Best Theoretical Alliance
 

Hey guys. A couple of teammates and I were discussing what teams put together would make the best alliance for 2013. After the discussion, I thought it would be interesting to see what other people thought so I searched Chief Delphi and found nothing (if I missed it please link me to it); therefore, I decided to start this thread.

I recognize that there are so many great teams out there that there really is no right answer, but I thought it would be fun to do it anyway. My picks would be 2056, 1114 and 67. I realize that this alliance has no defense, but I am thinking 100 points in climb and dumping plus a 78 point autonomous plus whatever the get in teleop (which I assume will be over 100) will be enough to beat any other alliance combination.

That is just my opinion, but I would love to see your picks as I didn't get a chance to watch everyone.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

469, 987, 67

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

^ This

In my opinion the alliance would still be amazing if 33 was swapped in for 469 or 987, but it would be legendary as is too.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

Here is a previous thread on this subject: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=117063

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

254, 67, 1114 /thread

I would swap 2056 for 987, although you could make a case for either.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

I think 987 is about the strategic depth. 2056 is better at what they do (heck, the best in the world at what they do) but I think 469/987/67 could beat any alliance thrown at them because they can pick from a handful of strategies to get the win. Plus, there isn't a team in the world with a better center-line auto.

If you're just going for highest theoretical score, 2056 would most likely be on that alliance just from sheer volume of discs. But there's a lot more to winning than just high scores. Ex: The alliance against 2056 is really good at starving discs and beats them out on climb points.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

2056 is getting undervalued in these rankings. In fact, the numbers suggest that 2056 is the best floor pick up of all. From Ed Law's spreadsheet:

987
OPR: 88
Auto OPR: 23

469
OPR: 81
Auto OPR: 24

2056
OPR: 91
Auto OPR: 32

I'd hazard that we actually saw pretty close to the best possible alliance in 1114, 2056, 1334 at IRI. I could definitely see the argument for having 469 or 67 instead of 1334 to bring full court shooting along with their respective strengths. But when 67 is blocked (as the would almost always be at the highest level) they aren't really better than 1334 - in fact when they went head to head in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfr6RVx0AZA 1334 scored 8 more points. If that wasn't the best alliance possible it wasn't far off.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

I would go for 67-254-469. In autonomous they would be capable of getting the maximum 90 points. In teleop they would have 2 good options. 1 would be to play a similar strategy to 469's championship alliance (67 full court shoots, 254 sweeps the floor, and 469 just does what a 469 does). The other option is because 254 has such an awesome drivetrain, they could defend 67 while 469 focuses on sweeping the floor. End game is obvious: 50 points from 67, 30 from 254, 10 from 469.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

The alliance that would best maximize points scored would have to be 254, 67, 1114. This alliance doesn't leave any climb points on the table, could get all 6 colored discs into the pyramid, and also has a 7 disc auto in addition to 1114 blocking the center line from most center line auto modes. Add 67's FCS to an alliance that already has 3 solid teleop scorers and they could consistently empty their feeder station of discs, and accurately too.

Switching out 1114 or 67 for a robot that can get the center line but doesn't climb above 10 would sacrifice 30 points to gain 12.

Switching out 254 for a robot with a more accurate 7 disc auto would be sacrificing 20 points in climbing for maybe a 6 point auto advantage on average.

In teleop, all that matters is emptying your feeder station as consistently as possible and scoring some of your opponent's misses, and this alliance could already do that very well. This means it would make little sense to switch any of these robots out for another robot based on teleop performance because there would be almost no marginal gain in overall alliance teleop performance, but it necessitates sacrificing plenty of points elsewhere.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

I am going to do this using the IRI scouting data.
All of these numbers are from most-mindblowing to least-mindblowing.

The top 10 scorers were 2056, 118, 33, 1114, 195, 868, 624, 67, 4265, 987.
The most consistent scorers were 2056(with 99.89% accuracy :yikes:), 33, 195, 868, 118, 1114, 4265, 1477, 624, 987.
The best autonomous scorers were 2056, 1538, 33, 624, 1310, 1477, 1625, 469, 118, 2590.
The best teleop scorers were 2056, 118, 195, 868, 4265, 11, 33, 359, 987, 1114.
The best endgame scorers were 1114, 67, 3467, 1640, 71, 148, 1334(someone goofed this data, they should be higher). Everything below that is a level 1 climb. Also, 2826 should be on this list after getting their climber dialed in at the last minute.

