Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Week 2 here we go! Let's use this thread for live discussion. Talk about anything week 2 here. Any robot, any event, anything you want.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Tethers are starting to come out in full force... Sometimes not in good ways though sadly

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

3360 is going to be a good pick up for someone. They struggle with coopertition so I don't see them seeding very high but they stack very quickly and smoothly.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

I agree totally. 3360 is definitely quite smooth and will definitely have a 20-pt auto by playoffs. One thing they have to be careful about is losing their stack when they are building it in the landfill. I watched their first match and it looked a little tipsy. But otherwise they're definitely going to be playing late into Saturday.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

I am seeing a lot of robots struggle when the totes are too tightly packed. If only if only...

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Why do any webcast-creators use Livestream or Ustream? They consistently give horrible webcast quality and drop users all the time.
Whereas Twitch is generally fantastic, and YouTube (when videos aren't being taken down due to copyright notices) is generally better as well.

STOP USING LIVESTREAM UGH

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

A good twitch stream is good, there are plenty of people who don't know how to properly stream twitch. If you can work through the software and learn the hot keys you can have a very smooth stream.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Livestream worked great last week when streaming Dallas.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

what do you mean "not in good ways"?

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

"Great" meaning the stream didn't drop and I knew who the robots were because the big black one was 148 and the white and gold one was 118.
A great webcast is one where I can see the whole field the whole time, the scores are clearly visible, and I can tell what robot is what because I can actually read the numbers on the screen.
Twitch is just 10x better.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

I'm going to second this one. :yikes:

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

the amount of time its taking once everyone is off the field to start autonomous is crazy.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

I just saw a robot trip up another robot on the scoring platform its wheel got snagged on the robots tether.
On the other end of the spectrum there are robots with tethers that are just amazingly executed and provide a team with a very diverse set of tools for scoring.
I'm waiting to see a robot get AT-AT'd when a robot wraps the tether around the drive base and then a jedi runs onto the field and stabs the robot repeatedly.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

You and me both. You and me both, son.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

My only thought is week 2 is when we earned a spot to the Champs as rooks last year.

Now in 2015 its possibly earning it in weeks 5 and/or 6 with only 2 weeks to plan a trip back should we be successful again.

Last year we had 3 extra weeks to get it all together and it still seemed to go so fast just getting everything together for that team trip to STL with all the planning involved. So much to do amazed the teams do it in such short windows.

Potential 2 week turnaround to STL is really quick this year...thought of last minute air and booked hotels argh

Oh well hope we get to find out. Its was so fun last year. Just my personal thoughts on week 2.

Interested also in Central Valley this week.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Welcome to week 7 invites. It sounds silly, but plan ahead if you feel confident.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

I saw 118, and I'm pretty sure they were blue and black:D

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

1114's Day 1 performance was so dominant, that if their alliance scored no points for the rest of qualifications, the second seed would still need around 200 points in their remaining 3 games to overtake them.

1114 = 141.5 * 8 = 1132*
2609 = 76.28 * 7 = 534*

That's terrifyingly impressive. I wonder what their elimination/selection strategy will be.

*There seems to be disparity between adding up all the columns (auto/container/coop/tote/litter) and the QA. Not sure why, but the QA is more accurate. Is there double-counting somewhere?

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Fouls don't have a column, and are the one thing left.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

anyone know if and where there is a live stream for ne district pioneer valley?

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Of course! Can't believe I forgot about that. Cheers.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

1114 is indeed essentially solo'ing this regional. If they 1v3'd any of these robots in a match they would win, or come extremely close. And that's really scary. I'm really looking forward to seeing the 1114 and 2056 duo at Windsor...

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

NE First:
Springfield Pioneer Valley Event District (3/6-3/7) - Blue Stream
http://www.twitch.tv/nefirst_blue

North Shore Reading Event District (3/7-3/8) - Red Stream
http://www.twitch.tv/nefirst_red

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Or how about any elimination alliance in the world so far

1114's average score: 142.90
3130, 525, 4215 average score: 138.43
118, 624, 2613 average score: 137.75
148, 987, 3802 average score: 130.13
4488, 2550, 2093 average score: 105.29
33, 1024, 4768 Average score: 91.14

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

1114's Achilles if there is one....will be not fast enough grabbing contested RC's off wall by itself

What I do like a lot about 1114 is the fact they can process via LF faster than any HP bot which is what I have been saying all along don't give up on LF their are more totes there easily accessible. Not slowed by tote chute door.

