qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

I am wondering what kind of robots we will see this season. Robots built to qualify or play the elims. They are 2 very different robots IMO. Yes you will have the few, the proud, the 254's (poofs), but that is not what 99.99% of FIRST can do.

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

I think most teams that play qualifiers well can do well during elims, but those teams will require enough quality scouting to spot the low-seeded team that stacks a recycling bin very well in order to win elims. The robots that stack bins but not totes will be almost purely elimination robots, whereas stackers will show more through qualifiers.

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

IMO, I don't think you can get to elims if your robot can't play to qualify.
If you have robot that can pick up TOTES and CONTAINERS in any orientation and have them stack stably, you will be able to compliment any robot.

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

Elims are the same game as qualifiers. The only thing removed is coop points.

That being said it doesn't really come down to a change in robots. It comes down to a change in strategy.

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

Teams always need high quality scouting if they are looking to win.

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

I disagree but I guess we will find out.

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

Can you be more specific as to what you think some hard differences we will see between good qualification and good elimination robots?

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

Stacking robots and RB placers are what they are. But IMO what people do in Auto will be what wins this years game. From what I am reading most teams do not understand the math of the game. The difference in qualifying or eliminations style robots will be auto and that will have to be built into the design. Qualifying will focus on yellow bins and elimination will not.

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

I agree that auto will make or break an elimination alliance, especially at higher levels of competition. Playing nice with your own alliance during those first few seconds are of the utmost importance.

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

If you have a robot able to do these things you will be picking robots that compliment you:D

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

Ah that makes sense. I had discounted auto. In eliminations, especially as events get more competitive, alliances auto will definitely be a deciding factor.

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

I think this brings up something that's a pretty common debate on my team.

As a team plays matches through an event, or rather really conducts 'scoring trials' with two other partners, they are in competition not with the opposing alliance, but with every other team at the event. Therefore, there is not much motivation to stop your opponent from scoring. Your own actions in a single match won't affect your opponent's ranking much, and as such couldn't boost your own ranking very much. The result of this competition is a final ranking, which is used to be seeded.

Into playoffs, individual teams don't matter anymore, and there are now only 8 competitors in the competition, as apposed to 37. Now you have the ability to greatly effect 1/7 of the competitors (all matches of 1/7 of the alliances) in the quarters, 1/3 in the semis, or 100% in the finals. This is apposed to barely effecting all the competitors in the quals, which would be hard to draw a direct improvement in ranking from.

The question is, "Which one should we design for?" Its a tough one, but this has generally been my reasoning: It's best to control your own destiny, because if not, you're forced to hope that others will control it well for you. And in a competition, that's a very hard decision to justify. As such, you want to rank well to be an alliance captain, and that means you have to perform will in the quals, which means designing for the quals.

Not to mention that if you seed very well, your own team shouldn't do to shabby in the playoffs either. At that point its up to good scouting for who wins, and if you're relying on other teams who rank well to do good scouting in order to pick you, well, I can assure you of one thing: Many teams do not do good scouting.

*touches nose and points*

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

I think that robots designed for quals might be able to stack 3 or 4 totes very quickly and be very successful. However, in eliminations, it might be necessary to make higher stacks to conserve containers. This could be done slower and still be valuable.

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

I understand what you are saying, and I agree, very much so. I don't think some other folks get it yet. Hm.

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

I have to disagree. A stacked tote set with three robots in auto zone in only worth 24 points and will be very difficult to do. Especially without knocking over the RCs.
Control and stacking the RCs will make the difference for the consistently high scoring teams.

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

That's not what was meant regarding autonomous.

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

In My Opinion

• Stackers will get you into eliminations, they will not be able to win it.
• Stackers plus staging zone auton will get you top 8 seed, but will not guarantee eliminations.
• Stacker plus landfill auton will guarantee you an eliminations win.

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

Consistently high-scoring yes, but consistently high-scoring =/= competition winning. In fact, that's exactly why blue banners have to be won in auto.

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

I agree completely, with the caveat that you can design for both but emphasize one. Here's how; by designing a 6 stacker and a capper (RB on top) you've ensured that you're relying on no one to complete the stack. However, if you become an alliance capt (and yes, auto is SOOO important) and have the opportunity to select an ally who exclusively manages RB's, (to include pulling them from the step in auto to deny the opposition access) you can now focus on quickly stacking sets of six to be capped by the alliance member.

That being said, one auto bot of penultimate importance at St. Louis will be that RB grabber in auto. The alliance who owns them will win on Einstein!

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

Couldn't agree more. I think that the Middle Recycling bins will be the turning point in higher-level elim matches and on the Einstein field. That being said, I think that those types of robots will have issues in Quals matches, due to having to commit to doing the RB grab.

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

Which unfortunately emphasizes NuggetSyl's point perfectly.

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

It's a tough decision either way. Focusing on doing well in quals can put you into a picking position but you risk not being able to get a middle recycling container bot unless you are the number 1 robot. On the other hand, even if you are the best middle recycling container bot, there is no guarantee that the best alliances will even pick you. You might be picked by a lower weaker alliance that can't use you as effectively. It's a tradeoff I really like in the game and few teams that do it will probably end up on Einstein.

Re: qualifying or eliminations style robots
 

All those designs use a Stacker.

I completely agree that the containers in the middle are going to be vital. I'm trying to emphasize the point that the same mechanisms and robots can play differently in elimination matches then they can in qualifiers. This includes autonomous. A robot could have code for a three yellow tote stack when the middle containers may not decide the outcome of a match. Vice Versa, when elimination matches come around and every game piece counts, they could switch to another code to get the containers. I'm not saying I think mastering both is easy, but I do think it's possible.