Re: Team 4334 VS 148 @IRI (Video)
 

As a rookie team for 2012, we can honestly say we should have built that robot, because in the end, our machine ended up doing the same thing; playing defense, feeding in auton, and gathering balls, and not nearly as effectively as 4334. AND they were wide, they just flat out analyzed the game and their experience/resources/time better. *They can definitely do the same next year. If they were a generic box on wheels then yes I would agree with JesseK, but it is simply not a box on wheels. It is a well thought out design that was implemented better than probably 90% of most other bots this season, including ours.

*- and by this I don't mean build a 3rd bot, I mean analyze the game properly.

Re: Team 4334 VS 148 @IRI (Video)
 

I'm going to start calling these "3rd pick bots". Robots like 4334, and several teams who sat under the towers and redirected balls in 2010 (Besides 469...they dont count :P) are designed to be 3rd robots, and aid both their allies. Speaking from experience we built one in 2010, and were told later that had we not gotten picked by our friends in #4, #1 would have picked us and we could have won our first regional.

Historically you never really need more than 2 offensive scorers, so teams who know they can't build a competetive scorer should all DEFFINITLY attempt this. Especially rookies. You can next to guarentee getting picked. I think matches in any game would be much more exiting with different types of robots, instead of watching 6 scorers go at it, and struggle from lack of game pieces. As long as we dont get games like 2011, where there isnt much of an option for one.

Re: Team 4334 VS 148 @IRI (Video)
 

There's an interesting dichotomy in my comparison of the situation in the video and your comparison to your whole competition season.

This is like saying to your boss "I didn't meet your expectations this year, and next year you should expect even less value from me than the value I managed to produce this year". You'd be gone from your company in the next round of layoffs for striving to meet the lowest common denominator.

My overall point is that yea, 4334 had a great season. Yet statistically speaking, for them shine next year they'll have to step up in some way or another.

Re: Team 4334 VS 148 @IRI (Video)
 

You can't exactly compare this to that. This bot, much like 148 in 2008, is the top in its class or category of robots that fill a specific need. Each year's game has some category like this. In 2006 it might be feeders/dumpers (I think 195 did this?), in 07 it might be ramp bots, in 08 lap bots (148), in 09 perhaps super cell delivery/defense, etc..

If their goal is to consistently be the best robot in this type of category, I don't see this as a goal of being the lowest common denominator, I see it as being smart about their strategy to earn gold medals. I also don't see it as taking the easier road to having a gold and not having a challenging design. 148 in 2008 didn't need to have a swerve, but it was their challenge to themselves and they still seeded high at their regionals and then won Champs. There's no need why a team cannot challenge themselves while still creating the perfect auxiliary function robot.


On another note, perhaps a thread specifically about these types of robots would be better, rather than discussing it in 4334's thread.

+0.02

Re: Team 4334 VS 148 @IRI (Video)
 

I think a better way of saying it is: You can't build 3rd robots forever, and so youll eventually have to compete against other scorers. And that 4334 had an excellent season being a 3rd robot, but they will eventually have to compete against 1114 and 2056, instead of getting picked by them.

And given their resources, I have little doubt they can pull it off. Im anxious to see how FRC evolves in Canada!

Re: Team 4334 VS 148 @IRI (Video)
 

This isnt entirely true. You can build winning/successful 3rd robots year in and year out but it is only limited to the game. 2006 - yes, 2007 - yes, 2008 - yes, 2009 - no, 2010 - yes, 2011 - no, 2012 - yes. Thats 5 out of the last 7 years where a team could build a winning/successful 3rd alliance robot. So, depending on the type of game, one team could consistently build good bots that dont score; unless the year is a pure offense game like 2009 and 2011.

Re: Team 4334 VS 148 @IRI (Video)
 

Yeah but soon teams will start getting wise, and youll have #8 alliances picking them. And we know the statistics on #8s winning regionals :/

Re: Team 4334 VS 148 @IRI (Video)
 

I kind of get what you're saying. When you get to that middle range where you're the best 3rd bot/low-tier 2nd bot. That's where 1675 has been the majority of the last 2 years. Losing to Wildstang from the 8th seed in quarters at both of our regionals in '11 kinda sucked :). Especially with more and more quality robots coming out of Wisconsin we have to step our game up.

Re: Team 4334 VS 148 @IRI (Video)
 

I don't think 4334 intends to make a 3rd bot next year.

A team learns a lot in their first season, especially after playing with such great teams.

No one can truly speak for them, but I imagine their decision to "aim low" was to make their first season as successful as possible, while learning as much as possible to come out aiming to be a frontrunner in their second season.

As I said before, the decisions they made this year are indicative of intelligent understanding of strategy and design; a skillset that will lead t hem to being a top team in the future.

Next season for 4334
 

Thank you so much for the support the FRC community has shown us this season. We really appreciate everyone's interest in our team.

Regarding next season for 4334: we chose this robot design this year for three simple reasons. 1. We realized that we were a rookie team, and that if we built the standard Rebound Rumble robot, we would essentially be swimming upstream. 2. We recognized the value a dedicated feeder/defense bot would be to good shooter bots. 3. As a rookie team, we ultimately went with Rex's final design because we wanted to be able to make 2 bots so we could practice. Now that we are a little better established, a little better funded, and have some competition experience, we'll be a lot less shy about tackling bigger challenges. I'm not saying we're gonna go one way or the other. I mean, if there is a niche we find, and that's the right thing to, we'll do that. But same goes for offensive oriented robots. Only kick off can tell what we'll do next.

I personally have no clue how the GDC is gonna top Rebound Rumble. But we're all super pumped for next season, and to see what we and everyone else will come up with.

Mac

Re: Team 4334 VS 148 @IRI (Video)
 

I want to congratulate 4334 on a fantastic season and that especially awesome spot of defense on 148 at IRI.

I also want to point to this quote, because I don't think any other could fit ATA's season better. Shooting 3-point baskets with mild success wouldn't be extraordinary--i.e. many other teams would be doing the same thing. Feeding is fairly ordinary because it is the Plan B for all the teams that tried to be great scorers, but ran into inconsistencies with their shooting. But they are able to feed better than anyone else because their design and drivers' practice has been centered on it.

We need to look at these designated, successful feeder bots not as a lower tier of robots, but as machines which are at the top of their own respectable class.