Re: Ideal Alliance Structure
 

Earlier I wrote:
And here is what I mean by that:

Suppose at Championships in Newton Division we get the following rankings for alliance selection (assume all of these are center goal shooters):

1. FRC2001 (#3 Human Loaded Robot)
2. FRC2002 (#1 Ground Loaded Robot)
3. FRC2003 (Ground Loaded Robot)
4. FRC2004 (#2 Human Loaded Robot)
5. FRC2005 (Ground Loaded Robot)
6. FRC2006 (Ground Loded Robot)
7. FRC2007 (#1 Human Loaded Robot)
8. FRC2008 (Ground Loaded Robot)

I submit that each alliance has room for only one human-loaded robot.

FRC2001 wants to pick FRC2002 (best ground-loaded robot). FRC2002 would rather be allied with FRC2007 or FRC2004, who have better human-loaded robots. FRC2002 knows that FRC2001 is probably not going to pick FRC2007 because their robots are incompatible (both human-loaded robots), and even if that selection is made, FRC2004 will still be available (still a better human-loaded robot than FRC2001). Therefore, when FRC2001 picks FRC2002, FRC2002 should decline, right?

But what happens if FRC2001 then picks FRC2007? FRC2007 ought to decline, because an FRC2001/FRC2007 alliance would have two human-loaded robots (=inefficient). So then FRC2001 picks FRC2004, who declines for the same reason. In this scenario, FRC2002 is worse off for having declined FRC2001's offer of alliance. So by declining FRC2001's offer of alliance, FRC2002 is taking a gamble.

However, if FRC2001 were smart, they would have picked pick FRC2007 and FRC2004 first, and after they had declined (as expected), FRC2002 would have accepted FRC2001's subsequent offer of alliance because their two top teams would no longer be available.

The flaw in my argument is the assumption that all teams will make rational decisions in accepting or declining alliance offers.

I hope that was intelligible. Please tell me if it's not and I'll try to clarify it.

Re: Ideal Alliance Structure
 

VCU's winning alliances and high scorers typically had two shooters and the third varied. The third was a shooter but also had strong blocking and distracting capabilities.

VCU Winning Alliance
1610- Strong autonomous and shooter
343- Good shooter and turreted capabilities, heavy ball holding capabilities
1598- Shooter capacity and mobile blocking capability

Just a good alliance example. Shooters win, imho.

Re: Ideal Alliance Structure
 

Everyone is talking about a defense specific robot, but in the championship divisions there will be enough depth of talent that you should be able to get defense bots that can score as well. Take a look at 818 - The Steel Armadillos. The were among the top 5 shooters at Detroit and were arguably the strongest defense bot as well.

I guess my point is that at Nats we will be able to have our cake and eat it too.

Re: Ideal Alliance Structure
 

aaa, but comes the argument of which is better offense or defense?

Well when i'm thinking of alliance this year you can look at it 2 ways.

1 - 3 great shooting robots. for example match up FRC2001, FRC2002 and FRC2003 (I'm just picking these teams because they were the first shooters that came to mind) They all have good drive trains, and great shooting ability. Now you have only 2 robots that are playing defense of these guys, so thier should be one that is left open to do as they please with the center goal. And then on defense since thier drive trains are all good they can cleanly play defense. Now a quick break down from what I have seen.

FRC2001 - Human Player Loaded. Good solid shooter.
FRC2002 - Ground Loaded. Good solid shooter.
FRC2003 - Ground Loaded. - Good solid shooter.

2 - 2 great shooting robots and a great defensive bot. Once again take FRC2001, FRC2002 and FRC2004 (Yeah they play offense but they are still a great defensive team in my book no matter what). Now since only 2 robots can play defense you have FRC2004 (the defensive bot in this case) play defense on your opponents best defensive bot (making it so that 1 robot is still free to shoot).

FRC2001 - Human Player Loaded. Good solid shooter.
FRC2002 - Ground Loaded. Good solid shooter.
FRC2004 - Great Defensive Robot.

Now I only listed what these teams are good at. Some teams may be able to play defense and offense really well, but in my opinion one of those 2 setups are what you are going to see win all the divisions in Atlanta, because as much as defense is great, I don't see it winning by itself like it could in previous years.

