Re: The Highest Levels of Play
 

I suspect many teams didn't know about 314's performance at MSC. They tried landfilling during many of their qualifiers, and it generally didn't go well. Although they were great at their ramp, on paper their performance looked inconsistent and sub-par. On the other hand, we got very lucky when 3996 fell to the back of the draft. They saved our alliance a couple times, if you watch our third semifinal and second final match.

We thought the same thing. Those weird, seemingly useless wheels on our elevator? Yeah, those were originally to provide compression on upside down totes. The chopsticks don't close far enough to actually grab an upside down tote, but the wheels still provide extra compression on containers.


More on topic...

Generally, my speculation on the "highest level of play" is somewhat close. We immediately threw out catching in 2014 because we felt it was pretty much impossible. However, my thoughts on 2015 were a little off. I figured most teams wouldn't be building stacks taller than 4 totes + container, and we'd only see the importance of high stacks by Einstein. I knew the can battle was going to happen... I didn't think it'd get so intense.

I'd like to comment on the "highest level of play" occuring at IRI, but some of the rule changes are too significant to really compare what happens there to what happened on Einstein.

Re: The Highest Levels of Play
 

This exactly was my early season soap box rant, that making stacks higher than 4 wouldn't be necessary, and to be fair at every regional we attended 3 capped 4 stacks with noodles would get you to the semi's.

On a different note I thought way more teams with just capper and stacker-only bots would be able to function at the team 27 type level, to the point where in some of our strategy breakdowns pretty much our whole team though that independent single function bots would do really well on all levels.

What I've learned on anticipating the highest levels of play is that whatever I think will be normal and a good goal, double that output and you have yourself the actual high levels of play.

Re: The Highest Levels of Play
 

The highest levels of play always seem to use every possible point, and score for the maximums. It's important to do points analysis to figure out which strategy gives the most points in a match.
This year, 6 totes + can.
2014 was pretty vanilla, good drivers and speed were required.
2013 didn't require the 30pt climb, but only because it was worth more points to throw frisbees for most teams. 254 and 1114 had fast climbers, but fell short before the finals (not sure why though, it seemed very close).
2012 was shooting and balancing; 1114 got it right with the assisted balance clamps.
2011 had top rung scoring.
Etc. etc.

Re: The Highest Levels of Play
 

30 point climbs at speeds quick enough that it didn't inhibit cycles (we'll say sub 30 seconds for line up and climb) was extremely difficult and only a handful of teams pulled it off to a point that it was more valuable for them to climb than to score discs. It was also an incredibly hard task and the faster you went the more problems you ran into which I know from experience on 3467 that year. At that point in the season with some robots with 3-5 events under their belts those climbers were abused. The Championship was a nightmare of climbing issues for our robot and 1114 had their own struggles in the elimination rounds.

And whenever you start breaking down that's when your opponents are plowing ahead and outscoring you.

Climbing showed more value at IRI with climbers rebuilt over the summer (like ours was) and a higher level of play meaning quick climbs helped sway matches as the feeder stations and field were being emptied.

Re: The Highest Levels of Play
 

Ehhh, there was a reason. We had an alright performance, granted I think it was over looked heavily. We still had a badass alliance...
-Ronnie

Re: The Highest Levels of Play
 

Relevant to this thread Ronnie, 314 was really really good at MSC. What made you guys decide it needed upgrades?

Re: The Highest Levels of Play
 

We had changes planned for MSC, I had the mechanism designed before week 6 actually in hopes we would modify by our 3rd district and fine tune for MSC and champs. We saw where our bot was...and then where 1023 was. To us, that was our main competition for MSC and champs. They had been super consistent and beat us by having the 20pt auto. We felt to better our chances of winning, we needed four stacks or can grabbers. We had both designed but ended up going with the movable can stabilizer. Due to some programming and mechanical problems, the best we got was 3 stacks can and noodled plus a few totes I believe. It really wasn't working best until elims at worlds...I thought our alliance performed well enough to make a finals appearance and knock out the number 1 seed; I think we missed it by what 6 points? We never reached that goal of 4 but we put a ton of effort into it and were happy as a team with the results. Also, at MSC in the octo-finals match 2, we broke our can stabilizer which caused us not to move into quarters (it broke after our first stack placement, we were pretty much getting 3 stacks so those 80 points hurt; also enough for us to move on).

-Ronnie

Re: The Highest Levels of Play
 

Drost, Schriebs (didnt quote you but I know you're watching). The priority list is actually.

DO SOMETHING.

Then win matches, if that means you'll seed well.

Seed well, if you hope to win at the end of the day.

Be the most desirable team in the field.

The most desirable team in the field usually builds a machine focused on execution, not results. I would rather lose 10 matches to 1114/148/254 than win 20 matches at 50 pints up, to a field of nobodies. Execution, not results, it's the step stool to success. Successful teams produce results, but they always always need someone that can execute. The alliance at MAR CMP in 2014 was once such case -2590 was a cornerstone of execution in a difficult field, but then 341 and 11 played a game that no one really understood. We went out to the field to complete objectives, rarely, if ever to actually win a watch. We activitely devalued and worked against our opponents efforts, while also highlighting our own.

Correct.

341 focused on execution and consistency in 2012 - reliability; a roomba and the inability to remove luck cost them a championship. Had they had not built on a platform of Bosch, they'd have handily taken Einstein, without actually trying. Their underlying reliability issues stemming from compromise after compromise ultimately cost them at the championship, a bit of bad luck with a bridge and a rooms forced them to play an extra match where a transmission failed, a backup ticked was lost lost, and a shooter wheel delaminatated.

No matter what level you play on, remove variables... Win championships.