![]() |
i see alot of ball getters
This year i see alot of pictures of ball getters and for qulifying they are going to be great. BUT i do not know if they will be as effective in the finals. Offence wins games but defences wins championships.
go gaints weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee |
you need to do it all
There are more than a few goal getters as well. Some of them can't pick up a ball at all. Those robots are going to depend on ball getters especially in the elimination rounds.
Some of the ball getters are pretty good at pulling/pushing goals two. We put over three hundred pounds of kids in our goal and the robot moved it like it was empty. And we can handle balls too. |
We took off the ball handler to just deal with the goals. We still can get 10 balls into the goal without our robot touching the balls.
It will come down to who can handle the goals better. If you put your efforts into picking up the balls you had to give something up with grabbing the goals and pulling them. The game is going to be won by the robot that can dictate who has the goals. Quote:
|
ball getters
I think a lot of teams from last year are going for the two goal grabber method used so effectively last year. The differences in the game this year are major. No team can effectivly earn enough points to win their matches without some kind of ball grabbing mechinism. In my view grabbing two goals is an unacceptable trade off. Even if two goals are grabbed how effectively are they protected from being snatched away. Also there are 40 potential points on the field that are not being tapped into by those teams who can grab 2 goals. Can't wait to watch the first regional to see how this all plays out. I get two good weeks of scouting before the Philly regional. Lets see what teams validate my idea or refute it.
.....................enter whitty phrase here............................................ |
Re: ball getters
Quote:
|
We'll have a post up soon with pictures, but MOE can get all three goals thus eliminating the value of balls (assuming it works, give us some time to tweak it :) ) We know that our QP sum will be low, but our win loss record should help us get picked for the elims.
|
As I recall...
In 2000 my team made a bot to be defencive in fact too defencive there fore it did not do as well in the QR(won but pretty much no points 50-0). the whole idea of getting picked for the Championship i IFFY
|
Re: i see alot of ball getters
Quote:
|
NO
1 Attachment(s)
NO one robot will ever get 3 goals. I am sorry but the only way they will do that is if the other 3 robots do not have any sort of goal mechanism that allows them to grab a goal.
Pushing 2 goals and 2 people? |
3 goals
3 goals will happen. What happends if one robot get to two goals and it's partner gets to the other one. If the robot holding two had a third mechanism the other robot could place the third goal onto it and drive back into the endzone. Simple and do-able. obviously not smart in qualifying, but it will happen in a playoff match. Think about it.
|
3 goals will be incredibly tough
In the finals with robust robots I don't see how someone will get all three. Ours can get to any of the three in about 2 seconds with an automatic grabber, we only have provisions for 1 goal but were gone with it in just a few seconds. I see three as a possibility only if one of the opposing robots is DOA
I could be wrong must wait and see |
THere are some great things coming from team 384...
some things you guys say can't happen have.. and in a very quick amount of time... I think that the most effective bot will be one that has a kind and gracious team, who can strategize quick..with so many bots...and so many styles..strategy is what wins gabe g. |
I think all the action is where the goals are, and any robot that can manipulate them well has a good chance of making finals. This being said, I do however think that ball getters will be gobbled up quickly when it comes down to choosing alliances :D
|
I spent the day at the DC scrimmage, and out of the 12 teams there, not one sucessfully picked a ball off the floor and put it in a goal. Two tried. One had a spinning wheel and it didn't throw them high enough. The other was a strait chute and it was to high or something to pick the balls of the floor.
|
A nervous but interesting year...
I have to hand it to FIRST. They have managed to design a game that a wide variety of folks think THEY will be good at -- each with very different machines.
I know enough to know that I don't know. We have a great machine. But it is only great at what we DESIGNED it to do, not necessarily what it will be REQUIRED to do. Some folks are sure that balls matter. Some folks are sure that balls are a non-factor. There are a lot of factors that will determine which robots will be king. For example: Last year Beatty & other push up from the floor robots were kings. Why? Well, because that was an important skill but even more than that, it was a RARE important skill. As it turns out, being able to limbo and pick up a ball was also an important skill to reaching the highest score but this skill was not enough to make a robot king because there were MANY teams that could do this skill while only 2 or 3 were able to do what Beatty could do (and Beatty was the best at that skill, imho -- sorry Walled Laken & Kingman, I have to call 'em as I see 'em). Grabbing 3 goals MAY be the rare necessary skill. Grabbing 1 goal fast enough MAY be an antidote to that skill provided that they are paired with an effective ball handler. Lifting goals MAY be the rare critical factor. Effective ball handling MAY be the rare critical factor. It is an interesting year. Can't wait to see how it all turns out... Joe J. |
All i've got to say is if you grab 3 goals you better have one heck of a drive train, because i know i would go after you.