Re: Ideal Alliance Structure
 

Though I understand how this thread is the "Ideal" alliance structure, I wonder how people are taking into account the new picking system in their planning, going 1-8 then 8-1.

It seems that seed #1 really could get another good shooter on its side, but after teams 7-8 have picked TWICE (so 23 robots gone) do you really think another uber bot will be available?

So, to partcialy re-phrase the question:

What is your ideal but feasable alliance structure?

Re: Ideal Alliance Structure
 

Gee, that sounds an aweful lot like the winning alliance at NJ (25, 103 and 1279 corresponding directly as listed) ;)

Re: Ideal Alliance Structure
 

I agree that if you are selecting as the #1 alliance you will likely end up with two uber-shooters and the best defense bot that is left over, but you might get beat by the 6,7,or 8 alliance who chose three offense bots.

I like this year's serpentine selection system!

Re: Ideal Alliance Structure
 

Look no further than the oft-mentioned NJ regional where 15th-seeded Cold Fusion was still in the pool when the #1 alliance got to choose their third. Still don't understand how that happened...

Re: Ideal Alliance Structure
 

Who said the #1 alliance was the best shooter? Who said they were the best anything. The top 8 could unfold like this:

#1 - FRC 2001 (Okay defensive bot. Okay at collecting and dumping balls.) (7-0)
#2 - FRC 2002 (Great shooter. HP load only) (7-0)
#3 - FRC 2003 (Good shooter. Ground load only) (6-1)
#4 - FRC 2004 (Good Collector. Great dumper. Okay defense) (6-1)
#5 - FRC 2005 (Good shooter. Collect and HP load) (6-1)
#6 - FRC 2006 (Great Shooter. Collect and HP load) (6-1)
#7 - FRC 2007 (Good Collector. Great shooter. Okay dumper) (6-1)
#8 - FRC 2008 (Great Defensive bot. Okay shooter. HP load only) (6-1)

Then if you look down on the list you find

#9 - FRC 2009 (Amazing shooter. Collect and HP load)*** In all reality this could really be the best robot but got stuck in 1 match were 1 or more alliance partners didn't come out . Should be the number 1 seed because of higher QP points but lost the match were their alliance partner didn't come out.***
#12 - FRC 2010 (Great Shooter. Collect and HP load)
#13 - FRC 2011 (Great shooter. HP load only)
#20 - FRC 2012 (Good shooter. Collect and HP load)
#21 - FRC 2013 (Great shooter. HP load only)
#24 - FRC 2014 (Great Defensive bot. Okay shooter. HP load only)
#26 - FRC 2015 (Great Shooter. Collect and HP load)
#27 - FRC 2016 (Good shooter. Collect and HP load)
#31 - FRC 2017 (Great shooter. HP load only)
#33 - FRC 2018 (Good shooter. Collect and HP load)
#34 - FRC 2019 (Great Shooter. Collect and HP load)*** In all reality this could really be the best robot but got stuck in 3 matches were 1 or more alliance partners didn't come out***
#37 - FRC 2020 (Great shooter. HP load only)
#41 - FRC 2021 (Great Defensive bot. Okay shooter. HP load only) *** In all reality this could really be the best robot but got stuck in 4 matches were 1 or more alliance partners didn't come out***
#42 - FRC 2022 (Good shooter. Collect and HP load)
#44 - FRC 2023 (Great shooter. HP load only)
#50 - FRC 2024 (Good shooter. Collect and HP load)
#61 - FRC 2025 (Great Defensive bot. Okay shooter. HP load only) *** In all reality this could really be the best robot but got stuck in 5 matches were 1 or more alliance partners didn't come out***
#68 - FRC 2026 (Great shooter. HP load only) *** In all reality this could really be the best robot but got stuck in 6 matches were 1 or more alliance partners didn't come out***

Now this is only 26 teams, that are either good at offense or defense. Now i'm pretty sure a division at the Championship will have atleast 26 robots. So i'm not seeing any alliance having a weak alliance unless they were 'carried' into seeding.

So basically its not about the draft, it is still all about scouting.

