Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 

That's genius!

Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 

As most of the teams on the list have a single high goal auton or better, you could say that scaling points will help, but the consistency of the auton will be most important.

On the other hand, my team's alliance experienced firsthand the power of scaling points during the Carson eliminations, and you could argue that scaling points will have a large impact on who wins the match.

Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 

Will a no-footprint scale add significant value to a team at IRI?

Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 

What does "no-footprint scale" mean? Ty

Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 

I would assume it refers to a robot that does not "scrape" the wall of the tower as it scales, allowing robots to scale on either side without risking a robot being pushed off. (allowing a triple scale to be much more feasible) 148, 1114, 330 and several other robots scaled away from the wall this year.

Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 

Having just recently watched one of 2502's matches, I believe this means climbing in a way that the bottom of the robot is re-oriented to points sideways away from the tower.

All things equal, I think this kind of scale is more valuable than a simple hang. However, I would take a consistent hang over an inconsistent no-footprint scale, unless I already have two climbers on my alliance and a triple scale would not otherwise be possible.

Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 

Ah, thank you for this info!

Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 

I'm a bit late on responding to NonStopScouting's discussion questions, but here are my thoughts:
My answer here is whichever is more consistent. Controlling for accuracy, I would vote high goal auto due to:

• +1 tower damage
• the points are locked in at the beginning of the match. A robot dying mid-match may lose the climb but cannot lose auto points
• not scaling leaves time for an additional high goal or two, potentially making the high goal auto worth five points more than a scale without high goal auto.

It obviously depends on the number/accuracy of high goals scored, but my general ranking looks something like this:

1. Un-defendable outerworks shooters. While I haven't personally seen any of the IRI teams demonstrate such a shot, I've talked to a few who claim to be able to shoot over a max height defender with 15" extension from the outer works.
2. Low catapult or tall outerworks shooters who are difficult to defend.
3. Batter shooters, because of how difficult they are to defend once they make it to the batter
4. Low non-catapult outer works shooters, because of how easy it can be to shut them down by sticking a defender with a wall in front of them.
5. Non-turret courtyard shooters, because of how easy it is for a defender to push them around

I have chosen not to list turret shooters on this ranking because I think their value ranges from 2-4 depending on their time to aim and their ability to evade defenders by means such as outerworks, batter, or 179/254/1241-style wall shots.

Like many questions, this one can be addressed with math. I calculated the teleop high goal component OPR for each of the teams in attendance, rounded to the nearest integer, and then simuated "alliances" assuming the robots who scored the most high goals seed highest, teams pick the team available who scores the most high goals, and there are no declines:
A few observations:

• The top alliances (1-4) will likely be able to capture with only two robots
• The lower alliances (5-8) may have a hard time capturing, even with all three robots on offense.
• The weakest shooter on a triple-offense strategy will average 4-5 high goals

From here, it can be concluded that defense is advisable if:

• an alliance can capture with two offense robots
• the defender can deny their opponents the capture OR deprive their opponents of 4-5 high goals

Based on this, playing defense will likely be advantageous for the top few alliances, and the lower alliances will need to have all three robots on offense to keep up with captures.
This simulation is obviously an over-simplification, ignoring autonomous goals and scaling points, but it gives a decent sense for the scoring ability of these alliances and how viable defense will be.

Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 

There's been a couple teams showcasing their new 2 ball autonomous modes. Is there any team (that doesn't have a consistent 1 ball) planning a defensive autonomous mode? I think it would be cool (and valuable) to see a team drive over the defense, drop their ball off and then driving back to the midline to disrupt an opponents 2 ball auto.

Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 

Alternatively, don't start with a ball, and first thing go and pick up the center ball.

That being said, teams often show things prior to competition that don't work while in the competition. We'll see if these autonomous modes actually work, and whether all the teams will be showing up on their A-game (they so rarely do).

I'm excited for another great IRI!

Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 

We will likely have a 2 ball block ready for IRI. It is easy for us to do with our robot needing no modification to implement dropping the ball, then picking up the one on the center line.

Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 

My predictions are as follows:

2056 118 1024 868
133 195 2451 494
1241 3620 3130 5460
225 179 3824 71
67 1114 2052 4587
330 16 27 3641
2481 33 217 5254
3683 2771 2013 1806

Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 

Anyone know where IRI will be webcast from?

Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 

Re: IRI 2016 Predictions
 

0-1 - 5 ball autons will go 5/5.

0 - 5 ball autos will affect the outcome of the match.

#predictions