Chief Delphi
Page 6 of 14 < 12345 6 78910111213 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   2014 Curie Division (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128842)

DManz 17-04-2014 12:35
Re: 2014 Curie Division
 
So am I under the impression that an alliance is 4 team members and that all 4 team members are titled as champions if they win the championship even in the scenario that the 4th robot does not play at all?

Mason987 17-04-2014 12:39
Re: 2014 Curie Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DManz (Post 1375392)
So am I under the impression that an alliance is 4 team members and that all 4 team members are titled as champions if they win the championship even in the scenario that the 4th robot does not play at all?
That is correct, but I have a feeling with this game we'll definitely be seeing all four robots play.

joelg236 17-04-2014 12:46
Re: 2014 Curie Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason987 (Post 1375395)
That is correct, but I have a feeling with this game we'll definitely be seeing all four robots play.
Why? Damage or strategy?

Billfred 17-04-2014 12:46
Re: 2014 Curie Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DManz (Post 1375392)
So am I under the impression that an alliance is 4 team members and that all 4 team members are titled as champions if they win the championship even in the scenario that the 4th robot does not play at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason987 (Post 1375395)
That is correct, but I have a feeling with this game we'll definitely be seeing all four robots play.
Mason is right, but I don't think it's a total guarantee. 68 won IRI 2008 under the same rules without ever taking the field. I think it's a safe bet that some fourth robots eliminated earlier won't see the field at all.

Abhishek R 17-04-2014 12:49
Re: 2014 Curie Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelg236 (Post 1375399)
Why? Damage or strategy?
Both, probably. It's going to be a lot of matches on the road for the winning alliance, against a lot of brutal defense and varied strategies.

joelg236 17-04-2014 12:50
Re: 2014 Curie Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abhishek R (Post 1375403)
Both, probably. It's going to be a lot of matches on the road for the winning alliance, against a lot of brutal defense and varied strategies.
I'm going out on a limb and saying that no backups will be called (in curie) until Einstein.

Abhishek R 17-04-2014 12:56
Re: 2014 Curie Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelg236 (Post 1375408)
I'm going out on a limb and saying that no backups will be called (in curie) until Einstein.
That's pretty likely, with the number of robust machines on Curie we may not see the backup used at all.

EricDrost 17-04-2014 13:02
Re: 2014 Curie Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelg236 (Post 1375408)
I'm going out on a limb and saying that no backups will be called (in curie) until Einstein.
If 11 is an alliance captain, I'd put money on us running two different alliance configurations in the QFs alone. The 4th team isn't a back up plan, it's a fully interchangeable member of your alliance and it'd be silly not to use them as such.

JohnFogarty 17-04-2014 13:03
Re: 2014 Curie Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abhishek R (Post 1375391)
And 1114 has 4 CIMS. You don't necessarily need 6 CIMS to be able to get around effectively, though it can help.
I said that I haven't seen a DT stronger than a 6CIM.

I know that 4CIM DT's can be more than enough depending on who you are playing against plus taking the fact some teams have shifters into account is another factor. I've never played against 1114 this year so I don't know how easily we could push them around. What I have seen is that using Orlando as reference the only teams that stood up the most to our defense were 6CIM DT's. I will also say that your team's drive-train stood up a lot better than I expected to us in that one qualifying match.

I am in no way eliminating the fact that 4CIM drivetrains can be perfectly successful.

joelg236 17-04-2014 13:04
Re: 2014 Curie Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricDrost (Post 1375414)
If 11 is an alliance captain, I'd put money on us running two different alliance configurations in the QFs alone. The 4th team isn't a back up plan, it's a fully interchangeable member of your alliance and it'd be silly not to use them as such.
Depends on who it is. You could end up with no good choices and have an incapable 4th. (I think that'll be more common than people are thinking) Why bother putting a worse robot in?

Andrew Schreiber 17-04-2014 13:07
Re: 2014 Curie Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelg236 (Post 1375418)
Depends on who it is. You could end up with no good choices and have an incapable 4th. (I think that'll be more common than people are thinking) Why bother putting a worse robot in?
Tactical flexibility. Never underestimate the value of forcing your opponent to think on their feet.

JohnFogarty 17-04-2014 13:10
Re: 2014 Curie Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber (Post 1375422)
Tactical flexibility. Never underestimate the value of forcing your opponent to think on their feet.
Agreed completely.

Rangel(kf7fdb) 17-04-2014 13:10
Re: 2014 Curie Division
 
I think as far as 4th robots are concerned there is something to be said about consistency. If your alliance was able to win your first match in say the quarterfinals by a large margin, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to switch a robot out. In fact, I would only consider switching if the alliance we are on lost a match pretty handedly or of course if a robot is broken. I can't think of any specific triple assist strategies that you couldn't pull off with the same robots. Perhaps I'm just not seeing a certain strategy that might be viable.

Mason987 17-04-2014 13:54
Re: 2014 Curie Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billfred (Post 1375400)
Mason is right, but I don't think it's a total guarantee. 68 won IRI 2008 under the same rules without ever taking the field. I think it's a safe bet that some fourth robots eliminated earlier won't see the field at all.
This is true, we won IRI with 68 that year. I just have a pretty strong feeling that a majority of the alliances will (maybe should?) be picking their third and fourth bots to swap in and out. Mostly (hopefully always) strategically, less due to damage. Although, looking at the scars on our bot and the amount of defense I've witnessed at SDR and LVR, damage related swaps are always a possibility. ::ouch::

These fourth bots open up a realm of possibilities for eliminations and Einstein.

Gary Dillard 17-04-2014 15:16
Re: 2014 Curie Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnFogarty (Post 1375365)
I've formulated this list of priorities in my head after my 3 regional events this year. Palmetto, Orlando, & Peachtree.

1. Drivetrain Strength & Reliability. (I haven't seen a stronger DT than 6CIM drive at this point.)
2. Intake/Assist Device Reliability and intelligent use.
3. ball control, ball control, ball control. (If the ball is popping out of your robot constantly you aren't going to be high on a pick list.)
3. Auto Point Reliability. (1. High Hot, 2. High)
4. Ability to truss or score high under defense. (You can't easily do this without number 1.)
4.5. Good/Smart Drivers.
5. Having the least vulnerable scoring positions. (i.e scoring from in front of the low goal is a nearly un-defendable position though it can be made difficult to get to. scoring from further back can be an issue depending on your shooter design. I have gotten fairly good at figuring out where team's like to shoot and where one would need to be to prevent them from doing so. It works 75-80% of the time depending on the stoutness of the offensive robot's drivetrain.)

Anyone have any thoughts to add to my thinking?
Maybe no penalties (especially no stupid ones) should be up there somewhere?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:04.
Page 6 of 14 < 12345 6 78910111213 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi