Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Inspired by this quote from Boltman...

"Hey can someone there give us a summary of things you learned that you did not know going in... just an overall REAL vs theoretical breakdown. Like what was easier/harder, challenges and did human players have any significant effect."

In particular:

• Real field elements
• Real line of sight for drivers
• Real defense
• Taking real shots at the high and low goal
• Real damage to robots
• Real problems with the game
• Real fun parts

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Thought you said batman...

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Being you did not ask if I was really there. But I really did see several matches on the stream.
1. High goal seems hard
2 low goal seems hard
3 I did see HPs trying to communicate, not sure of the effects
4 teams were having good results with crossing, made up at least 1/2 the score for every game
5 very few have climbing down yet

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Something my team noticed when watching the stream was that very few alliances went for the rank point by breaching defenses. I thought this was not a good understand of the rules when teams went to go get 5 points during end game by waiting on the batter of their opponent's tower instead of using their alliances to open the one last door and get that rank point. If a team was winning by a large number of points, some alliances still didn't bother to get the rank point. Anybody know why this kept happening or was this not a complete understand to how rank points work?

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

My takeaways watching the streams... Just my far away observations

1. Low scoring for the most part (30-70), with most points via breaching defenses along the way
2. Lots and lots of dead, stalled stuck bots
3. Lots of penalties
4. Auto points disappointing, best seemed to be 3 crossing (30) very rare
5. Scaling rare and many tried and failed, only a handful of really good ones
6. Hard to crack 100
7. Very hard to Capture the castle (only happened in eliminations)
8. Lots of bots seemed "confused" and lots and lots of misses on goals.
9 Wheeled bots getting stuck on defenses
10. Bad time management at end many missed challenges (5 points)
11. Climbers can crash on bots below, and bad time management as running out of time to climb.
12. Not much defense played until Eliminations.

As a side note impressed by the bots that could score HG while being harassed..I was surprised by that since the defense driver has way better vision and "should" be able to knock a bot off course

In all it was well played considering it was first competition up, we compete next weekend so I'll give some firsthand insight after next week. Glad Palmetto gave us some insights.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

The low goal was surprisingly difficult for a lot of teams. Without any propulsion, the ball just kinda slid down the slope whenever teams would try to score there.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

You'd be surprised how many teams don't read the Tournament section of the rules.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

I was entirely amazed at how many robots didn't or couldn't challenge. Especially those on the lower end of the rankings. It seems like a surefire way to not be picked by an alliance who wants to capture the tower. Which as the weeks go by will be any eliminations alliance that is serious about winning their event.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Lack of defense in playoffs made scores higher in the playoffs then they should be.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Teams at Regionals seem to care less about where they're ranked. At a regional being top 8-10 is important for being an alliance captain, but there really isn't a difference between ranks 15-64. At District Events your rank affects if you go to DCMP, so more teams try to rank high. I did some math last year and found that WAY more teams did coopertition at District Events than at Regionals (even highly competitive Regionals were outdone by very weak District Events). If a team at a Regional doesn't expect that they'll be in the top 8, then why try for a breach?

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Of course if you don't try for the breach, you are sure to be out of the top 10.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

It's just not wise to avoid trying to improve your rank. Remember, you earn 5 points for crossing defenses the first two times you cross them. Therefore, it just comes down to common sense that earning 5 points from the batter isn't worth as much as earning 5 points for crossing the 4th defense AND earning one RP, assuming that you have the capabilities to do so.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Well to add onto the point I made in this thread. A robot proving they can challenge is a highly desirable trait to elimination alliances when about half the robots don't/can't do it and might be worth showing off.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

from what i observed from watching the livestream with a good amount of matches

• autonomous and climbing are easy points and would easily get you a good spot in playoffs
• the drawbridge and door are very hard and possibly a waste of time
• low goal is NOT really helpful
• breacher bot is a valid strategy
• shooter is hard and almost impossible without a vision tracking system
• hard to see where your going

the best defence is as follows statistically:

• cheval de frise
• moat
• drawbridge
• rockwall

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

What do you mean by "best" defense? The best one to select for the other alliance? The best crossings? Curious the definition of best.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Scores were a lot higher than I personally expected them to be, at least compared to last year. Our first match last year was 2-0 :D

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Last year required a certain amount of engineering moving a big tote is rather hard for a kitbot.