Remember, any team can push goals, dosn't matter if they are ball getters. Incase you haven't figured it out, i think that the extra weight of that thrid goal gripper would be better spent elsewhere- 1 is good, 2 is great, 3 is overkill. Probably wrong, Greg |
Quote:
yes there are lots of fators but only one that will do well If your robot is the strongest and can move goals at will that is the robot that will win. If there is a good ball handler what can he do if he doen't have a goal to put them in. after playing the game at Quincy MA . It prove that having a strong robot will and can score big points. The only way you won't score big point if the other team trys not to get points. That happen once. at that time both robots went into the other team end zone to score 20 point which x3 = 60. so having two strong robots. you can do almost anything you wish to do. |
It sounds so simple when you say it...
... but I believe that it will be more complex when the dust settles.
The central question as far as I can noodle it out in advance is this: Can two of the BEST goal handlers get 3 goals tied up before ANYOTHER robot can effectly get one and keep it out to of the hands of the other two? If the answer is yes, then this game boils down to nothing but a shoving match of the best pushers out there with balls being a total non-factor. If the answer is no, then balls spell the doom of the pushers. I don't believe this is a simple question. One day I am sure the pushers will rule the day. The next I am sure that ball handling is key. As I say... ...time will tell... Joe J. |
it is not to hard to get the goals. there is no place to hide.
the best part is the goal are so big it is very easy to grab them. in one of the matches a team brought there goal to the there side to throw balls in. they put all ten balls in. but the problem was we had one goal and we use this goal to block them from ever coming out of there end zone. so we ended up get the point for the ten balls. this is only one way of playing the game once again if you have the strong robot your chance of placing the point is much greater then one that does not have power. rember it take time to pick up balls the time you are picking up ball the strong robot are taking the goals. I hope we get pair up with good ball handler for the seeding round. you can get alot more point. with the help of your teammate. but you can win every match by sure power. |
our bot does both
I think that a versitile team will have an advantage in this game. Our team can acquire two goals and acquire, store, and shoot balls.
|
Re: Re: ball getters
Quote:
|
Quote:
20 x 3 =60 points |
I think that a fast single-goal grabber will be useful in any round. It will deny those 3-goal robots the third goal, and maybe the second one. And what good is a ball loader if it cant get hold a of a goal?
|
Of course 0 points for you means 0 points for them. They still get 20 points if they end with 20, they would have to have a good reason for doing that too you.
Greg |
SO you have a three goal grabber. Can you grab all three before the other team can get even one? Probably not. So the other side grabs one goal, puts 20-40 balls in it. Then your goal grabber, pulling the two goals it already has, is going to catch and out pull the other robot? Frankly, I don't think so.
|
Even if one robot managed to get three goals really quickly early in the game.....question is, would it be able to hold on to it for the rest of nearly 2min that'd be left of the match?
|
Quote:
|
Re: Re: Re: ball getters
Quote:
|
Quote:
What a concept, another team works hard to get more point for you to take away. :D |
I disagree
Quote:
The rules of the game are clear. In the elimination rounds, it is winner take all, but in the seeding rounds, the name of the game is maximize seeding points. I think it is perfectly okay for a alliance to score zero in an effort to make the other alliance give up a goal. To me, it is all part of the game. Similarly, a team that builds a killer seeding round robot and then picks the best elimination round robots to win a regional has just as much claim to the title as the two robots that won all the matches in the elims. Again, the rules are clear. We are all trying to maximize our chances of winning a tourney while staying within the rules. I'm good with it anyway... Joe J. |
Re: Re: Re: ball getters
Quote:
My original response was mostly geared toward the elimination rounds, where qualifying points do not matter - only winning. -Chris |
Re: I disagree
Joe,
Let's imagine that Chief Delphi and The Monsters are an alliance for one match (it could happen). Let's also imagine that our team is losing 30-20 and we are unable to do anything to win (assuming we've tried). I would hope that we would still try to maximize our score for the match. I guess I can see a great team (say Chief Delphi for instance) being able to justify getting 0 qualification points for a round because when they drop their lowest score, it wouldn't matter whether they drop a 0 or a 20. However, for their alliance partner, it might make a big difference. If my team already has a 0 (or a 10) because we were partnered with another great team that decided to do the same thing, then to continue doing this would hurt us drastically. It would be a real shame if the alliance element turned out to work in a way in which you lost points just to spite the winning alliance. |
Hey Kevin_308
Kevin,
The point you make is extremely valid. However, after seeing your robot and knowing what your team is capable of, if your robot works 1/2 as good as I think; you will have no problem getting into the eliminations no matter how many 0 rounds you have. Hey Chris Hibner, I like the CVT idea. I thought you guys at TRW were all electrical guys. Where did that MECHANICAL device come from? Anyway, we are using a CVT utilizing planetary gearsets. A much different approach than yours, but hopefully the same outcome. See you at Great Lakes. -Paul |
Here is my point...