I think theirs is the best overall design hands down (1st two weeks) due to word class LF processing speed...with a single non-tethered bot. They typically match with a single bot what 148+987 (three bots with Human help) do.

If 1114 gets matched with the fastest RC wall grabber the WC is in the bag... I don't care what the third robot does unless they are the fastest RC+Noodle topper...alleviating slower the RC 1st step in building the stack of 1114 (26 seconds shave off 8-10)

There is no question in my mind they can be the best by design and not neglecting the plentiful LF.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

To be fair, I'm pretty sure the 148, 987, 3802 alliance score is offset by the many games in which one or both of them were either not moving or not allowed on the field...

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Totally savage match just happened in Arkansas, Roboteers and Pwnage looking terrifying.

Edit: Metool also looking scary, can't leave them out.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

206 points in a qual match, compared to last week's highest elim score of 215...

2481/2451 are on fire.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Here's some fun numbers out of Canada

Alliance 1 Captain 1114: 142.9
Alliance 2 188+4001: 142.7
Alliance 3 4946+3360: 142.5
Alliance 4 1310+2609: 134.8

giggity

This game doesn't necessarily scale like you think it should. Certain strategies in the game right now (at least at GTRC) are stupid if you try them, while in 7 weeks it's stupid if you don't. As far as I know, 1114 has not run a co-op stack themselves in any match even though they generate an auto tote stack. I assume the POV they take is because of the disparate quality of them vs. the field means for every time they run a Co-Op stack they artificially inflate the scores of the other 5 teams on the alliance, with their partners to a lesser extent. Some events even a robot like 1114 might be better off with having co-op run than not, but right now they are beating the median QA at GTRC within the first minute of the match.

Also even with the 610 pick by 1114, they probably don't even need step cans here. None of their opponent combos are breaking the 150 point barrier, which is a somewhat arbitrary benchmark I establish for an elim score you can achieve without step cans. I'm not including third robots just because if anything third robots at a pretty shallow event like GTRC could be impeding scores even in the 4, 5, and 6 alliances. 1547 might only see the field so 1114 doesn't have to tether to their ramp.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Is it just me, or are teams seeming to go for (and complete) the coopertition stacks less and less often? If so, why the big change from week 1 to 2?

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

We had the same problem at PNW Auburn Mountainview last week

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Did anyone watching Pioneer Valley (NE) see what the match replay of SF6 was for?

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

I believe our teams alliance played that match. There were significant field communication issues that hindered both sides auto. Every team was in the question box at the end of the match discussing with the head ref.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Actually, we don't have the ability to coopertate.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

They are going for them less often, and it's likely due to the dynamic of who really needs those co-op points.

-The best teams now realize that they don't need those points to seed high and be picked early, as co-op doesn't count in elims. Often, the top 4 alliance captains don't even finish in the top 10 in co-op.
-The teams that are on the bottom of the standings and need points desperately (averaging in the 30's to 40's or lower) often can't do co-op reliably, so they won't get it done either.
-A lot of teams who won't be captains, those obviously below #15 seed, don't go for co-op in the last few matches often to demonstrate their skills to alliance captains, again reducing the number of willing robots.

That, and you need to find 2 partners on opposing alliances to do co-op, and because of the reasons above, it just doesn't happen that often anymore. Going forward in week 3 and beyond, I see even fewer co-op stacks being formed, given what we've seen so far.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

I figured this would happen about this way around Week 6 of build. That last group is likely to co-op early, though, or try to, to see if they can get higher. The "bubble" teams (9-14 or so) will go for it every match if they can.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

I thought that might be the case.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Holy crap! Team 1114 is amazing, incredible, exciting to watch, and overall BAD $@#$@#$@#!!!!! That is a rockin' machine

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

What's 1114's abilities been sofar? I'm assuming capped stacks out of the human player station- how many per match? Checked blue alliance, but don't see any videos.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

That's what it looked like. Congrats this weekend. We learned a lot from y'all.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

1114 consistently scores 3 6-Stacks with a bin and noodle, and usually has about 30 seconds left to score extra totes. Their robot has a smokin' fast landfill collector and they usually clear the landfill up to the upside-down totes.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Here is one of their practice matches. In addition to the abilities shown in the video, they can also right tipped RCs. I have also heard of a ramp attachment, although I have not personally seen it.

They seemed to be averaging about 3 6-stacks w/ RCs per match, which approximately accounts for their 120 point OPR.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

ok so far unless it was intentional/strategic,
There's a G2,
and now a clear G26.