This year almost any bot can "score" and not as much engineering is required. However to do well is a challenge, I feel this game is a leveling game in many respects because the outcome can be directly affected by a change in strategy or robot fatigue.

I am excited to see the very high levels of play this year, a challenge for sure but seems to be real fun. I don't see any one type of dominate bot this year. I do believe like last year, perfect alliance selection and absolute teamwork will win it all.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

True, but if it's late in the first day/early in the second day a lot of teams already know (or at least think they know) that they won't be top 10.


I'm not claiming that not caring about rank is wise. I'm claiming that it is what teams do. If it's the end of the match I think a lot of teams will try and get easy challenge points instead of risking a more difficult defense (there is a reason this defense wasn't crossed earlier, it's hard to do!).

I've attached an example of co-op points from week 3 last year. The numbers in the 'co-op' column are the average co-op points scored each match at each event. It's pretty clear that, at least in week 3 of 2015, Regional teams cared less about their rank than District Teams.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Since not everyone knows this tab exists on TBA, I'll just leave this here.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Where is that tab? I looked and couldn't find it. Thanks.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Insights tab, right next to Teams.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Anyone have the shot percent numbers? I am curious if shooting was actually hard or did hardly anyone try.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

When I go there it gives me a historical overview (2015-earlier) on the web...2016 is not even listed yet.

Is it possibly just an android app thing?

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

It was implemented very recently, so I'd imagine so. You should see it if you visit the actual website.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

You have to go to the event page, and there is a subcategory selection bar (Results, Rankings, Awards, Teams, Insights) that you have to go to Insights.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Nevermind I found it ..thanks

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

This surprised me, I would have thought for sure we would see more low goal capable bots given how important capturing is for the playoffs. There were ~100 more high goals than low goals. Sounds like everyone went high if they were bothering with scoring boulders at all, and since most shooters probably can't be adjusted well for scoring in the low goal those that were ineffective just didn't score. Saw a few matches today where an alliance would breach and then not have much else to do until the end game.

Another takeaway from this event is that every event, and especially the playoff matches, will be a war of attrition. #2 alliance got knocked out in the semis with 1296 having motor issues, and 179's only loss was a match where they got tortuga'd by the moat. Everybody broke in Finals match 2. Dr. Joe already had to hand out his first gift card and it isn't even week 1 yet. Think of what's going to happen once teams actually start playing defense.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Low goal is harder than teams think and more time consuming. It is easier and more realistic to take 3 high goal shots and only make 2 than to put 5 into the low goal.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

The defenses are brutal on drivetrains and I'm not of the opinion that the wooden team versions provide the same difficulty that the actual ones provide. We managed to crack some versa hubs (https://twitter.com/FRC900/status/703693490752978945). Thanks to 1296 for graciously providing us with some aluminum replacements. Team 900 loves #TeamIFI!

Matches ran WAY behind schedule and I really think the defense selection process will be changed before too long to help the match reset times. This field is quite the process for volunteers too.

I've got more but I need to get some sleep.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Doesn't only one breach in auto count? I thought I read something in the rules about that.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Only the first crossing by a robot in auto counts for points. An alliance of 3 robots can get 30 points by having all 3 robots cross a defense in auto.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

It's a confluence of factors:

-Most teams that designed for low goal actually can't score in the low goal (they can't intake a ball unless it is at a dead stop right in front of them and/or they forgot how that pesky batter makes it more of a challenge)
-Teams that designed for the high goal may have designed their robot to not low goal after it's brought into their high goal scoring mechanism. I wouldn't let Jesus take the wheel on that one, but teams decided they could live with it.
-Willful ignorance of how captures work and/or drive teams at Palmetto conspiring to hospitalize me by forcing me to watch them leave rank points on the board to do silly things. It's Week 0.5 so only a few teams actually have bothered to make an educated guess at the meta and design and coach day-by-day around its development. It probably won't be uncommon to run into a drive team at early events that thinks they're really sticking it to the other teams at the event dropping the opponent tower to 0, -1, etc., while forgoing an easier 5 points that would then help transfer into an RP.