My point is not that I would want to take a zero rather than give them a 20X3 Qualifying Points.
Here is what my point is: It is perfectly fair to get your score to zero in an attempt to make the OTHER alliance either score some points for you or give a goal to let you score for yourself. This strategy counts on the rational behaviour of your opponents. By giving them the option between a zero QP win and a potential loss with some points, you may be able to get your opponent to let you in the game. I am NOT saying that this is a good strategy or that it is the strategy that I am actually advocating. What I am saying is that it is a perfectly valid part of the game. The purpose of the 3X QP rule is that FIRST wants matches to be somewhat of a balanced affair. I think that given the rule it is not sneaky or underhanded or evil for a team to try to utilize that rule to try to win a match or to try to maximize their QP total. Here is how I think such a strategy is likely to play out. Assuming Alliance A has all 3 goals in their control and Alliance B has no hope of gaining control of any of these goals. Alliance B has the option of scoring points for themselves and losing 30-20 (assuming that it takes both A robots to hold the goals in place and that they don't have multi-zone capabilities) or taking 0. If they take the 0, Alliance A has several options. They can back their robots into the home zone of Alliance B, thus making the score 30-20, but... this a risky thing because if Alliance B runs home at the last minute, Alliance B could sneak out a 40-30 win. Alliance A could choose to have one of their robots put a goal or 2 into scoring position for Alliance B but again that is a risky strategy because a B robot could head home or it could perhaps drop a bunch of balls in the goal or it could do some other sneaky thing. The thing that makes this interesting is that no matter what Alliance A chooses, it will create SOME kind of opportunity for Alliance B. It may pay off or it may end up a disaster. Either way it is a part of the game as far as I veiw things. I think that this is going to be part of the wonderful excitement of this year's game. Joe J. |
Strategy
We have all shipped our machines by now so this is really academic, but I really enjoy other peoples opinions because it shapes and molds my own.
The most aggresive strategy would be to have two machines that could pickup other robots without damaging them and bring them home immediately. Although this would not produce good results in your average qualifying score, it would just about guarentee you a spot in the elimination rounds. No, we did not pursue that strategy because there were to many ifs, if you could design a method of picking up any robot without damaging it and if you were allied with another robot just like yours. I think in the end, only the final location of the goals and robots will determine the winners. It is going to be fun watching, I'll say that. Hopefully this will be the best game yet from the spectators perspective. Tim Gates |
Our robot can pick up and store up to 30 balls in our machine, we also have a mechanism to deploy them into a goal we attach to or a goal hmm say....15ft away! And I think that the ball go-getters will definatley play a major role in the finals, I mean why would you want two robots that can only grab goals?? If one can do in efficiently you dont need two or three robots that do the same thing. And if you did acquire all three goals the other two teams who you go against could totally screw you over and not put their robots in the end zone wich means you would get a grand total of 0!!! SO THINK TEAM 191 WHEN YOU CHOOSE ALLIANCES, OR MAYBE WE WILL CHOOSE YOU!!
|
Deep Thought to Ponder
Here's something to think about-
How does a ball getter score points if the other team ejects all of the balls off the field? (quickly and efficiently) This year they aren't replaced during the round. The ten behind the wall aren't enough.... Better be able to get goals and keep them Just a pleasant thought this Sunday morning WC;) |
Well you see it works this way, our robot is fast enough, our drives system, to at least get 20 of the balls from the field. So looks like we could get those 20 and the ten from the player station! That is 30 balls if I am not wrong. Enough to make a significant difference in the scoring.
|
Quote:
Greg |
Well if tons of teams are handling goals........oh and we do have a claw for a goal. So, hopefully our robot will be needed in some form. What does your robot do?
|
not that simple...
