorer, but something to move balls around with), then it's also a great assist robot. But if all it could do was get on the bridge and sit there... I don't think you'd be as reliable as you might wish with your triples.

A transparent strategy is a disadvantage, but not a very big one. I don't think you would need to worry so much about that. I also think a 15x15 robot could play limited defense, with enough weight and traction.

I disagree. Say they are 60% accurate. That means six points (one of two balls) in auton, leaving 12 in teleop. If they were 100% accurate, they would need to score 4 balls to be as good as a "pure triple balancer" robot. Since they are 60% accurate, that number gets closer to 7 balls. That is a tall order for most robots and teams.

Re: You pick, which would you rather have
 

Well, what is important to remember is that not only can two robots on a bridge balance significantly faster than three robots, but it also frees up one robot to score for the entire match.

So, to use your example from above, let's say this robot gets 6 points in autonomous and scores 2 baskets, or 6 points, in teleop. That's pretty reasonable for a lot of teams. So, they score 12 points total.

But now, what you have to consider is the powerhouse team that picked the alliance - because you aren't going for a triple balance anymore, they have probably 30 seconds of extra scoring that they otherwise would not have had. The best scoring bot on the alliance scoring 9 points in 30 seconds is pretty reasonable I think. That brings that robot's total contribution to 21 points, and that is assuming that they bring relatively little to the table in teleop and autonomous.

And, of course, the triple balance is still on the table with Bot A.

Re: You pick, which would you rather have
 

In the perfect world, everything would be 100% accurate, but unfortunately we have Earth, where it's hard to get 100% accurate for things. I say 80% as a minimum. 90%, or even higher, is much more welcome, but 80% accuracy is the lowest I'd be willing to go.

Re: You pick, which would you rather have
 

I agree, mostly, that A is more logical and useful. But, if B has a powerful drive system, with good maneuverability and traction, they can be an extreme nuisance on defense, and still do the bridge, thus making them useful. At Finger Lakes, I saw a whole lot of type A, but no type B. I think we could have used a type B on our alliance.

Re: You pick, which would you rather have
 

I'm not so sure its significantly faster to balance two.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KRBjByMpZI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=509eQSLcm90

Re: You pick, which would you rather have
 

i think it is important to remember that to beat a triple balance you need to have a double balance and an additional 20 points at some time.

Teams that don't score in teleop or only do the balance cannot help with scoring during teleop OR do any scoring during hybird

As the season progresses winning alliances are going to have to do all three.

Winning on Einstein in St. Louis will require great auto scores (24+) that score very well in teleop (over 36 points) and do the triple balance. This combination nets 100+ points... Your robot will need to be prepared to participate in all three. Balancing robots that cannot score in auto or teleop will not be at a premium in St. Louis

At regionals they can play a role...certainly...

Re: You pick, which would you rather have
 

One small point. If your robot is long and you are in the top 8. There would be a significant potential benefit to picking B, if it were a strong B.