You weren't using those hubs as the primary support and capture point in a live axle environment were you? That would make JVN sad :( We killed a lot of those alongside a large chunk of my soul last year, then I remembered VEXpro has a neat website that tells us to do and not do all kinds of things with their products, like throw them on a mecanum drive wheel and think you are an expert engineer (I'm an accounting major).

I hope/expect that FIRST conducts some sort of pow-wow with head referees weekly (chain email? conference call? I'm not inclined to care how) to make sure at the driver's meeting the teams know
-G5 G5 G5 G5 G5 G5 G5 G5 G5 G5
-How defense selection works
On our team, we will have our own defense coordinator. The student build lead will transition into a role that includes selecting and communicating the selections to the drive coach.

I think I am going to break my personal best for needlessly long post but I guess I'll shoot my mouth off and people can judge me on my observations. I considered this to actually be a pretty above average event for its place on the calendar; I'd say about 1/4 of the teams here would definitely meet the (ever-declining, not their fault) bar of a championship caliber program. Some regression should be expected going into week 1. Here we go:

-I did not expect the Moat to not only have fewer selections than the rampart, but also fewer successful traversals. I guess that teams were not gunning it appropriately over the moat and turned that into a tragedy of immobility a few times, but the rampart is almost always guaranteed to be annoying. Every other series of selections makes sense. I'd say the breach count was about on par with expectations.

-While teams still have to get used to the field, they are going to pick low defenses as much as possible (audience selections and busted CDFs aside) to handle a level of visibility that is probably a half step above 2010. That plays into A+C class defense selection and its relative success rates being what they are. I don't know if the stats are available but I imagine the drawbridge and portcullis will get less and less frequent by the end of day 1 then surge back by the end of day 2. Rock Wall vs Rough Terrain seems like an observation teams easily made on the fly.

-Breach and Capture objectives were completed about as expected. I envisioned a success rate of breaches maybe 3-4% lower than observed. We'll obviously never hit 100% but Dean help you if you're a team at champs that bombs an alliance's chance at a breach and effectively crash their rankings.

-I honestly can't peg how defense will progress throughout the season, but seeing it in qualifications except under specific circumstances would be perplexing. Quals and Playoffs still have the same objective they do every year: rank high and beat everyone else, respectively. You go into every match wanting 4 RPs. You go into every playoff round wanting to stop the opposition from completing just one 5-point objective to snuff the light out of a potential 20 or 25 point bonus... right?

-Challenge vs Scale vs Sit on the Field Looking Sad Because You Left 5 Points on the Board panned out pretty close to expectations as well. LF pointed out how low Week Zero C/S rates were, but it's easy to chalk that up to teams a)not even on the field and b)tuning everything else but going up a ramp. However as we noticed in some failed attempts, maybe teams should really test that whole going up a ramp thing.

-G18 as it is can be pretty weak. Some climbers and other things were obviously out 15 inches+. On-field bumper enforcement is about as light as usual, that war is fought in the pits. I didn't personally see any missed scoring, so that's nice. Looking Forward to the TU, Week 1 events, and to get more time in the shop... we took a couple days off and I'm still antsy from that.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Theory: Low bar robots are a bad thing for Stronghold.

I'd argue that the competitive floor of Palmetto was no lower than it has been in previous years. The upper end included a number of very good low bar teams including the winning alliance captain 179.

Fact: Defense is back in a big (Good) way.

There was negligible defense played during quals because of all the incentives to breach and capture every match. Defense showed up at the higher levels i.e. playoffs, but it didn't detract from the excitement of the game, it enhanced it. Watching teams beat a defender to score was much more entertaining than seeing a robot hit every high goal, and taking their sweet time to do so. I think this dynamic will only expand as Stronghold evolves.

Theory: Low goals are automatic, and far easier for most teams than high goal.