I really do believe that this 2002 game is more complicated than just a bunch of robots pushing each other... And I am on the same line as Joe J.... I know enough to know that I don't know.
True, as soon as you are in control of three goals, and score them in goal zone, you win... But any situations other than that will be much more complicated. Here is a few of scenarios: Two goals with two robots, and some balls beating one goal with two robots, and some balls. One goal with two robots, lots of balls, beating two goals with two robot. one goal with two robots, tie with one goal with two robots... In all those three cases (which will be likely cases during finals), their result all based on how many balls each alliance can get. Any situation with even less control on the goals... Balls will be even more important in controlling the score. And, looking at a lot of the robots, the competition in general, and how final alliances are formed, I will have to say that one side getting all three goals won't be likely, even in finals. And all these are assuming robots don't have extension, which I believe is a deciding factor in a game. To be able to control the goals while your opponent have to go back into home zone is really important. Either they give up the goal and let you push it into your goal zone, or they stay out holding the goal in scoring position, while you fight with it out there while scoring 10 points. Suddenly, in the non- three-goals situation, balls would be even more important if the two goal alliance want to win against one goal, two robot with one or two extensions. This game is getting more and more complicated as you think about it more... I am willing to bet that different regionals will have different combinations of robots in champion alliance... just because of the different kind of robots at each regional, and how the selection process for finals pair them up. The national champion alliance will have at least one extension, and one really good ball robot. What do you think? |
Here's one thing that came up our last match at the pre-ship scrimmage in Sussex (Wisconsin)...
We were the only team there that could handle 2 goals (bot picture). The first round we grabbed 2 and stood in the center and put 1 goal in each scoring zone. We dominated that round, but the other teams started to catch on... The last round, we (red) had 2 goals in our scoring zone. Our [red] partner (a ball handler), was only able to get 9 balls in our 2 goals (the last one fell out). Our partner headed back to our robot zone because they couldn't handle goals (though they prolly shoulda rammed the last one out of scoring position), while we stayed and hung onto our two goals in the scoring zone (we had to fend off the other 2 robots)... This brought us at a total of... 39 points The blue alliance, one robot was a strict ball handler and the other a ball handler with a claw mechanism. They grabbed one goal and brought it into their position. They filled that goal with only 10 balls and then both headed back to their robot scoring zone. This brought them to... 40 points They won that round by 1 ball. I hope this helps demonstrate the effectiveness in not only handling two goals, but having the ability score points using the balls. To think that one team can control all three goals is foolish (and downright arrogant, because there are still 2 robots w/ no goal and nothing to do!). No robot design is the best. One thing I hope you see from our team's blunder that round, is that there is no best bot. The best bot is the one with the best driver/human player/coach that is able to strategize quickly and appropriately. Our alliance was not able to do this, and as a result, our alliance lost the match. Both our teams had our faults and suffered because of the inability to strategize. This proves a point that ball handlers can still play an important role in the elimination rounds (providing they can still get 1 goal). On the other hand, so can goal handlers. As I said, and want to beat into your heads, no bot design is best. |
balls! balls! Balls!
Hey Jnadke-
From what I keep seeing, everyone assumes that there will be lots of balls available for a ball getter to grab on the field. What happens if you have a little, wedge fronted bot that is very fast, start the round by running down the opponent's edge of the field and shoveling the balls off the floor. For that matter simply blocking the machine's path may be enough. Maybe the ball getter will get a few balls but I doubt if they will get all 20 on their side. Meanwhile the bad boy's partner is grabbing goals or balls on the other side of the field. I haven't had the opportunity to play rounds yet but I can see ball grabbers having trouble if the line of balls is shoveled out or scattered. Just an opinion..... WC |
Yeah... that's a possibility, but there are balls on 2 sides of the field, and I'm sure the ball-getters can get the ones on the other side. That's still 20 balls, plenty enough to make a point difference. Then there's the ones in the player station...
Scattering the balls is a good thing to do if you are against an alliance who are both ball-getters (in the qualifying round). You can also attempt to steal their goal after they fill it with balls if they don't have a very good grabbing mechanism. Take away their hard work for your advantage... |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 20:48. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi