Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

67 will probably not FCS unless you're dedicating one of your cyclers to defending them and even then they still suffer from defence. I don't know why everyone keeps pretending they can factor that ability into their strategy. It's a nice plus you can use once in a while, nothing more by the time the game has evolved this much.

To be fair they are an amazing cycler. That's what I think we should be counting them as good cycler with a 50 point climb/dump and a trick up their sleeves.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

No, I mean auto is important, you definitely have to have the 7 disk, just that the centerline isn't as important because it can be defended relatively easily, so I wouldn't consider it a factor when creating an alliance. That's why I like the alliance 254 - 1114 - 67 because an FCS plus floor pickup with a cycling climber is a wide variety of options that all fit well together the best in my opinion. All the alliances suggested were great alliances, I just feel this one is 1% better.

Yes 67 can be defended, but if you have a robot defending them, you're down to a 2 vs 2.5 since 67 can still cycle, unless the defender is also a fast cycler (i.e 1477) which would make it a 2.5 vs 2.5. If you decide to not dedicate a defender to 67 I think they would just outscore you.

Another idea for variety could be 1114, 118, 469. Basically relies on massive teleop plus 1114's climb.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

469, 469, and 469

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

I have to agree. 469 was one of the few robots this year capable of scoring all the fisbees by themselves in 2:15.

They were a good enough fcs to empty the feeder in a minute and leave more than enough time to pick up their scraps.

^ THIS

This is my dream alliance. Score fast, steal discs and then defend climb and dump.

469 - how about building one more backup bot? :-)

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

1538. 1986, 1114. Or 33 instead of 1538

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

How about a 1241-1477-610 alliance. Three fast cyclers, a 13-15 disk auton, the ability to shoot while hanging, fcs defense, climbing defense, and the ability to full court shoot if needed. The only downfall for this alliance would be if 1477 would happen to jam up in a match. If not I would be hard pressed to find a better alliance this year.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

As tempted as I am to agree with this - 469's on season performance is only rivaled by 2056's IRI performance - if we're talking about "perfect" alliances you can't leave 72 (20 + 20 + 20 + 30 - 18) net points on the board. While 254, 1986, 1114, etc. are not at 469's disc-handling level, they're good enough to score all the discs together and they have the additional climb points.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

Could someone please throw a 30 pt. climber on 469's bot so we can end this discussion? Photoshop will do, just make it look real. Also, is it just me or have we had about five of these threads?

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

Our reigning world champions? No way. They collectively leave way too many climb/dump points on the table. That alliance made Einstein with a well executed strategy to take advantage of some well-timed luck. If 1114's climber was working properly during CMP Elims, 1114/118/4039 would have eliminated them. Both matches were won by a smaller margin than 1114's missed climb.

Don't get me wrong, they're still 3 of the best robots of the year, but that alliance is far from the "optimal" Ultimate Ascent Alliance.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

I disagree. Even if the first seed alliance had beat 1477, 610, and 1241 then it would have been extremely tight. Everyone knew 1114's climber was broken, so nobody tried(or at least they didn't try hard) to keep 1114 away from the pyramid. If their climber had been working, I have no doubt that 610 would have been over there keeping 1114 off the pyramid.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

Not saying 1114/118/4039 would have won. I was saying that 1241/610/1477 was far from being the optimal alliance for this game.

254/67/1114 would be much closer to optimal.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

If I remember correctly talking to some of their guys at champs, they had a concept for a 30 point climber that ended up getting trashed later in the season. The main artifact of this is the lead screw that moves their arm has a ton of power behind it.

Just some food for the thought.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

Actually, even in semifinal 1-3, 1114 was defended against on their way to the pyramid, even though heir climb had already failed multiple times. And it was really close without the extra 50 points 1114 could have given to the first seeded alliance. Infact if the number one alliance hadn't gotten the technical foul called around 1:05 in, the first seed alliance would have won, and I'm not even sure if that was a correctly called technical? Depends on the ref, I guess (as much as we would all love it if it didn't).

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

First of all, as mentioned above me, 610 (along with 1477) did try defending 1114's climb, for example here.

Second of all, I think I know what happens when 1114 gets defended too hard.