Based on this, 2056, 1114, 33.
Non-mathematically, I would say 67, 2056, 118.
Also, just for fun, I would want to see an unofficial alliance of 1114, 67, 254, 1334, 71, and 1640 just to see how many robots we can cram on the top of one pyramid. Maybe, if 254 leaves enough space we could add 2826(the newer 2826 bot) and 3467. maybe fit 148 on the last open side. 1334 does the dump since theirs is the most consistent. 67 takes the other 2 colored discs and does them. that's 30 points. There are 9 level 3 climbs on the pyramid. That's a total of exactly 300 points on the pyramid.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

As an aside, would you mind publishing your scouting data somewhere? On 11, we were all a bit surprised to not be selected, seeing some numbers would be a fun way to find out why.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

67, 254, 1114 for the fcs/sweeper/cycler system.
67, 1806, 148 for a fcs/fcs/fcs system. This was the one strategy I really wanted to see all season, just to see if it would work.
4265, 610, 2338 for a no-ground pickup, level 1 climb, cycler alliance. Ok, maybe I'm a little biased.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

I'd love to see this alliance pull off a constant 2-robot FCS of 67 and 469, and have 987 switching between a third FCS and ground-pickup to get any missed discs.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

I think I've discussed this topic in multiple threads already, but I'll share my input anyways. The answer in my mind is fairly simple-1114, 67, 254. A lot of people are arguing for teams like 2056, 469, and 987. While these three teams are better than just about anybody individually, they lack certain qualities that allow them to be part of the "dream team". The reason that I picked the three teams that I did is they carry the maximum possible climbing points (3 30 point climbs and all 6 colored discs), they have a 13 disc auto, and under optimal conditions could score over 300 points (I calculated it before and it was something like 345). The main argument I hear against this is that this team doesn't get the 15 disc auto. However, the climbing points of a 50 point climb and dump far outweigh the effects of two more auto discs. The only team that could make this alliance possibly better: 1918. They are the only team (as far as I'm aware) to have a 7 disc auto and a 50 point climb. If they were able to still score all of the teleop discs with 1918 replacing 1114, then the 1918-67-254 alliance would theoretically be better (albeit by 12 points).

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

The only possible sub I would make, Carl, is 254 for 1986. But only because 1986's auto is better. That being said, 1986 doesn't sweep the floor nearly as well as 254 does, so picking up misses could be a problem, and make you alliance just as good.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

Okay, I'll play!

1986, 1114, 67.

1986 boasts a 7 disc autonomous and a 30 point climb, plus being one of the best disc scoring robots of the year. Their do-all robot makes them my first pick.

1114, while being famous for their climb, also developed a cycling ability that rivaled their counterpart, 2056, albeit not quite as accurate. A 3 disc autonomous, 5/6 cycles, and the 50pt climb and dump makes 1114 a sure pick.

67, while a pick that is being heavily scrutinized, is a worthy pick. 67's FCS drew heavy defense when they were the highest scoring robot on an alliance. On this alliance, all 3 robots are defense-worthy threats. Even if the full court shooting is neutralized, they are a consistent cycler, as well as boasting a 40pt climb and dump (assuming 1114 does the 50). In addition, 67's dominant position in the corner will prevent too much traffic on the center of the field, giving 1114 and 1986 more room to maneuver.

Potential Autonomous points: 42 + 18 + 18 = 78
Potential Teleop Points: Um... Pretty fair to say all 45 discs could be scored in this one. 67/1114/1986 are all reliably accurate, and 1986's floor pick up could retrieve any misses. So we'll say...
(3*45) = 135
+ (3*6) for the discs on the ground by the opponent is 153.
Potential Climbing Points: 30 + 30 + 30 + 50 (for the pyramid discs) = 140.

