Chief Delphi
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   IRI 2016 Predictions (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149079)

Rangel(kf7fdb) 14-07-2016 23:52
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liam Fay (Post 1596801)
To me, it looks like the teams with the best combination of good robot and good schedule are, in no specific order, 2056, 1241, 67, 179, and 118. I wouldn't be surprised if the top 8 includes all 5 of those teams.
I wouldn't underestimate 330. Though they aren't the absolute fastest scorers, but they are probably one of if not the best poachers of 2016. A skill that isn't wildly talked about that isn't easily measured. The pressure they put on that secret passage can be a deal breaker.

Liam Fay 14-07-2016 23:57
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb) (Post 1596804)
I wouldn't underestimate 330. Though they aren't the absolute fastest scorers, but they are probably one of if not the best poachers of 2016. A skill that isn't wildly talked about that isn't easily measured. The pressure they put on that secret passage can be a deal breaker.
Oh certainly. What I see, though, when looking at their schedule is that they face a bit of an uphill battle - Q66 has them against 2590/16/118, Q89 is against 67/503/3683, Q41 is against 4587/3130/217.

AdamHeard 15-07-2016 01:34
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Total BS top 16 off OPR and some assumptions....

Rank Team RP AS
1 2056 34 476.1666667
2 118 34 471.9
3 179 34 445.0333333
4 67 34 438.7
5 1241 34 437.2
6 2451 32 467.3666667
7 195 32 440.8333333
8 225 32 437.4
9 3130 32 437.2666667
10 2771 32 437.1666667
11 133 32 429.8
12 5254 32 428
13 3641 32 418.9
14 1747 32 411.7666667
15 3620 30 448
16 1114 30 444.4666667

Abhishek R 15-07-2016 07:31
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
I predict we're gonna see a very interesting top 8 that has at least 3 big surprises - based on the predictions I've read in this thread.

Whatever 15-07-2016 10:20
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Since I have spent an unhealthy amount of time looking at this I figured I might as well share.

Other close calls on palindromes:

Qual match 9 - 20/1310/2502 - Would need to fly in 525
Qual match 33 - 624/3130/33 - Needed 330
Qual match 48 - 1640/503/461 - Needed 20, 330, 3130, 1310
Qual match 62 - 45/3015/5254 - Why did 25 have to drop out?
Qual match 67 - 179/3130/71 - One number off (1619 is in qual match 68)
Qual match 81 - 1746/868/71 - Not quite the right order

XaulZan11 15-07-2016 10:42
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Is 868 driving for 1747 or is 1747 just wearing 868 shirts?

ctt956 15-07-2016 10:53
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBoulderite (Post 1593583)

[snip]

Finals 7. THE deciding match. 179 keeps 2826 on the field, while 2451 remains on the field for 16. 179 and 1619 break out the alligator and bucket of water once more, while 195's alliance prepares for the match. The countdown begins. "3...2...1...GO!" says the MC. As soon as the match starts, no robot goes for the high goal. 179 and 1619 fill the moat and place the alligator into it. The crowd is stunned by the other alliance's response as 225 turns into a mechanical dragon and takes flight. As soon as teleop starts, 225 goes for 2826, preparing to breath a ball of fire. Then, 2826's driveteam presses a button, and their robot turns completely into water. 225 is unable to burn up Wave, and goes for their tower instead. No matter how many boulders 1619 shoots, they are burned up by 225. The field reset crew notices and runs off to open more boxes of boulders. At this point, the MC gives up on trying to narrate the match. Seeing that their alliance needs help, 233 runs to the field with their robot, enables it, and tosses it onto the field to assist their team. 16 does the same thing moments later. 233 launches Greek fire into the tower, causing the electricity to short and the tower health lights to go off. Meanwhile, the alligator in the moat attempts to eat 195's robot to no avail, as their robot is alligator-proof. 2451 seems to be the only team that is successfully scoring points. The final thirty seconds begin, and 16 stops on the field. Their drivetrain has broken again, and people from the Bomb Squad start freaking out. 179, 1619, and 2826 climb the tower, with 233 getting on the batter under 179. 195 and 2451 make some last minute shots, and 195 climbs. 2451 climbs, and makes their endgame shot. 225 has stopped, their driveteam preparing for something truly unbelievable. With five seconds to go, 225's dragon grabs 16's robot and flies to the top of the tower with it. They set it down and transform back into a robot. With one second left, 225 grabs onto the tower and pulls up high enough to scale.