Low goals proved to be exceedingly difficult for teams who slowly reversed their intake to score them. The boulder had a tendency to roll down the batter. It seemed to be less of an issue for the teams that shot the ball into the low goal, but that seemed rare. I think as Stronghold develops low goals will fade out and high goals will become the more efficient alternative for the top 10% of teams. The bottom 90% would still benefit from doing low goal.

Fact: High Goals are hard.

We knew they would be. Small goal, big ball. Pretty simple math. A large majority of teams shouldn't do high goal ever. A missed shot is a capture killer in many cases.

Fiction: The defenses are hard to cross.

Most teams were able to cross most defenses under ideal conditions. Obviously ideal conditions are hard to come by when you have three opposing robots ready to disrupt you at any time, but more often than not the disincentive for defense provided room for teams to cross defenses. I think most teams would benefit from getting a larger running start for the defenses. It seemed like a large majority were trying to slowly drive up the defenses. If you're not getting air, you're not going fast enough.

Fact: The seed of your alliance doesn't matter as much as it did for that 2015 game, whatever it was called.

In 2015 it was very easy to tell which teams were going to win an event. Just add OPR's and see who has the highest. This year, an 8 can beat a 1, and it's purely based on scouting and strategy. Stronghold is the most strategically deep game since 2013, and probably since long before then. Don't get me wrong, when the top 2 teams at an event pair up, they're inevitably going to be the favorite. I will side with Car Nack on this one and say that a non first seed will win the event for more often than a typical year.

Theory: Fouls will ruin the early weeks in a similar way to how they did in 2014.

Fouls changing the outcome of a match were a very rare thing during week .5. That could be because a lot of fouls weren't called that should've been, but at least that way it's less noticable. We'll see where things go from here with regards to the outerworks being a safe zone or not. If they're not then Stronghold is going to take a step in the wrong direction.

Fact: Climbing is rare, and it gives you a nice bonus.

Climbing will become so much more valuable when breaching and capturing becomes the norm for the playoffs (I'd wager by week 4 of 5). A climb on red cancels out 3 challenges by blue, that gives huge, match-swaying power to one robot. We didn't see climbing factor into the alliance selections so much at Palmetto, but I suspect that will change when there is more parity between the top breacher/shooters, making climbing the deciding factor.

Fiction: Having a high release point is a significant advantage.

It didn't seem that this was the case from the livestream, but obviously I wasn't out there coaching or driving. Most defensive robots seemed to play drivetrain interference, rather than blocking and the blocking that did occur didn't seem to be all that effective. I didn't see one deflected shot from a blocker, just missed shots from drivetrain interference.

Fact: Stronghold is going to be epic.

'Nuff said :D

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

You'd be surprised how many teams don't read the rules period.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

From my observation, the long cycle time was due to the large number of field faults ands associated replays. field reset seemed to do a pretty good job and weren't the delay.

Notes I have for Northern Lights this week include suggesting to the FTA or field manager that they walk the defenses before each match to verify they are all locked in place.

Also to make sure we get a reinforced Cheval de Friesen.

That said, in Palmetto they did eight matches per team across 64 teams. If we go with 8 per team across our sixty we should have an easier time of it. If we go with 9 matches per team things will have to go right.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

^
|
Yes.

Of 84 shots on the HIGH GOAL, only 47 (56%) went in.

I logged hits and misses that I could see on the screen or I could hear the announcer commenting on beginning at about the first match in the second round of the QF's. I am sure there are some that the announcer or I missed.

Of the misses, most were high/low or off to the side. One went in one side and out the other (a heartbreaker, I am sure).

My impression is that 20% of the misses, or less, were due to defensive action. I did not notice any that were outright blocked by a defender. For at least half of the shots, the robot was unhindered by defense and in some cases could be seen taking a few seconds to adjust its aim from side to side.

My guess is that at least half of the shots that I logged were taken by teams with cameras and LED rings installed. I do not know if they used vision tracking or were viewing the image on their driver stations.

There did not appear to be any robot that was able to score in the High Goal over 80% of the time. I noticed several instances where 3824 or 179 would score in the HIGH GOAL 2 or 3 time in a row then miss about as many. This is not to criticize these two teams performance, they were probably two of the best at scoring in the HIGH GOAL at this even.


