Re: Strategy during Final at Einstein
 

That's where OP was shooting while undefended, but they were very capable shooters from the outerworks, as well. It would have neutered a chunk of our offensive output and probably not impacted 2056 much, if at all. They would have just backed up and shot protected with their intake out to create space and probably draw some fouls. Plus, 120's robot wasn't particularly built for playing defense. Their drivers also let us know that they didn't think they'd be as effective at it. If we were going to go that route, we would have needed to sub in 1086. That meant we would have also taken the climb points off the table in the endgame which was really helping us stay afloat with 330's climber issues lingering following SF2. 1086 also let us know earlier that the new Einstein balls may mess with the accuracy of their shot, which they had tuned using worn down balls. That proved to be true based on the accuracy seen in SF1 when they were on the field with us while 120's intake was being frantically repaired. We would have needed that autonomous shot to hit to offset the lost scale points. Even if 120 was getting shut down, that was still pulling a lot of the defensive attention away from us and 330.

Defending OP had to be done in the neutral zone. In match 1, we got a couple good blocking and slow down plays on them as we were chasing down boulders. In match 2, they did a great job avoiding those situations. In match 3, we again managed to find them a couple times and did just enough to be a nuisance.

I just want to point out that match 1 could have very easily gone the other way if either of 2 things happened in the endgame. If 1405 was able to get on the batter that would have been an additional 30 points and the score margin widens significantly. If OP would have gotten the scale, that would have been 10 more points and they win by 2. If both happen, that's a 40 point swing and we lose by more than a capture bonus. In match 2, they basically got us by an auto ball. Match 3 was essentially a draw. These finals were crazy close, obviously. Completely swung on just a few plays.

Re: Strategy during Final at Einstein
 

That's not true. OP essentially lost their ability to do outerworks shots after GTR East, if you watch Waterloo, Windsor, and Tesla that's very apparent. And while obviously the 330-2481-120 won my argument is that it would've been a much easier victory for them if they had use defense against OP.

Re: Strategy during Final at Einstein
 

I am still confused as to why 1690 went undefended for the majority of Einstein. In the matches in which they faced defense at Tesla, their offensive output dropped tremendously.

Re: Strategy during Final at Einstein
 

I actually do believe defense was the right way to go for Tesla alliance. However, I do agree that overall, triple offense was the bread and butter for most Einstein teams. For one, it's just a lot more consistent. Sure the scores can vary by a couple boulders but when you dedicated one of your robots to defense, that defensive robot regardless of how high of skill they are, can go from shutdown defense to not very effective at all. I think for the sake of consistency and confidence in scoring is why most Einstein matches were shoot outs. It's sort of why I think the game this year falls a little short at the highest level. That being said, I think Tesla realized throughout the course of Einstein matches though, that they were unfavored in a shootout and switched it up.

Re: Strategy during Final at Einstein
 

That's about right. The loss of accuracy was based on me forcing my drivers into shooting at an angle they hadn't practiced much. In my mind, I didn't want to clog up the middle of the field where 330 and 2481 were shooting. If I had to do it over again, I would have had us go under the low bar and park in defense 2 or 4 for the shots. We did lose a bit of length from our shot with new balls, however, length wasn't our issue. We had the length, but not enough practice finding the right spot and angle on the side goals.

I know a coach and a few drivers that would love to do that match over again. Live and learn, right?

Re: Strategy during Final at Einstein
 

Not uncommon on the #1 alliance. In Hopper we had 364 and 2990 as side by side picks on our draft list so it was easy.

Re: Strategy during Final at Einstein
 

The 3 team offence was the right strategy in my opinion since it minimized the risk of penalties. The only change I would have made was to put a taller defense near the low bar. The blue alliance's human player was able to get a decent number of boulders all the way to the opposite side of the field in some of the matches by going over the ramparts.

Re: Strategy during Final at Einstein
 

This was actually the reason our team felt so comfortable playing defense. Oliver, our driver, is an exceptionally smart driver, with a great skill for foresight and controlling the field as he wants. It was his knowledge of the rulebook and awareness that kept our penalties to a minimum.