It is deathly silent in the room as everyone tries to process what just happened. The anticipation of the score keeps the room quiet, as everyone is on the edge of their seats to find out what it is. The final score arrives. By a difference of five points, Cyber Pwnage Bomb Fire wins the 2016 Indiana Robotics Invitational, with a final score of 295-300. The crowd goes wild, and no one can believe anything that just happened.

When the finals and awards ceremony conclude, the teams say a teary goodbye to each other, knowing that many of them will be attending a different championship and will never see them again.

Those are my predictions. What are yours?

TL;DR: Nope. Read the whole thing.
I'm not sure 233 would park on the batter under 179, as I don't think it would count as a challenge anyway, let alone with four robots on the field. Unless there's an exception made...

I also predict that at some point, 910 will fill a moat with liquid nitrogen, rendering any robots that cross it with rubber/plastic wheels and/or tires undrivable.

Whatever 15-07-2016 11:29
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
You can challenge underneath a hanging robot and get the 5 points, but to capture all three robots need to be on a unique face.

This came up on Galileo Quarter 4 - match 1.

Liam Fay 15-07-2016 14:52
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
I'm willing to bet that Q97 will be the highest scoring qualification of IRI, and quite possibly 2016. 2056/118/4587 is how you break a record.

efoote868 15-07-2016 15:11
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by XaulZan11 (Post 1596838)
Is 868 driving for 1747 or is 1747 just wearing 868 shirts?
I don't know the drivers for 1747, but 868 drivers are wearing 1747 shirts.

jtrv 15-07-2016 20:47
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtrv (Post 1595244)
W. 2481, 67, 2468, 3620
F. 195, 133, 494, 5254
SF. 330, 118, 27, 1619
SF. 2056, 1241, 1023, 217
QF. 225, 1806, 1746, 2590
QF. 2451, 16, 4587, 20
QF. 3683, 179, 2052, 1718
QF. 3130, 33, 1024, 2338

I'm a big fan of 1114, but 2016 just isn't their year.
oh my god i'm so bad at this

AdamHeard 15-07-2016 20:57
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Anyone have OPR calculated for the event?

Still lots of BS and hand having, but current predictions are;

1 2056 33 405.7
2 118 32 422.3333333
3 3620 31 373.3
4 195 30 401.4666667
5 1114 28 417.6
6 217 28 412.0666667
7 2771 28 343.2666667
8 45 28 337.5
9 1619 27 375.3666667
10 5254 27 346.2
11 3683 27 335.5
12 2052 26 419.1666667
13 67 26 414.7333333
14 2451 26 395.4666667
15 2481 26 376.6666667
16 3641 26 364.2333333

Lots of matches could go either way though.

BrennanB 15-07-2016 23:41
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Thoughts after day 1.

Secret Passage Abuse - Over and over I see teams getting destroyed by letting balls pile up in their secret passage. It's never a good idea to get stuck in a situation where you have 6 balls behind the glass. Throw them out far of your secret passage! Don't let them clog up! One match I saw 179 was unloading like 12 balls because they were all in the secret passageway and nobody stopped them.

Neutral secret passage defense - I saw you 4039! While it may have not been executed to a "T" it definitely made an impact. Sitting in front of the secret passage and keeping those balls in the secret passage is super strong. Force them to try to get into the area, reduce them to one robot scoring at a time. Block them from getting in/out. And if they don't come free balls for your scoring robots!

Notable teams

1405 - Causing the biggest courtyard havoc I have seen all season! Phenomenal play and stepping up your target selection since worlds. This team will be very scary to play against on the field in elims.