RED CARD

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

All I* want from FIRST right now is the ability for events to swap positions of red and blue on the scoring display


*By "I" I mean the OCD inside of me

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Thoughts on the game after our week 2 victory.

When the game was released, many of our team members were disappointed because of the lack of defense, claiming that it wasn’t really a “sport” without defense. This struck me as odd since we usually design high functioning robots that score well, unless we are defeated by heavy defense.

I maintained that there are MANY sports without defense, such as downhill skiing, just about all track and field events, gymnastics, figure skating (unless you include Nancy Carrigan), swimming, shooting, luge, and the list goes on. All of these events (individual or team) let the athletes reach the pinnacle of their chosen specialty without worrying about someone tripping them up. So why not FRC?

After taking our robot to the Greater Pittsburgh FRC Region, seeding in 9th place, captaining the #6 alliance and defeating the #1 alliance, I realized several things (not least of all that FIRST is brilliant).

1) The games were anything but boring. I don’t think that any prior games stand out as hugely more exciting (after 10 years of FRC). The crowds got a great show and seemed to be thoroughly enjoying the spectacle.

2) The fact that seed matches weren’t Won or Lost was amazing. There is nothing worse than having a stellar match and losing 100 to 102. The new system of simply totaling the scores eliminated the bitter pill of defeat along the way, and kept teams focusing on doing better next time to raise their averages.

3) The new scoring system enabled “REAL” ranks (based on team averages) to be generated in real time, without worrying how many matches each team has played. So after each match the system displayed how you were moving up or down the ranks.

4) Teams that did poorly at the beginning of qualifications could still improve and progressively raise their average all the way to the top. There was no artificial ceiling set by “losing” a match or two.

5) The coopertition stack concept worked extremely well to get teams talking to each other. You only needed to find one compatible team on each alliance to make a compatible pairing. The 20 / 40 point bonus was high enough to make it worthwhile spending the time.

6) In alliance selection, you didn’t have to worry about defense, so teams could focus on working together, and finding teams that complimented their capabilities, rather than needing to have a “defense bot” on their alliance to counter the opposition. So all the elimination matches looked more like the finals matches, where top teams ignored each other and just went for it. Isn’t this how we WANT life and business to operate?

7) Running the Quarter-Finals and Semi-Finals using the same point-average system was brilliant. No longer was the 8th seed forced to be humiliated by the 1st seed. I never understood that system designed to maintain the original seed order. Now all 8 alliances get to start from scratch and show their capabilities and endurance, just like Olympic events.

This was REAL competition.

So in the end, to me at least, this year’s game seemed just as exciting, fairer, and allowed less opportunity to gripe about bad seed matches. I think FIRST nailed it.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

This is by far my least favorite aspect of this game. In previous years, I could root for my team to win, and still enjoy the other playoff matches. I could cheer for rookie teams or teams that I have talked with in the pits.

This year though, I root for my team to score well, and I root against every other team in the playoffs. Until my team gets knocked out of the playoffs, I will be rooting for teams to accidentally knock over their stacks, and I hate that.

There are many good reasons for the 1v8, 2v7, etc... bracket in a WL game:

• Seeding higher, in theory, will always gives you an easier schedule. With any other system, it would become more advantageous to try to "game" your seed to end up in the slot that has the easiest (or easier) schedule. With the 1v8,2v7, etc... structure, 1 seed will generally have the easiest bracket, so teams only have to try to win. If a ranking system ever encourages teams to throw matches, whether or not any teams actually do this, I would say that it has a flaw.
• The matches get continuously more intense due to higher quality of teams advancing. Would you prefer that the 1 alliance "humiliates" the 8 alliance in the quarterfinals or in the finals? There is usually a buildup of excitement right up to the finals. The two best alliances at the event, going head to head for victory, has to happen in the finals.
• With wildcard slots and the district point system, the best teams need to have a chance to advance high in the competition. It would not be fair to either the 2 seed or the 1 seed if they went head to head right away, since both teams will, on average, not go as far in the competition, and thus have a worse chance of getting district qualifying points or wildcard slots.
• It is standard in most other sports. I can't even name a WL sport that doesn't use this structure. Thus, it is easy to explain to spectators, friends, and family. I have had some family members come to FRC competitions for the past 3 years, and I bet some of them still don't understand our crazy serpentine draft, but they all understand this tournament structure.

In a WL tournament structure, there is no reasonable alternative to the 1v8, 2v7, etc ... system. Also, nobody is forcing the 8 seed to get humiliated by the 1 seed. 8 seeds beat 1 seeds about 1 in 12 times in 2014*, I would hardly call that forced humiliation.

*http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/3046

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

I think you're making a few incorrect assumptions here.
1. With the 1-8, 2-7. etc. System, the two best teams will not necessarily compete in the finals since the 1 seed alliance and 2 seed alliance are not always the best teams. If, for example, #1 seed is the best and #5 seed is the second best, they will face off in the semi-finals and only one will compete in the finals. A great example is the 2014 Curie Division, where the #1 seed Cheesy Poofs went undefeated throughout the division finals, except for one match - Semifinals 1-1 against 118, 359, and 4334. 118 captained the #5 seed alliance, yet I believe they were the second best alliance in the finals. In my opinion, it would have been more exciting had the 254 alliance played the 118 alliance in the finals, which would have happened had the advancement system been like this year.

2. Yes, usually the #1 seed destroys the #8 seed (at least at regionals and districts), but the #8 seed is often better than some of the other alliances. Why should a good #8 seed be knocked out by #1 in the quarterfinals if they are better than 1/2 of the other alliances? With the new system this year, this problem is remedied. At the Indianapolis district event last weekend, the #8 alliance held the highest quarterfinals average (until the last match when #1 got above them), and could have even advanced to the finals if not for a yellow card. Using last year's structure, they would have lost the quarterfinals and been finished simply for having to face the #1 seed first.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

at NE pioneer valley, showed an example of what extensive scouting can do. on Friday 2168 wasn't highly impressive, they struggled alot. many team clearly ended up cutting them from there scouting that night, we always give teams at-least one shot on Saturday for improvement. there first match out on Saturday was impressive and was 100% better then Friday so we continued scouting them and by the end of Qualifying they were 3 on our list of teams.

come alliance selections we were a number 8 alliance and 2168 was still available for our third pick, we told our alliance captain that this was an absolute steal to grab as a partner but they had no info on them, and as the alliance captain they made the decision to pick someone else. 2168 ended up being picked as the 3rd member of the 6 alliance.
2168 ended up being the only team at the event to get a 3 tote stack autonomous which they showed off for the first time in eliminations, a well as being able to cap up too 5 high which wasn't previously shown. 2168 ended up being THE CRUCIAL piece of this alliance and propelled them to a blue banner. for sure on of the best robots at the event.
for a team with this capability to fall to a late 3rd round pick goes to show teams shouldn't stop scouting Friday night.

GREAT job to 2168 well deserved blue-banner for a very very very long weekend for you guys! looking forward to competing at Rhode island with you in a couple weeks.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

I'd say the SF at Mt. Olive are pretty close right now.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Spyder seems to be ~1 hr behind -- maybe field staff forgot to reset a clock last night (Spring Forward)?

Anyway Sean, I like your example -- playoffs are exciting this year, especially semis. Average scoring really improves this, IMO.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

NO ONE WILL HAVE THE SAME AVERAGE, THEY SAID

NO ONE WILL EVER NEED THE TIEBREAKERS, THEY SAID

They actually didn't need them at the end of semifinals all 4 averages were unique with the 3 and 6 alliances moving to finals...

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

It varies a lot from event-to-event, just like any other year. Some of them come right down to the wire. Others have matches that are basically formalities, where the only way the standings change is if an alliance completely faceplants. We've already seen quite a few competitions where SF6 is basically just a finals warm-up.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

RedShift Busting up the Landfill

We're thinking of adding this to ours.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. The section you quoted is my defense of the 1v8, 2v7, etc... system in a WL game. This section was in response to PhilBot's point 7, specifically, this line:

I was merely saying that there is no reasonable alternative to this system if each match has a winner and a loser. If you do know of a better system for these types of games, I would be curious to know what it is, so please share.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

We had trouble at GTR central, but we are currently working on something for Montreal in week 4... Glad to see so much people talking about our team!

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

We've got one of them. I was beginning to wonder if anyone saw value in the idea besides us. :)

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

I appreciate what you are saying. It's what's standard for a WL system. As a totally non-sports person (and I mean NO sports at all), the first time I went to an FRC competition, I expected #1 to play #2, #3 to play #4 and down the line. I understand now that this method makes the top 2 teams mad, because one of them will be eliminated, ahead of a lower team.