At Finger Lakes, where we were our alliances defensive robot, we drew 2 penalties in the quarterfinals, and then we did not draw an additional penalty afterwards. And those penalty-less matches were pitting us against the likes of 5254, 2791, 3044, 4930 and 340.

In playoff matches at champs where our robot was fielded, our alliance never drew more than 1-2 penalties. In any match where we did draw penalties, the opposing alliance did not successfully capture the tower, so I believe one might argue that our defense contributed more to our alliance than against it. The only matches where this streak falls through, ironically, are the final Einstein matches.

The penalty we drew whilst in the 3rd final match on Einstein was hard to avoid, as Oliver had no visibility of the courtyard referee (a recurring problem for him all throughout the event). As many have noted, it was a tough call by the referee to begin with, coupled with the fact he was having information relayed to him instead of seeing it with his own eyes, it would have been quite a feat for him to have been aware of the whole situation. But hey, that's the risk we took.

In the end, it couldn't have been any closer. As far as I'm concerned, all 8 teams deserve to be world champions. It just so happens that the record books with not have our alliances names in them. It was a disappointing loss, especially given the fact that it was such a crazy alliance to work with (3 different countries represented, and allied with another team from our region). It would have been a good story to tell, but nevertheless. Congrats to the champs, they were hard fought matches and I'm happy with our season in the end.

Edit:
In response to our choice of strategy, 3015 was constantly used throughout eliminations. In our first QF match, our line-up was 2056-1690-3015, and our alliance ended up putting in 250pts. It was quite a spectacle, but we found that that match was a "perfect scenario" and difficult to repeat. Essentially, 3015 with their superior shooting (to us at least) and being a good defense robot as well, was our advance team, and was fielded in the first match of each round. If it was found that we couldn't brute force our way against an alliance, then we took the field. We knew that if it came down to 2v2, 2056 and 1690 could overpower almost any other duo, so all we had to do was take our one robots worth of shots, and that sealed the deal all the way to the finals.

Re: Strategy during Final at Einstein
 

Regardless, you're still asking 1086 and 120 to come out of their comfort zone and play a defensive role. While I'm not saying they couldn't do that, they definitely weren't used to it. In addition, while OP's outerworks shots definitely weren't the same, they still featured an accurate batter shot.

While we will probably still have our own opinions, if defense was going to be played on 2056 and 1690, it was more worthwhile to do so in the neutral zone, as previously mentioned. At least in my mind.

Re: Strategy during Final at Einstein
 

Kudo to civilized banter; I thought it might be difficult, but this is reassuring. Nice input from teams involved so thanks. Even if we had been there we wouldn't have been able to view all the division brackets at once so there is not much back story of Einstein alliances.

Looking up some of the stats, it is hard to make the case that switching to an offensive lineup might have helped. The first thing I noted was that Carver's OPR's were significantly less than Tesla's going into Einstein. And no wonder, Carver's was the second seed alliance. (more on this later)

So from these numbers, it is harder to believe that Carver could keep up with Tesla. Therefore, defense had a significant impact on the matches.

Carver Seed 2 OPR
The Beach Bot 330 55.94
Roboteers 2481 50.96
Cleveland's Team 120 43.79
Blue Cheese 1086 43.07

Tesla Seed 1
OP Robotics 2056 68.08
Orbit 1690 69.8
Ranger Robotics 3015 36.48
Finney Falcons 1405 25.91

Speaking of OPR's it is notable that in most division the top two teams offensive rating was past the knee of the curve. Except for Newton but this has already been covered heavily on CD... but the notable thing with Newton is that almost all of those teams were upset even before Einstein. Then Newton was shut out of Einstein immediately.

However, it is more a question to my mind that more divisions are not like Newton was. Are high scoring robots on that end of the spectrum that rare, that in each division only 2 or 3 stand out even on a national level? I expect this in the districts, but nationally it is harder to rationalize.

Re: Strategy during Final at Einstein
 

It's quite often a bad idea to try and compare OPR across events (divisions) as a measure of expected offensive performance of specific teams on the field. Perhaps Carver was a more even / deep field than Tesla, or Tesla had a stronger top end and a weaker bottom end, etc. Lots of reasons OPR is not a good way to quantify offensive performance in this context.