1241 - Not having the best of luck, and have hit some snags. Still putting up massive amounts of points. Will be curious to see when they get picked up.

195 - Best two ball auto at IRI, scoring left right and center.

3015 - Funny how two of the defensive players that I really noticed were on the world championship alliance. 3015 also seemingly making a huge impact on the field. Saw one match where they just slowed down EVERYTHING. Great work guys!

3683 - High ranked robot that just consistently gets the tower strength down. Pretty solid defense too. Hang is super reliable. Who ever said you needed to high goal to rank high?

TheBoulderite 15-07-2016 23:59
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
I could see alliance selection/final rankings going a number of different ways tomorrow. It'll be interesting to see. Great job to all teams today, and good luck tomorrow!

Fun Fact: There were four matches today where at least one alliance scored over 200 points.

AWoL 16-07-2016 07:15
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBoulderite (Post 1596930)
Fun Fact: There were four matches today where at least one alliance scored over 200 points.
And we were in half of those. :P

In Q60, our alliance had a total of 22 high goals, so I'm saying a score over 300 is definitely possible in elims.

TheBoulderite 16-07-2016 08:54
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AWoL (Post 1596961)
And we were in half of those. :P

In Q60, our alliance had a total of 22 high goals, so I'm saying a score over 300 is definitely possible in elims.
Agreed.

ctt956 16-07-2016 15:13
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
I predict that alliances 2 and 6 will be the finalists!

Brian Maher 16-07-2016 15:25
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctt956 (Post 1597004)
I predict that alliances 2 and 6 will be the finalists!
Not possible. The winners of 2/7 and 3/6 face off in semifinals.

thatprogrammer 17-07-2016 19:48
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtrv (Post 1595244)
W. 2481, 67, 2468, 3620
F. 195, 133, 494, 5254
SF. 330, 118, 27, 1619
SF. 2056, 1241, 1023, 217
QF. 225, 1806, 1746, 2590
QF. 2451, 16, 4587, 20
QF. 3683, 179, 2052, 1718
QF. 3130, 33, 1024, 2338

I'm a big fan of 1114, but 2016 just isn't their year.
I think 1114 did a bit better than you expected :rolleyes:

Richard Wallace 17-07-2016 21:41
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatprogrammer (Post 1597183)
I think 1114 did a bit better than you expected :rolleyes:
Uh, yes. Simbotics didn't do much at IRI.

All they did was sweep their Saturday morning matches, seeding high enough to pick 195, 225 and 1405. Their alliance put up 70 in auton, 19 teleop high goals, and a triple scale in SF2-1. Then they did it again in SF2-2, for two consecutive record scores, beating our alliance by 50 pts each time. Not much.

If they had kept up that pace, the #1 alliance would have been in serious trouble. Smart move to have 33 play D in the finals.

Karthik 17-07-2016 22:16
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtrv (Post 1595244)
W. 2481, 67, 2468, 3620
F. 195, 133, 494, 5254
SF. 330, 118, 27, 1619
SF. 2056, 1241, 1023, 217
QF. 225, 1806, 1746, 2590
QF. 2451, 16, 4587, 20
QF. 3683, 179, 2052, 1718
QF. 3130, 33, 1024, 2338

I'm a big fan of 1114, but 2016 just isn't their year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatprogrammer (Post 1597183)
I think 1114 did a bit better than you expected :rolleyes:

efoote868 17-07-2016 22:24
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
But Karthik, that so totally is your business!
:p

PatrickSJ 17-07-2016 22:26
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatprogrammer (Post 1597183)
I think 1114 did a bit better than you expected :rolleyes:
From where I was standing in the driver station during our semi-final matches against 1114's alliance, it sounded like the chains never stopped ringing. I still can't get that sound out of my head.

But for real, thanks to 67, 3683, and 5254 for some awesome matches! and congrats to 2056, 118, 33 and 4587 on the W!