What about 1:5, 2:6, 3:7 and 4:8 matchups. This way at least they wouldn't be quite so biased...

But since this isn't likely to happen, I'm ecstatic to see the non win-loss system given a try. This numerical ranking system works for a ton of sports, so why not FIRST.

BTW, FTC does not use the serpentine selection model.
They go 1,2,3,4, 1,2,3,4

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Coopertition is why I have trust issues.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Week 2 is over. So the question I have is --- Have the platform RC wars begun? Were there any districts or regional where in eliminations or qualifications Battles for the platform Rc's happened. We had the beginning skirmishes at Hatboro-Horsham week 1.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

As primarily a landfill robot with a roller intake, this would make it harder for us, not easier. We've practiced many times with the landfill in the configuration it is.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

No platform battles in Central Valley...when done it was a one sided affair. Mostly two or two + 1 with two bots.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

We thought about that, and I expect other teams with this capability have too. We intend to use it only to assist teams that have passive pickup systems and need the help.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

We do! Lets chat at Waterloo :)

Edit: Since I just remembered coopertition doesn't impact playoffs, i guess it will be a short conversation. Carry on!

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Yes and No. There were plenty of attempts at it and lots of RC's getting removed from the step. The closest thing to a "war" this week was likely in Arkansas when 1986 attempted to steal 2 in auto and follow-up with an immediate 2 more in tele-op. They were able to get 3/4 in both Final matches, but their alliance just didn't quite have the fire-power to stop the dominant #1 seeded alliance. Arkansas certainly lived up to the hype.

Not sure if we'll see that much in terms of RC wars for a few weeks, perhaps nothing really game-changing even until District Champs...

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Any game where you are better off not putting alliance partners on the field is a bad game.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

What do you think are the contributing factors and to what degree of importance are each of these factors? In no particular order, this is where I see the issues:

-Disparity of ability: even with growing COTS market for effective robot design, some of the COTS parts fit design paradigms that do not exist in this game, or at least do not align with successful strategies of Recycle Rush. This leads to more manufactured parts by fewer experienced teams, more things that break or even worse, don't work, and budgets with little recourse to rectify either.

-Lack of fallback strategies: Recycle Rush is not a game where "fallback" strategies exist. Third partners with broken/inefficient/risky (I'll get to that later) robots do not have a role they can fill for the alliance except to not exist at all in some cases.

-Your Own Worst Enemy: Litter excluded, the game does not provide any real defense except for gravity and the incompetence/bad luck of yourself and your partners. By removing the lowest common denominator robot from play in some cases, their physical presence not being on the field eliminates variables and minimizes risk. For higher seeded alliances that are able to capitalize on the disparate play of "the field" they are up against, it makes more sense to minimize risk if the game looks in hand without them.

-Very limited field of play: this amplifies the other issues. Whereas the field of Aerial Assist was 95% open and flat, the Recycle Rush field loathes the concept of uninterrupted carpet. With two of the largest, heaviest, and most rigid game pieces in FRC history, half the field cordoned off, a good 1/4 of the field you can use covered in the bumps, plus the 2 feet+ of the landfill zone, there is barely any room for a third team to operate well if the other two alliance partners can run an efficient and successful enough operation by themselves.

There are other issues but I'm trying to get other work done and staring at CAD at 3:30 AM local time so I'll come back later

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

You're a smart guy Wil. Well put.

The disparity is huge. I am not a fan.

-Mike

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

I think these two are what contribute the most. The only objective in this game is one that is very technically challenging and difficult to execute for new teams. Every other game has had a role for teams to play if they aren't the best at the main challenge, defense being the most common over the years. This game has none of that, you either build a stack of 6 and cap it, or you don't and you're just wasted space/resources for your teammates, that's horrible game design IMO. 2007 had the option of building a platform robot, 2008 allowed you to just drive laps, 2010 had goalkeeping, 2011 had defense and minibots, 2012 had defense, balancing, and stealing game pieces from opponents (see 16), 2013 had lots of defense, counter defense, and shooting a frisbee isn't nearly has technically challenging, 2014 had possessions, all teams had to do was hold the ball and they suddenly became invaluable to their alliance. This year... has nothing, capping stacks is not easy, building stacks (without knocking them over) is not easy, grabbing RCs off the step is not easy, autonomous is not easy. There's really nothing for teams to do if they're not at the peak of their game, and even most of the "powerhouse" teams are struggling just with stacking efficiently.