It was a bit heartbreaking to see robots slide off the BATTER after power to their robot was cut at the end of the match.

It was also sad to see robots slowly descending below the top of the LOW GOAL after the end of the match or to see the robot stop with the front bumper above the top of the LOW GOAL but the rear appear to be a few inches below.

When I had the LiveStream on in a corner at work on Friday, I recall quite a few matches where YELLOW CARDS were handed out to teams for stepping over the DEFENSES. I did not track these to see if any became RED CARDS and what the consequences were. Since this does not occur during a match, does the team lose the points from the match that just ended?

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

RP (and 40 or 50 points in tele or more in auto)

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

*shakes head* Sadly true indeed.

It seems a lot of people overlooked this... I wouldn't be surprised to see a bunch of non-hanging teams retrofit braking systems.

If it is like years previous, yes. Scorekeepers (like myself) can and will edit scores and add cards to previous matches when directed to do so by the head referee.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

In my opinion for a regional that started a day after bag day that percentage is amazing. I was expecting more like 30% but I was also expecting more teams to try. So this percent might just be high given that there was less then 1 shot per match.

Also does this include auto?

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

This was only the shooting percentage of the top 24 teams after they had 2+ days of practice. If the numbers included the entire event, I suspect it would be around 30%.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Some of my observations from Palmetto, along with some speculation on the future of this game:

I think I discussed my thoughts on breach specialists in a post a while ago. As 1296 proved very clearly, the breaching specialist can get itself through quals very easily, at least at low levels of play (I would expect this trend to continue at stronger events). They allow alliance partners to focus on other objectives, while reliably picking up an extra RP for the alliance. However, come time for elims, the breacher becomes extremely reliant on alliance partners to pick up the tower points they aren't picking up. If the breacher's alliance can't match the scoring power of the breacher, then the alliance is dead in the water.

The geometry of low bar robots makes the C defenses very hard, but a taller robot has the potential to do them much more easily. With the rarity of robots that can effectively solo the C defenses, I'd expect them to be a unique commodity at higher levels of play, where the huge amount of time they'll save their partners could be the difference between a winning and losing alliance.

I was very surprised by the amount of scaling I saw, even if few of the scalers were consistent. Scaling comes with only 10 more points than challenging, and requires some clever engineering, but clearly it's very possible, and not too difficult for taller robots. One scaler really isn't much, but an alliance with two or three consistent scalers has the ability to swing the score in their favor right at the end of a match, with no counterplay available to the opposing alliance.

This might have been my impression of the game influencing what I actually saw, but whenever the portcullis and/or drawbridge were on the field, some robots seemed more confused than normal. I'm curious to see how many lowbar teams put bendy flags or lights sticking up out of their robot just so they can see themselves.

I was very, very impressed by teams 179 and 2393. I don't know exactly how 2393 works, but I'm guessing that, based on the green light ring, they are using vision tracking. With good code, and a good shooter, it is completely viable to shoot from mid-courtyard or the outer works. However, I'm still not completely sold on vision tracking for shooting. An inconsistent mechanism, or bad code, could make a vision tracking shooter useless in the blink of an eye. Shooting from midfield and the outer works presents the problem that you're not just fighting against defenders, you're fighting against yourself to have a shooter that lines up to the tiny goal perfectly and shoots at the right velocity, every single time. However, 179 and 2393 showed that it is possible to overcome these difficulties on a competition field, which is very impressive.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

After witnessing the official Week Zero event and watching Palmetto I am surprised by how often breaching occurs. I think that is more attributed to most teams focusing their efforts on breaching (which is good) but that means teams had to focus less or not at all on Scaling or Boulders.

I think overall having to compete this close to bag day hurt a lot of teams but more importantly the first events of the year are always drastically different compared to Week 3 or 4 (I've mostly competed at Week 1 events in FRC until 2014).

I was very surprised by how many teams were successful in the high goal compared to the low goal. Overall I think that was mostly impacted by the low goal robots focusing primarily on breaching consistently (like 2200) instead of scoring and that the high goal robots made it their top priority avoiding things like scaling or damaging numerous defenses. 179 and 4451 were two of the most well rounded robots at the event tackling the high goal and defenses with ease but they are also some of the stronger robots in their region.

Team 4243's thoughts on Palmetto
 

For us, visibility was a bigger issue than anticipated (drive team speaking here). If the opposing alliance selects both a portcullis and a drawbridge, teams without good cameras will have a difficult time. We saw one team do the pole camera for the standard, but we have no idea if that was helpful at all.

Breaching was crucially important, and two teams on an alliance should be able to do it every single time.

The FMS was buggy, (to be expected for a 0.5 competition) and we were totally incapacitated for one match through no fault of our own. Several teams, including 343 and others, had issues with communications dropping out during the match as well.

Unless your bot has an excellent shooter, it's not wise to spend much time lining up for a shot. As other commentators have noted, the low goal shooting is much more difficult than it appears, especially without a reliable camera. We had little success with shooting, and focused mostly on breaching defenses.

Although teams should already know this, the actual portcullis game piece is much easier to open than any wood imitations built for practice. It's on a coil spring, and one team had good success just by jamming a wedge underneath the door and driving through.

If teams within the alliance can cooperate, opening the doors is relatively easy, having one team open the door from the opponent's courtyard and getting the other alliance members to drive through from the neutral zone. We did this twice and it worked well!

Climbing will become more and more important as time goes on, and it was a huge factor in alliance selection.

Field reset times are much longer than usual, and the competition won't follow the schedule at all. Palmetto was about an hour behind during the entire competition.

Even if your team doesn't make it into Elimination, we recommend staying to watch. At higher levels of play, Stronghold is immensely fun to watch.

Stronghold is an excellent game, and teams everywhere should have a blast playing it. We wish everyone the best of luck!

Team 4243

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

The major thing I noticed was that shooting into the tower was (mostly) useless in quals matches - teams rarely had enough consistent shooters to make that a better use of their time than breaching, which could both get you enough points to usually win matches, and another RP on top of that.

Then you get to Eliminations and Shooting is absolutely vital to your alliance's success, because everyone can breach now.

also huge props to 1369 for their amazing defense. It was so much fun to watch them completely shut down opposing alliance's shooting

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Yes, we designed such that once the boulder goes in the high launcher, that's the only controlled way the robot can get rid of it. However, our planned M.O. is to keep the ball in the loader until we're nearly ready to shoot high. There's a place in the intake where the boulder can be held securely, and we are using a range finder to identify that the boulder is in that spot and stop the intake. The intake holds the boulder more securely than the launcher, as well.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

When I had the LiveStream up while doing paperwork at my day job on Friday, it seemed that the hit rate was around 1/3 or lower. This led me to start logging the hits and misses on Saturday afternoon.

Yes, this does include shots on the HIGH GOAL taken in Auto. I did not log the hits and misses for Auto separately but my impression is that it was similar to Teleop. The most I saw was 2 shots on the HIGH GOAL in Auto by any one Alliance so the shots in Auto would constitute maybe 15%, or less, of the shots that I logged.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Here are my thoughts after competing at Palmetto.

Real field elements:
Low Bar, Rock Wall, and Cheval de Frise performed about the same as the wood models. The Portcullis was much easier since it is counterbalanced by constant force springs. Rough Terrain and Moat were tougher. Other drive train configurations may have different results.

Real line of sight for drivers:
You were expecting to see? It can get bad depending on what you are trying to do. For the most part we could see what we needed especially with help from our camera.

The tower blocks part of the field if you are playing defense. Your own defenses and audience selection can interfere with the Neutral Zone. Then you have to see around your opponents defenses into the Court Yard.

The plastic dividers between the defenses and on the Batter are hard to see. Saw lots of robots having trouble running in to them.

Real defense:
There was very little until eliminations and was a bit surprised not many wanted to show that skill. If you are going to defend, please show your ability to help breach if nothing other than to get back to the Batter.

Taking real shots at the high and low goal:
This was about the same as our shop, although our camera tracking had difficulty with the glossy tower surface and arena lighting at some angles.

Real damage to robots:
Very real. You know it’s a tough game when you see a bearing on the floor.