Brian Maher 18-07-2016 00:44
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Wallace (Post 1597203)
Smart move to have 33 play D in the finals.
It was really the only option for #1. I just watched the higher scoring semifinals match of each alliance again, and counted up teleop high goals for each robot:
  • 2056: 6*
  • 118: 5*
  • 33: 5*
  • 1114: 4
  • 195: 10
  • 225: 5
*Had a hard time seeing a bit of the match when the camera focused on the 1619/133 tipping debacle.
In addition, #2 had an additional scale over #1.
When both alliances run triple offense, math says that #2 outscores #1 (barring something as dramatic as 195's auto failing, which is not something to count on). By putting 33 on defense, they free up easy-to-grab boulders for 2056/118 to score, let's say, 3 extra goals (guesstimate). If 33 defending prevents #2 from scoring 3 boulders, it is worth it. With 1114 shooting only from the batter and 195 preferring a (reasonably defendable) shot in the left courtyard (not that they don't shoot well from other locations, they just do their best in that one), taking three high goals off this alliances doesn't seem like a particular difficult task (with some skilled driving, of course).

Considering that:
  • Alliance #2 scored 13 and 14 teleop high goals in finals; under 33's defense, they scored 5-6 fewer goals
  • Alliance #1 scored 18 teleop high goals in both finals matches, 1-2 more than with 33 playing offense, so 2056/118 scored 5-6 (!) more goals
having 33 play offense was not only a smart idea, but necessary for #1 to be able to outscore #2 and take the win. Props to 33 for being willing to play defense and the alliance as a whole for realizing the advantage it would confer.

These eliminations matches leave me with one big question: why did 2056 choose 118 over 195? Not that the Robonauts don't have a phenomenal robot, but looking at scouting data, 195 seems to have been the bot with both more consistency and a higher ceiling, especially considering 2-ball auto. I think it may have been due to 2056 playing with 118 earlier in the year at GTR-East, but I'd love some insight as to why they chose the way they did.

Mike Schreiber 18-07-2016 01:11
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMSOTM (Post 1597250)
It was really the only option for #1. I just watched the higher scoring semifinals match of each alliance again, and counted up teleop high goals for each robot:
  • 2056: 6*
  • 118: 5*
  • 33: 5*
  • 1114: 4
  • 195: 10
  • 225: 5
*Had a hard time seeing a bit of the match when the camera focused on the 1619/133 tipping debacle.
In addition, #2 had an additional scale over #1.
When both alliances run triple offense, math says that #2 outscores #1 (barring something as dramatic as 195's auto failing, which is not something to count on). By putting 33 on defense, they free up easy-to-grab boulders for 2056/118 to score, let's say, 3 extra goals (guesstimate). If 33 defending prevents #2 from scoring 3 boulders, it is worth it. With 1114 shooting only from the batter and 195 preferring a (reasonably defendable) shot in the left courtyard (not that they don't shoot well from other locations, they just do their best in that one), taking three high goals off this alliances doesn't seem like a particular difficult task.

Considering that:
  • Alliance #2 scored 13 and 14 teleop high goals in finals; under 33's defense, they scored 5-6 fewer goals
  • Alliance #1 scored 18 teleop high goals in both finals matches, 1-2 more than with 33 playing offense, so 2056/118 scored 5-6 (!) more goals
having 33 play offense was not only a smart idea, but necessary for #1 to be able to outscore #2 and take the win.

These eliminations matches leave me with one big question: why did 2056 choose 118 over 195? Looking at scouting data, 195 seems to have been the bot that was both more consistent and had a higher ceiling, especially considering 2-ball auto. I think it may have been due to 2056 playing with 118 earlier in the year at GTR-East, but I'd love some insight as to why they chose the way they did.
This is a good analysis and very similar to the discussion we had about whether or not to put 3683 back in in our second SF match.

This worked for alliance 1 because 118 and 2056 were essentially boulder limited in scoring - having 33 scoring didn't help since the team was still limited by the number of boulders they could get. It actually helped since they had less traffic.

On the contrary I think we needed all 3 robots scoring to even have a chance at keeping up with their 3 scoring.

