grippers
 

well, no comment there- about the mentors scouting gripper designs. however, we did like some ideas, and sort of put together a awsome design that will no let go. I will tell you though, while your grippers were great, I don't believe that we borrowed any concepts from you.

If your alliance partner is really worried about QP's this year chances are they don't have a robot that will be really good in the finals. GLR's finals were all about having the pulling and holding power which are totally the opposite in my mind of scoring huge QP's. With lots of pulling power you can normally hope to score matches with 30-60 QP's win and 10-20 losing.Robots that score huge amounts of balls on both teams easily got the scores into the 30-40 on both sides and thats where the big QP's came from. These robots however are not the best for Elimination matches where you grab 2-3 goals and sit there for 2 minutes.

Personally I look at it this way..

if you've only got 20 points (your two bots in the endzone), it could very likely be your lowest score (don't think you should ever get lower unless it's delibrate, you don't have to move to get 20 points).... under the fact that the lowest score is dropped, what's it matter if it's a 20 or 0 that drops? And if dropping a zero means lowering your opponents points in process, that's part of competition.

Not saying it's right, but Grandma watching would ask me why we lost.. why did we just sit there at the end.. why not keep fighting...?

The zero-point strategy is just that, a strategy. It's not a deception, it's not a low blow.. it's a valid strategy you should plan for.. you can't rely on your opponents being nice guys to get your points, you need to earn them. If I know my team is losing and I haven't been able to acquire any goals/points to win.. I would come out of the endzone and start subtracting points from my opponents.. not to spite them but to force them into action.. If they want their points, they'll have to make the move to score them.. and we'll appropriately counteract.

You can't take offense by strategical play... sometimes you have to sacrifice or risk big to get more.. Teams with capitalizing robots have to be prepared for this challenge.. and when you come up in a match against robots you can't beat with speed or strength, you simply have to out strategize them and force them to action..

I think it's perfectly legit..

Seems like you could turn lengthwise and have a goal in each scoring zone to get QPs. And what is your partner up to? Should be able to score for the other team if they pull out of their zone, or yea even not be able to get back to their zone. You can't expect/depend on your opponents to score points for your alliance.

Strategically Sound!
 

First of all, I pose this question to Moe...would you rather get lower qp's and have a fully functional robot in the elims or would you rather have one of the arms of your robot bashed into little bits and pieces, thus hindering your ability to compete well in the elimination matches? (and I don't care how much you do or don't show off your strategy, with a robot like that, you are gonna get picked and used!)

I see the chokehold strategy as just that, a viable strategy that forces other teams to have to produce points in order to get higher QP's. The best teams in NJ were able to do all the scoring quite easily (i.e. team 95). Fact of the matter is, if you try the chokehold strategy, your not exactly doing yourself any favors because your killing your own QP's anyhow, in which case if the oponent is smart and just pushes a goal into the goal zone and parks it themselves they will get either 60 or 0...60 if they team applying the chokehold is smart and realizes that they aren't doing themselves any favors by also taking a 0 in QP's, 0 if they aren't very bright, or have absolutely no hopes of seeding high enough or even getting picked (Because a maneuver like that wouldn't rank high on the team inteligence scale, thus I probably wouldn't want to pick them personally). So in a nutshell, yes it is a viable strategy, but it really isn't the best strategy for sucess in this game.
Have fun,
Andy Grady

First off, our strategy is to control all three goals. MOEHawk, our robot, is the result of the strategy we sought to employ.

We, like everyone else, would like to get big time QPs. With our strategy, it's more difficult to accomplish than with other strategies. However, we have had matches where we have scored 96 QPs for us and our alliance partner. Given the average QPs for the regionals so far, that is a good score. If we could do it consistently, we may even get close to the top 8 seeds.

No one who spends long hours machining and drilling and deburring and painting parts wants to see them bent or broken. However, we realized going in, that when you grab and hold goals in the first 5 seconds of a match, you can expect some heavy hitting the next 1 minute and 55 seconds.

Fortunately, we have an awesome pit crew, the true Miracle Workerz, who have found ways to fix whatever has been broken, match after match.

We have made spares for situations in elimination rounds where we may get beat up enough that we cannot quickly repair MOEHawk. Hopefully, we will get another opportunity at Nationals to strut our stuff in the elimination rounds. We have learned much at VCU and Philly.

So, is a robot that controls three goals, may or may not get high QPs every round, and needs lots of TLC from the pit crew, a viable strategy/plan? Maybe or maybe not. However, I can tell you that the students that are part of our pit are learning first hand how to problem solve on the fly. Our students learn how to prepare and plan before a regional. And, by the demonstration of things like our "MOE PARTS FOR SALE ON E-BAY" sign at Philly and the MOE Mauler Award, we definitely have a sense of humor about it all.

May the best robot/strategy win.

Good luck for teams attending upcoming regionals. Maybe we will see you in Florida.

-J-

A Quick Clarification
 

The matches that i dealt with were not ones that the opposition "went out and fought" for more points at the end and it didn't even look like that. The opposing alliance waited until, literally, the last second to pull just out of the zone. Yes, Colleen, it is a "strategy" to accept a lower score that you can drop and hurt the other team in the ranks. Maybe I think the way I do because my team brought me up to never consider hurting another team for your own gain. However, a lot of these efforts were made by teams who were so far down in the ranks, that there was no possible way that their team could bebenfit (other than the satisfaction of bringing another team down with you). I could potentially see a few teams doing it out of personal gain (even though I never would). In fact, the strategy is flawed so that it might be "benficial" to the one alliance member, while damaging to the other. Some teams even did it without the consent of their alliance partner (I've heard of several such complaints) where their alliance partner was severely hurt in the ranks because of it. Yes, all teams should prepare against it (or to execute it if they are so inclined) but there isn't very much you can do to stop it. Of course, it is possible, not exactly likely, that one can block 2 maneuvering robots in their zone, but other than that...I got nothin'. Well, of course, that's just my opinion. If anyone else has ideas as to stopping this strategy, please post them.
~Hubicki~

Colleen
This might be a "good" strategy if you and a bot on the opposing side were vying for a spot in the Top 8. I mean, then it is understandable but not graciously professional. WHen none of the 4 bots on the field are in the top 20, however, how can it not be conidered a "low-blow?" It seems to me that it could only have been done out of spite or anger that the other alliance was dominating. It is just my opinion, but if you are losing, you accept defeat and sit in your endzone to benefit all the robots on the field.

Also, in regards to fighting to the end: with 5 seconds left, it is pretty clear whether or not it is possible to win. In regards to MOE's match. The opposing alliance had given up for a good 10 seconds and were sitting in their endzone. Then with mere seconds remaining, they pulled out of the endzone. Is this what you meant by your 'grandma parable' because that might have applied if the bots were vying for the goals until the last seconds and could not return in time. I am also pretty sure that this kin of incident hppened elsewhere (where a robot was sitting in the endzone for some time and then came up with the idea to screw all the robots on the field and move out of the home zone.)