Real problems with the game:
The biggest issue is field set up logistics – lots of moving parts. The field reset crew did a wonderful job, it was just crowded.

I do not suggest loading your robots using the classic driver station order. We set up for our low bar auto routine every time. If we were the third robot to enter the field, we had to navigate around our partners and opponents in a narrow neutral zone without stepping on defenses or boulders.

Real Fun Parts:
This is a great game with plenty of strategic depth.

Here are a few miscellaneous thoughts:
G5 - I know those flat platforms with missing defenses look inviting…

Practice parking on the Batter. It’s not a given. An elimination alliance needs to ensure their partners can at least park.

David

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

what i meant was that they are the statistically the hardest to cross, different definition of best...I think I might add up the week one and get a running total to see if it changes

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Last year, fouls subtracted from your team's score, this year they add to your opposing alliance. Scores shall be higher. Honestly, last year a cockroach 'bot (drive system only) should have been able to put two or three totes on a scoring platform (though not on top of each other).

We called this on game reveal day. High goals are quicker (assuming auto-aiming with a camera), and low goals require driving up to a goal and reversing your loader, but there is zero computer assist available for a low goal shot unless your software is way more subtle than we usually have. Now that we realize that the batter separators are transparent, this is even more the case. In any case, your boulder pickup needs to somehow center the boulder within your robot to attempt a low goal shot.

Not unexpected, but perhaps a bit worse than expected. I foresee that in addition to mechanical tightening, we'll be wielding the hot glue gun on many of our electrical connections on Thursday, despite Al's likely advice.

It's taken several years, but I think I've finally pulled my team out of the "don't read the rules" event horizon. Last year, we had two students really familiar with the rules, this year it's around four to six, most of whom are likely drive team members, and the others are certain pit crew members. We actually had a core group of students study general game strategy "underground", that is, independently of mentors over the summer, thinking that the mentors were opposed to such studies. I was one of the few mentors they trusted with this information at the time. Team dynamics can be tricky.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

My observations (from the stands):

Game play was exciting, and teams at all levels found important roles to fill.

Officiating was generally lenient; robots were fairly consistently awarded challenge points when rolling down off the batter as soon as power was cut, teams were not penalized for dropping things like sections of bumper, or even batteries, onto the field. Also, it did not appear that any method of measurement was used (other than eye-balling) to award scaling points.

I was generally surprised at the difficulty of the moat and ramparts, and the ease of the portculis and rough terrain (it was our driver's favorite). It was also a lot more difficult to navigate between the lexan dividers than anticipated, and it often proved painful for robots that hit them dead-on.

In spite of field reset issues, it was a good time, and one of the best FRC games in recent memory.

Congrats to the winning alliance!

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Woo Gus. Don't use hot glue. Use duct seal. It can be reused and removed. I like all your post. Your into this stuff. Try to come to the east coast some time.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

It's on the webpage, but not the app.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

And why was 1369 left to the #1 alliance? They were the best hope to stop that alliance in elims.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Because no one understands how important defense is yet... trust me, it will change.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Next week ;) especially in eliminations.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

My assumption is some of the second picks had auto points available and they would play situational defense. No team played more defense and was more prepared than 1369 - guarantee you that!

I'm interested to see how this game will evolve. The court yard gets very crowded with 3 or 4 robots trying to maneuver through blind spots. Feeder robots may be more useful than a full offensive assault. There are many options.

David

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

I'm interested as well. In the past most FRC games have a meta that has consistent elements with sliders on the qualities of those elements shifting by event and by week. This is the first year that will wildly turn the meta on its head at a certain point at every event and change drastically between events.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

This. I'd be interested to see how a game of attrition would play out from a nimble robot with quick intake that steals balls and half crosses completely crosses the low bar to deposit into courtyard. From what I've seen, it's possible the low goal is the way to go except in higher levels of play.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

This is not a legal strategy, see G40.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Edited the original. Theory is still the same, the robot just has to go the extra foot and a half or so.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

We'll add Insights into TBA for Android Soon™. Not sure on a more specific timeline, but it's on our radar.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

True. Halfstopping wouldn't be a legal cross. Although an "assist bot" could run this strategy completly crossing the defense.