78 + 135 + 140 = A Whopping 353 (335 if we don't include discs preset on the floor not scored in autonomous). And I firmly believe this alliance could consistently get at least close to that.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

Forgot about their 30 point climb. My only concern with picking them over 2056 is if all of these robots actually fit at the top level (I have never actually seen more than one robot up there at a time).

254 and 987 are teams I didn't get to see as much as I now hoped I had. 469 was a team I also greatly considered. Still, like I said, there is no real right answer.

Thanks to everyone who posted, it was great to read your input.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

If we can have a legitimate debate on this over multiple pages of multiple threads then props to the GDC for doing their job. Its great that this game has so many strategies that even now we have trouble figuring out the best way to play.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

1986 climbs the inside of the pyramid, while 67 and 1114 climb the corners. All three would very well fit.

I'd like to see 1986 and 254 go head-to-head. I don't know who is better (all I have for 1986 is OPR numbers and god knows how accurate those are.)
Why couldn't they both come to IRIIIIIIII?!?!?!
:rolleyes:

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

I would have been happy if one of them went :rolleyes:

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

254-1986-1806
The "We couldn't make it to IRI" Alliance.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

The trouble with threads like this is that there's 8-12 teams that are right at the top there, and they're pretty much interchangeable for the purpose of a discussion like this.

A dream team consists of 3 teams that have compatible 30 pt climbs, and at least 2 of them have dumps. Additionally 1 must have a 7 disc auto. Better if one of the others additionally has a W2W 5 disc.

254, 67, 1114 fits this bill nicely.

The lack of a 30 pt climb really hurts 2056 for being placed on one of these 'ideal' teams.

254 could easily be substituted for 1986. Their robots perform nearly identical functions in a nearly identical fashion.

67 could be swapped for 1334, again, similar functions.

There are a number of teams from which you can form these dream alliances. Any one of these dream alliances would be pretty much unstoppable.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

There are about 20 alliances that would all be almost equal but I would have to go with 254, 1806, 67 being the best.

The two full court shooters could empty all the discs with 254 cleaning up and possibly taking some discs from the opponents side of the court. After discs are gone 1806 and 67 climb and 254 climbs at the very end.

13 in auto- 78
45 in top goal- 135
3 climbs (30,30,20)- 80
6 discs dumped- 30

=323 buttt the whole time 254 can be scooping up the other teams misses, which always happens so the total will be higher.

Also, this team would be incredibly repeatable as each of the robots isn't doing anything hard at all but each a relatively easy task but working as a team.

That's my thought on the whole thing

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

1986-1918-1114
Wait WHAAAAAAT?
1986- 5 Discs in auto (centerline)
30 Point Climb
1918- 5 Discs in auto
30 Point Climb
20 Point dump
1114/67/1334/etc- 3 Discs in auto
30 Point Climb
10 Point Dump

Really this alliance has no advantage over the others in this thread, but it's an option that is a little different than the others. It still maximizes the amount of points one can get, but in a different way by replacing the 7-3-3 auto combination with a 5-5-3 auto combination. Now, if 1918 could do a 7-disc auto, they'd be the only team in the world with a 7-disc auto and an outside-the-pyramid 30 point climb.
I would probably run 67 in this set, just for the fact that they, alone, can score the entire feeder station's worth of discs.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

Each alliance should have...

1 consistant full cout shooter- I give this one to 148. They had one if the most accurate full court shots this year. I think they probably scored more than 100 frisbee points in a single game a few times this year. Besides The Robowranglers, 67 and 469 both had quality FCS. But, it goes to 148.

1 reliable cycler. We saw in the championship that 3 cyclers was the best type of alliance. A cycling robot with a fast floor pickup makes a great addition. I would probably go with either 2056, 118, 3476 or 1477. All of these can score, but I give it to 2056.

1 fast climber with a solid shooter. I have to go with 254. They could climb to 30 in the time it took most to reach 10. 1986 and 1114 also had great climbs, but The Poofs get this one.

In total, 148 could hit at least 25 shots from full court + autonomous + a 50 pt. climb and dump. That's well over 120 pts, give or take. 2056 had a 7 disc auto + a deadly accurate shooter, and a 10 pt climb. Probably about another 100 pts right there. Then, 254 has its 7 disc auto + another quality shooter + a 10 second 30 pt. climb. I think this group can hit 300 pts.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

One quick flaw: 148 can only climb to 20 and does not dump. If you want the FCS/50pt climb and dump, go for 67.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

I love thinking about this kind of thing and I'll possibly come back later to contradict myself.

First things first, full court shooters aren't going to help here. There are a few (67, 148, 195, 2169, etc) that are accurate enough to be a part of this discussion, but with 45 + 6 discs, it's just too easy to get 11-12 cycles out of three good cyclers. Anyone who wants to contest this can go watch Einstein and IRI again. One could argue that an FCS will more efficiently feed a ground loader, but there aren't a ton of ground loaders that work as quickly as an optimized cycler even with a ton of discs on the ground.

Autonomous mode has to be covered. At least 13 discs for the alliance, which isn't hard to do. 15 discs is nice but I don't think it's absolutely necessary - I'll say it'll break a tie in this discussion but so many robots are good at covering the middle discs that it almost doesn't matter.

Climbing points are where the discussion gets interesting. Obviously an ideal alliance wants as many as possible - but the more climbers you have, the less end game cycling happens. There's also diminishing returns to a small extent on climbing, as only two robots need to dump. I think it's pretty reasonable to say the ideal alliance needs at least two thirty point climbers.

So let's see what robots we have to work with here. I'm assuming every robot is playing at their peak performance in season or IRI. I won't consider "a better driven version of Team XYZ" or anything like that though.

My first guess for an alliance would be 254, 1114, 67. 67 is *the* 50 point dump FCS - and they happen to be one of the most accurate and fastest FCSes in the world. A perfect fit for a floor loader like 254. 90 climb points, 30 pyramid points, all 45 white discs in the goal, and 13 discs in autonomous gets you 303 points. I won't really try and guess how many opponent discs they can go for without some very hard data on how effective these three teams are...

The other three-climber alliance that could possibly exist would be 1986, 1114, 1334. This alliance gives up full court shooting in exchange for quicker and more reliable cyclers. I don't think there's a doubt in anyone's mind that these three robots could each manage four cycles a match. 1986's floor pickup isn't stellar in teleop but it's good enough that they could probably manage to get a cycle of missed discs. Same point ceiling, different (probably safer) strategy. Plus this alliance has more of a "new school FRC" feel to it.

There are other non 30 point climbing bots that are so exceptionally good that they deserve consideration. 2056, 469, 1310, and 118 are all absolutely excellent robots at their peak and I believe all of them have had 90+ point contributions in a match before. The only way these teams could keep up is if they found 20 points (opponent missed discs, etc) that 254 / 1986 couldn't find. That said, if anyone could do that, it'd be 2056 and 469. That would be an interesting alliance, 1114 / 2056 / 1334... now where have I seen that before...

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

I find it interesting that a majority of people seem to value the two centerline disks in auto over an overall better fit for strategy.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

See, I disagree. I think any of these combinations of teams could score every disc in the feeder station. Or at least most of these combos.
Any combo with 67 involved only needs someone to pick up a few discs off the floor to score every disc, technically.
I think the 67-254-1114 alliance could EASILY score every disc in the feeder station.
Additionally, I think the 1986-1918-67 could do it as well.
Really it comes down to scoring ALL of your discs, maximizing auto points, and maximizing climb points.
Reliability might come into play, as any alliance with 67 fcs'ing is inherently unreliable due to the ease at which one can block 67. But there are other ways to do this. Cycling can likely score all these discs as well.

In summary, I think most of these combos definitely consider alliance composition and strategy.

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.

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

This is my official response. :cool:

Re: Best Theoretical Alliance
 

Quarters 2-3. For a complete 2 vs. 3 match, the world champions win by 20 points. They barely won with 2630 almost completely disabled the entire match (including auto) and only managing to climb at the end. The world champs may have had good strategy for the other elimination matches, but they won with no small amount luck, preventing them from being the best theoretically.