Games need a low entry barrier (a low skill floor), but they need a high skill ceiling so that newer teams can be involved and useful while still providing a challenge for veteran teams. This game has a very high skill floor, and a relatively low skill ceiling, by week two we're getting alliances that are only 2 stacks away from the effective score cap, once you run out of RCs it's almost a waste of your time to build uncapped stacks.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

It's a combination of firsthand experience from across the spectrum. We usually try to design something that can take a kitbot to a contributor at our events (ramps in 2014, wedges in 2013 and 2012, an army of minibots in 2011) but a) we've been too busy trying to fix our own stuff because some things were just a little off and now we're up a creek without a paddle, and b) there is no real passive assembly to make an alliance partner a contributor unless I cut a tote in half, tie a string to their frame, and rip out their breakers so they don't knock anything over (not trying to tick anyone off here, just pointing out a very poignant example).

Inspiration-Catch It!

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

If you have a roller intake, a tote that was freed from the array may be easier to attain. For the Robots that acquire totes separately on their elevator and create the stack only when they lay them down, this would be a problem.

This is something that teams could discuss in the queue.

Destroying the array on the left in front of the scoring platform and plowing the totes onto it is the same score as a stack without an RC, however the horizontal real estate is limited.

It gives an opportunity for teams with modest abilities to contribute to the score.

4048 only did this after they had contributed to co-opertition.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

its not a problem for robots that acquire totes separately if you designed it so that you can pick up totes in any orientation...anymore than roller bots who have to line up a certain way to intake. Only possible downside is not picking two at a time if disheveled, in return for easier access to wall RC's..a trade off.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

I also think the Power House teams that can score big points skew the rankings. We were not so lucky to be on a alliance with any of the big power house teams but a couple of lucky teams by luck of the draw received major boosts in rankings.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDJpAq3zAcI

Here is 4048 not pushing them at all and they still ended up getting a 6 stack with us team 61. You see we take from the landfill, but it would of not matter if they push them.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

I agree. If you guys fielded 1323 's crazy wild swerve drive in the finals who knows what would of happened.

Not a fan of the this years game and rules.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

The disparity is certainly huge. I'd like to say it's not as bad as 2011, but if you remove litter points, 2015 scores are looking similar to 2011 scores. I didn't think we'd see a game with such a huge disparity between teams like 2011 had in this era of Robot in 3 days and Build Blitz. I think the GDC's design of the chute door (making totes come in every possible configuration other than right side up) is a major contributor to this disparity. Robot in 3 days did a great job of coming up with nice, simple manipulator and lift ideas, but teams had to figure out how to use it with the chute that doesn't want to behave nicely. It is very difficult to build a working manipulator for this game without having the space and resources to replicate the landfill setup (expensive considering the cost of game pieces] and/or chute (it has to behave like the proper chute too).

In 2012, you were given foam basketballs, and they roll around while your robot picks them up and shoots them. In 2013, you load your frisbees into your robot and shoot them into a goal. In 2014, you just gather a large exercise ball and launch it. None of these games had game pieces lying in a specific orientation, and they were not immoveable without an active roller intake. 2013 has elements like the human player station, but the game pieces were small and simple enough to build your robot around the human player station. This year's game is a great engineering and design challenge....for veteran teams who can handle it.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

When you have alliance doing this to their third pick, I'd say the Platform RC wars are in full effect.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

You need platform RCs if an opposing alliance in the playoffs is converting >150 points per match, essentially. MO never needed them but Rock City did, dor instance.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Wait, Israel does awards before qualifications matches on day 2?

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

I heard they got behind on the first day, so they were likely just giving out the awards normally given out after matches end on the first day

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

We have been doing the Woodie Flowers and Dean's List in the morning of Qualifications Day 2, for at least the last 2 years (can't say for sure about previous years). :)

We were indeed a little behind, but it was not related.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Ditto

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Excellent analysis. As you might be able to tell from who's posted here, this is a big concern on our team this year.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

We've discussed how Einstein teams might even pursue lower risk strategies that actually limit their scoring.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

I presume here that you mean Einstein-bound teams? By the time you get to Einstein, I expect that the remaining alliances will be consistent enough that they'll be going for max points (again) to win two out of three.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Given what happens in the first second of each match, teams may not be going for max points.

Re: Week 2 Live Discussion
 

Suppose this scenario: your alliance requires all 4 cans off the step in Einstein finals. It is now nearly impossible for them to beat you because not only is their scoring cap lower, you can play a much lower risk match than them to get the same number of points.