Thanks to 3620, 3683, and 5254 for the fun run to SFs.

thatprogrammer 18-07-2016 06:46
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMSOTM (Post 1597250)
These eliminations matches leave me with one big question: why did 2056 choose 118 over 195? Not that the Robonauts don't have a phenomenal robot, but looking at scouting data, 195 seems to have been the bot with both more consistency and a higher ceiling, especially considering 2-ball auto. I think it may have been due to 2056 playing with 118 earlier in the year at GTR-East, but I'd love some insight as to why they chose the way they did.
NOTE: NOT on 118, this is pure speculation.
They may have not picked 195 for the same reason they chose to make 33 defend them... 195 is pretty susceptible to defense and struggles to make shots when pressured with a great defender. 118 is pretty much unblockable (I think a 15 inch extension can stop them) and seems to work better with defense on them than 195 does.

bkahl 18-07-2016 14:18
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMSOTM (Post 1597250)

These eliminations matches leave me with one big question: why did 2056 choose 118 over 195? Not that the Robonauts don't have a phenomenal robot, but looking at scouting data, 195 seems to have been the bot with both more consistency and a higher ceiling, especially considering 2-ball auto. I think it may have been due to 2056 playing with 118 earlier in the year at GTR-East, but I'd love some insight as to why they chose the way they did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatprogrammer (Post 1597262)
NOTE: NOT on 118, this is pure speculation.
They may have not picked 195 for the same reason they chose to make 33 defend them... 195 is pretty susceptible to defense and struggles to make shots when pressured with a great defender. 118 is pretty much unblockable (I think a 15 inch extension can stop them) and seems to work better with defense on them than 195 does.
I was in Indy this past weekend helping 195 a bit. My father is still a mentor and a close friend is the Drive Coach for the team. I was somewhat involved in strategy and picking talks.

I think Ahad is partially correct here.

118 definitely has a higher release point than 195 for the OW shot, making 118 a little less defend-able.

From a short conversation with 2056's scouts, they definitely brought up this fact- asking 195 what their plan was against a 15" overhang defender. Had defense from the OW become an issue, a 15" buffer mechanism can be used by 195 to keep the defender at bay.

118 also worked with 2056 earlier in the season. Chemistry was already there.

There were no hard feelings anywhere- 2056 informed 195 before alliance selections of their pick in order to help 195 better prepare a pick-list.

At the end of the day- 2056 won with 118. You can't really fault the pick if it helped contribute to a win.

There was A LOT of mutual respect between the 8 teams in the finals. Congratulations were given all around.

ASD20 18-07-2016 14:37
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMSOTM (Post 1597250)
It was really the only option for #1. I just watched the higher scoring semifinals match of each alliance again, and counted up teleop high goals for each robot:
  • 2056: 6*
  • 118: 5*
  • 33: 5*
  • 1114: 4
  • 195: 10
  • 225: 5
*Had a hard time seeing a bit of the match when the camera focused on the 1619/133 tipping debacle.
In addition, #2 had an additional scale over #1.
When both alliances run triple offense, math says that #2 outscores #1 (barring something as dramatic as 195's auto failing, which is not something to count on). By putting 33 on defense, they free up easy-to-grab boulders for 2056/118 to score, let's say, 3 extra goals (guesstimate). If 33 defending prevents #2 from scoring 3 boulders, it is worth it. With 1114 shooting only from the batter and 195 preferring a (reasonably defendable) shot in the left courtyard (not that they don't shoot well from other locations, they just do their best in that one), taking three high goals off this alliances doesn't seem like a particular difficult task (with some skilled driving, of course).

Considering that:
  • Alliance #2 scored 13 and 14 teleop high goals in finals; under 33's defense, they scored 5-6 fewer goals
  • Alliance #1 scored 18 teleop high goals in both finals matches, 1-2 more than with 33 playing offense, so 2056/118 scored 5-6 (!) more goals
having 33 play offense was not only a smart idea, but necessary for #1 to be able to outscore #2 and take the win. Props to 33 for being willing to play defense and the alliance as a whole for realizing the advantage it would confer.