"Assist bot strategy" would be very effective with an accurate high shooter. The high shooter could, in theory, sit in one spot, scoring high goals with boulders from an assist bot. This would get the tower down quickly, allowing for a capture. The third robot would have to be effective at damaging at least three categories of defense quickly, so the alliance will earn the RP (or points) from the breach.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Going against an alliance running this strategy would be a defensive robot's dream.:eek:

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

I thought this at first, but I'm not sure it is the case. If the shooter sits on the batter, the defender has to get out of the way and let the feeder pass the shooter the ball or get called for pinning. The defender would slow the process down if they timed their pins perfectly, but it couldn't shut the opponent down.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Not if the high goal shooter is firing unblockable shots from the outerworks. Granted if they are that good they don't really need to sit in one place necessarily. Especially if they have unblockable vision targeting as well.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Will duct seal hold in place as a robot bounces around the field? I've only ever used it in stationary applications.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

I wouldn't say no one, obviously we knew we needed a defender and so did the number 2 seed when they got 4533

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

QFT - 1296 thought elims were gonna be very different than quals with the defense role a key factor. For a short while we considered making an uber-defense bot (with some autonomous and end game scoring features) the second pick.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

This combination has the potential to be deadly, if used properly. Some alliances at Palmetto attempted to employ it, but not completely successfully since the robot that was supposed to be assisting ended up shooting the ball themselves.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

I'm thinking if it's executed much in the same way Bomb Squad did in 2012 with a 25/180 esque shooter, it's phenomenal.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Wondering the same thing. I haven't used it, but Isaac, another 3946 mentor, has, and he though it was rather too stiff and not adhesive enough for small wires (we're only considering this for "friction" connectors like the 0.1" Dupont style/header connectors). There do seem to be several different products sold as "duct seal", so maybe he's familiar with something else. Would you be more specific, mac?

OBTW, we were planning to use the low temperature setting on our hot glue gun, which produces a much more viscous stream (more like caulk) than the high setting (thinner than syrup). It isn't readily reusable, but we haven't had any problems peeling it from plastic or metal surfaces, or even smooth papers or cardboard.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Some things that I noticed as a driver at Palmetto were that
1. Line of sight is horrible especially for short robots
2. Low goal shots are severely underappreciated, a fast low goal shooter could easily defeat the tower.
3. Especially in playoff rounds defeating the tower is vey important, possibly more so than defense against the other shooters.
4. Spies can be very helpful, if you learn how to use them.
5. Hanging is not really that hard and a hanger can possibly be cheesecaked.
6. At minimum teams should get and stay on the batter at the end of a match, any robot can stay up if they drive it up in such a way that it won't roll of, like up and turn or up and slowly let it come to rest on the lip.
7. Possibly the most amazing thing all week was that this game can be played with mechanum wheels.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Would you mind elaborating on this point? What were your lessons learned? How are they best used?

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

http://youtu.be/LlSoEfAW47I?t=3m33s

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

From my 9.5 years of electrical construction yes. Granted after sitting outside for 20 years in the cold it becomes stiff and hard. But with some warmth and a touch of moisture you can work it up. Think of play dough on steroids minus color. It will work right along any wiring terminations. It's quick to use. I would only use enough. Can get a tab sloppy. Thank You Mentor Mac

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

We used the spy best to determine the position of boulders that we could not see, but we found that climbing did not have a useful spy, the drive team could see our hook just as well if not better. Some times the spy would be watching another robot when we needed them, which was a minor problem and forced us to often operate without their help.
Some short bots used the spy more extensively to help drive, or they should have.

Re: Real vs. Theory, Week 0.5
 

Hi,
so I have some questions about the boulders and their status during the competition. I'll be glad if someone from Palmetto Regional could answer those questions.
1) What happens if a boulder gets damadged? How many spare boulders do they have? does the refs consistently replacing them?
2) What's the status of the boulders at the end of the competition? are they completely damadged or they are still in a good codition like they were at the beginning of the competition?

Thanks in advance!