Re: Ideal Alliance Structure
 

I heartily agree. Scouting is very important. And the best robots do not always end up very high in the standings. Here is an example: At UTC #1 (126) picked #3 (20), #2 picked someone in the top 7 and the new #3 picked someone in the top 7. The #4 team tried to pick the new 6 and new 5 teams, who declined. Team 177 apparently did some good scouting. They were now #5 after finishing #8 and they picked the #22 robot (176, a good 3 and 1 point scorer with large ball collecting capacity) and then the #34! robot (1124, who was just beginning to show 3 point ability Saturday morning). The #1 seed used their last pick on the #15 seed (571, a robot with potential to score a lot of 3s, that had not demonstrated any scoring during the qualification rounds). 177's alliance went on to win their quarter final and then faced the seemingly unbeatable alliance put together by 126 and 177's alliance went on to win the regional, despite going with low seeded teams.

Good scouting and having three robots that can score and get on the ramp (including one that can score in the corner) is the way to go. Any decent robot can play defense in this game.

Re: Ideal Alliance Structure
 

We should use chess notation when writing about alliance picks:

2101: 2343 2712??
2703: 2113! 2976!!
2404: 2212? 3012??

&c.

Re: Ideal Alliance Structure
 

At Championship there will be, without a doubt, 24 good offensive bots per division, so I highly doubt that any alliance wouldn't have the oppurtunity to chose 3 quality offensive robots (provided that the captain is an offensive robot) if they so chose.
At regionals it varies, but I know of several occasions where the #1 alliance has had 3 quality offensive bots.

Re: Ideal Alliance Structure
 

At SoCal, the winning alliance was one strong shooter bot(968) and two defensive bots(1138 and 4). We played very well together and covered 968 so they could get the most balls into the center goal. In the finals, this was a really good alliance and our strategy was best suited for playing 599, 330, and 995. Team 4 would cover 330 and 1138 would cover the ramp to make sure 599 could not get on the ramp. It worked very well, the first match being a tie, and the next two matches being a win for 968, 1138, and 4.

Re: Ideal Alliance Structure
 

In Waterloo we had the great opportunity to be in a very strong and ideal alliance with 188 and 771. Even though we did not win in the finals we proved throughout the elimination rounds that we truly worked great together.

We had a deceptively simple autonomous strategy where we choose 771 to play offence and score usually 6-8 balls in the lower corner goal. While us, 610, played defense on the opponent shooting robots. We did have the option to run a shooting autonomous where we would have been able to score more points than 771, but if any defense was played against us we would not be consistent. This allowed us to play defense against the shooting autonomous modes, and proved to be very successfully. We won all autonomous modes up until the finals this way, and won one out of the two autonomous modes in the finals.

During the game these three robots worked amazingly well together on both defense and offense. 188 would always be the backbot, due to problems with tipping if playing defense and that they could only floor load. While 610 and 771 played tough defense, 771 focused solely on defense during the matches shutting down our opponents very successfully, 771 had a strong drive system and was very maneuverable. While 610 was able to play strong defense with our 2-speed gearbox, but while defending we would also load up with balls. 771 and 610 teamed up to play very strong defense and were able to shut down some strong alliances of shooters to only 18 and 25 points a lot of the time. In the finals we were able to bother two of the triplets and restrict them to more reasonable scores of 40-60's.

On offense 188 and 610 would both park themselves in front of the goal and when not bothered were able to fire off 10+ balls in a mater of seconds. But with all the strong defense being played 188 got bullied a lot which often allowed 610 to be open to unload into the goal. Because of the two strong scoring threats of 610 and 188 the defense bots usually had to alternate between us, usually leaving one of us open for long enough to score a few balls. During our offensive period 771 would come back and protect us from one of the defensive bots, and during the free period they would go back and play defense. At the end of most matches both 610 and 771 would climb the ramp at the end.

I really feel that we had a close to ideal alliance structure, with two strong shooters, one very reliable autonomous mode, two strong defensive bots, and two ramp climbing robots. The only thing that stopped us from winning the Waterloo Regional was the unmatched firepower of two triplets 1114 and 1503.

Re: Ideal Alliance Structure
 

I would have to say that 2 very good shooters with decent drive trains along with one lower goal dumper, or a very strong defenceive 3rd partner would be the best way to go for the finals.