These eliminations matches leave me with one big question: why did 2056 choose 118 over 195? Not that the Robonauts don't have a phenomenal robot, but looking at scouting data, 195 seems to have been the bot with both more consistency and a higher ceiling, especially considering 2-ball auto. I think it may have been due to 2056 playing with 118 earlier in the year at GTR-East, but I'd love some insight as to why they chose the way they did.
I think 2056 vs 195 (both IRI and Einstein) will be remembered as one of the all time greatest examples of the power of defense.

ArthurF 18-07-2016 15:24
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Schreiber (Post 1597253)
This is a good analysis and very similar to the discussion we had about whether or not to put 3683 back in in our second SF match.

This worked for alliance 1 because 118 and 2056 were essentially boulder limited in scoring - having 33 scoring didn't help since the team was still limited by the number of boulders they could get. It actually helped since they had less traffic.

On the contrary I think we needed all 3 robots scoring to even have a chance at keeping up with their 3 scoring.

Thanks to 3620, 3683, and 5254 for the fun run to SFs.
Unless you can outscore the opponents (which in that case you could never do especially while missing the balls and have difficulties in climb) the only chance of wining this year game is deployment of the very capable defensive robot (analysis of the finals seams to completely conform this statement). 3620 - the captain of the third alliance made fatal decision of not playing 3683 which resulted in loss of semifinals. The third alliance had real chance to get all the way to the finals of the IRI2016.
I am glad we attended the competition. I personally have learned some internals of tactics associated with the alliance selection during IRI competition (which in my personal opinion are scored in very low on the ‘gracious professionalism’ scale). I guess the exposure early on in life to harsh real-life experiences (winning by all means is the priority #1 to some teams out there) together with the mission statement of FIRST is what makes this program great.
Thank you all it was an honor to be participate in the games.

Karthik 18-07-2016 15:51
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArthurF (Post 1597354)
I personally have learned some internals of tactics associated with the alliance selection during IRI competition (which in my personal opinion are scored in very low on the ‘gracious professionalism’ scale). I guess the exposure early on in life to harsh real-life experiences (winning by all means is the priority #1 to some teams out there) together with the mission statement of FIRST is what makes this program great.
I'm really curious about the tactics that you saw and what upset you about them. This is probably something worth discussing so other teams can learn from your experiences.

jtrv 18-07-2016 16:01
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karthik (Post 1597213)
I regret doubting you, Mr. Karthik.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thatprogrammer (Post 1597183)
I think 1114 did a bit better than you expected :rolleyes:
Yeah, I was wrong, and I know I was. I used a prediction model for this, and this was the first iteration and its first attempt at guessing results. Obviously, it needs some adjustments, and I didn't expect it to get anything right the first time.

Plus, some others made some just as bold predictions...

ArthurF 18-07-2016 16:03
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karthik (Post 1597361)
I'm really curious about the tactics that you saw and what upset you about them. This is probably something worth discussing so other teams can learn from your experiences.
I have probably already crossed the line here so I would rather keep this 'intimate observation' to myself.
But it goes among the slightly modified version of : "if you can't beat them then join them". Having 4 teams on alliance gives you ability to take advantage of the above statement to the extends previously not realized by me.

ASD20 18-07-2016 16:05
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArthurF (Post 1597364)
I have probably already crossed the line here so I would rather keep this 'intimate observation' to myself.
But it goes among the slightly modified version of : "if you can't beat them then join them". Having 4 teams on alliance gives you ability to take advantage of the above statement to the extends previously not realized by me.
You should not name specific teams, but please explain in less cryptic way.

ArthurF 18-07-2016 16:48
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASD20 (Post 1597365)
You should not name specific teams, but please explain in less cryptic way.
Can't be less cryptic because people are already 'correcting me' for using team names. Looks like this forum is for 'happy thoughts' only. Let it be this way then.
Just for the record ... I have nothing against FRC nor IRI.

I disagreed with someones statement of the strategy and apparently it is not allowed here. Please be reassured that you will not hear from me again.

Ty Tremblay 18-07-2016 16:53
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArthurF (Post 1597377)
Can't be less cryptic because people are already 'correcting me' for using team names. Looks like this forum is for 'happy thoughts' only. Let it be this way then.
Just for the record ... I have nothing against FRC nor IRI.

I disagreed with someones statement of the strategy and apparently it is not allowed here. Please be reassured that you will not hear from me again.
The people saying its not allowed are wrong, but it's not like you had to listen to them in the first place. They're on the other side of the internet.

Richard Wallace 18-07-2016 17:02
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArthurF (Post 1597377)
Looks like this forum is for 'happy thoughts' only. ...

I disagreed with someones statement of the strategy and apparently it is not allowed here. Please be reassured that you will not hear from me again.
I want to hear from you again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ty Tremblay (Post 1597379)
The people saying its not allowed are wrong, but it's not like you had to listen to them in the first place. They're on the other side of the internet.
Ty is completely correct. You have the same right to express thoughts as anyone on CD, or the entire internet for that matter.

mmorauske 18-07-2016 17:09
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
First of all let me thank 67, 5254 and 3683 for joining us in the IRI playoffs. I can't help but feel that some of these comments are directed at me. If so, I am sincerely sorry if I offended anyone during the selection and playoff process. Monday morning quarterbacking leads me to think that MAYBE playing a defensive bot during the semi's would have changed the outcome. Just didn't think that we had the firepower to keep up with 2 bots. I sincerely hope that myself or our team did not leave a bad impression on anyone. We were ecstatic to receive our first invitation to IRI and had a blast the whole weekend. I think the highlight was our Q4 matches. So from myself and the whole 3620 team......thank you to our alliance and everyone that participated at IRI. It was a great experience that we will remember for many years to come.

wesbass23 18-07-2016 17:17
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArthurF (Post 1597377)
Can't be less cryptic because people are already 'correcting me' for using team names. Looks like this forum is for 'happy thoughts' only. Let it be this way then.
Just for the record ... I have nothing against FRC nor IRI.

I disagreed with someones statement of the strategy and apparently it is not allowed here. Please be reassured that you will not hear from me again.
You could always make an anonymous account and start a new thread, that seems to go over well with most of CD.

bkahl 18-07-2016 17:24
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wesbass23 (Post 1597383)
You could always make an anonymous account and start a new thread, that seems to go over well with most of CD.

PayneTrain 18-07-2016 17:33
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArthurF (Post 1597377)
Can't be less cryptic because people are already 'correcting me' for using team names. Looks like this forum is for 'happy thoughts' only.
*checks personal post history*

no, it's not

Alex Cormier 18-07-2016 20:18
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArthurF (Post 1597364)
I have probably already crossed the line here so I would rather keep this 'intimate observation' to myself.
But it goes among the slightly modified version of : "if you can't beat them then join them". Having 4 teams on alliance gives you ability to take advantage of the above statement to the extends previously not realized by me.
I don't think it's hard to figure out what he's saying. At least in my mind.

pwnageNick 18-07-2016 21:06
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Cormier
I don't think it's hard to figure out what he's saying. At least in my mind.
I think it is. I was there for the weekend and somewhat around what was going on leading into alliance selection so I'm not sure what he's talking about as I didn't notice anything wrong or out of the ordinary from a standard event.

EmileH 18-07-2016 21:11
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
you know it's the offseason when every single remotely controversial thread on CD is going to crap

congratulations, denizens

Aidan Cox 18-07-2016 21:15
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmileH (Post 1597428)
you know it's the offseason when every single remotely controversial thread on CD is going to crap

congratulations, denizens
Next time on The Real Housewives of Chief Delphi

Kevin Leonard 18-07-2016 22:03
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArthurF (Post 1597377)
Can't be less cryptic because people are already 'correcting me' for using team names. Looks like this forum is for 'happy thoughts' only. Let it be this way then.
Just for the record ... I have nothing against FRC nor IRI.

I disagreed with someones statement of the strategy and apparently it is not allowed here. Please be reassured that you will not hear from me again.
I think the decisions made in semifinals about "who to play and who not to" were difficult, nuanced decisions, and giving up the firepower of any of the offensive robots on that alliance was a difficult decision to make.

I've been thinking quite a bit about how we could have played that differently. However I think the reason we lost has a lot more to do with our autonomous deficit and smart defense placements from our opponents than anything else.

5254 had been having some weird issues with our ramparts auto routine on the practice field, so placing the Sallyport in 3, the CDF in 4, and the Ramparts in 5 forced us to run our autonomous from position 2, where we wouldn't make the autonomous shot. 67 and 3620 were also inconsistently making autonomous, and 195 was making their 2 ball look like it was easy.

In addition, the CDF in 4 forced 5254 to take an extra few seconds to get into position to shoot every time we cycled over the ramparts. We regularly came out of autonomous 30-40 points behind, and even if we matched the #2 alliance in teleoperated scoring, and we got all three of our climbs up, we would lose based on auto alone.

I think our #3 alliance had a high ceiling- in that if we all made auto and climbed and hit our teleop shots, we could have matched that #2 alliance or exceeded them, but we were too inconsistent.

3683 might have been able to shut down 1114, and maybe even slow 195, but then we're still about even in teleop scoring and down after autonomous.

Thanks to 3620, 67, and 3683 for selecting us. The QF4 matches were some of the most exciting matches I've ever been a part of.

PatrickSJ 18-07-2016 22:32
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard (Post 1597435)
The QF4 matches were some of the most exciting matches I've ever been a part of.
+1

Mike Schreiber 19-07-2016 12:52
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArthurF (Post 1597354)
Unless you can outscore the opponents (which in that case you could never do especially while missing the balls and have difficulties in climb) the only chance of wining this year game is deployment of the very capable defensive robot (analysis of the finals seams to completely conform this statement). 3620 - the captain of the third alliance made fatal decision of not playing 3683 which resulted in loss of semifinals. The third alliance had real chance to get all the way to the finals of the IRI2016.
I am glad we attended the competition. I personally have learned some internals of tactics associated with the alliance selection during IRI competition (which in my personal opinion are scored in very low on the ‘gracious professionalism’ scale). I guess the exposure early on in life to harsh real-life experiences (winning by all means is the priority #1 to some teams out there) together with the mission statement of FIRST is what makes this program great.
Thank you all it was an honor to be participate in the games.
Please PM me, I think I know specifically what you're referring to, but I'd like to confirm. Let's look at this as a learning experience. I can certainly say I don't think any decisions were made out of ego or malice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard (Post 1597435)
I think the decisions made in semifinals about "who to play and who not to" were difficult, nuanced decisions, and giving up the firepower of any of the offensive robots on that alliance was a difficult decision to make.
Maybe we were wrong, maybe not. I still can't say with any certainty that we would have won in any configuration.

TheBoulderite 22-07-2016 00:19
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
Missed the eliminations because of a backpacking trip. Here are my thoughts:

Congratulations to teams 2056, 118, 33, and 4587 for winning IRI! 2056, winning IRI four years in a row is very, very hard, but you've done it. Our alliance was honored to play against yours in the semis, and your win was well deserved. Also, great job to the finalist alliance of 1114, 195, 225, and 1405!

Thank you to our wonderful alliance partners 1241, 133, and 868. We were honored to be an alliance captain at IRI for the first time in our history, and we were excited to have such a strong alliance. Thanks for the ride to the semis, guys!

IRI was great this year, and I look forward to next year already. See you all then!

EmileH 22-07-2016 08:56
Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 
We had an awesome time at IRI! Check out our 2016 IRI Recap video.

Unfortunately, we were not picked, however we want to thank all the teams who attended who showed us how to play at a higher level. Also, we want to thank the event organizers and volunteers who put on a wonderfully orchestrated and well-planned event. And lastly, our sponsors and parents, who helped make the trip possible.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:18.
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi