Re: 2011 Galileo Division
 

the same thing that happened in 2009 ;)

1218 remains a force to be reckoned with, especially when paired with 469

Re: 2011 Galileo Division
 

A lot of teams look really good when they're paired with 469. ;)

To be fair, 1218 has already handed both 1114 and 111 losses. Quite a start for you guys.

Re: 2011 Galileo Division
 

I wish i was there so badly, i was on the drive team in 2009 when we went to Einstein but unfortunately i graduated last year and have turned it over to my little brother. He is not doing too bad of a job though i have to say. We have a pretty good history when paired with 469 and also when we go against 1114. In the matches we have played against them as far back as i can remember we are 3-1.

Re: 2011 Galileo Division
 

We were with 1114 in Q 71. It wasn't their fault AT ALL. We (1098) were really hoping to be great alliance partners for them. Instead, our main breaker failed and we were dead after the first 2 seconds. (It had been hit by a bot in a previous match, but we didn't realize it was hurt.) We feel terrible!! We did get it fixed, and our next match was actually the new high score on Galileo. That doesn't help 1114, though. You can imagine how the kids are beating themselves up about that loss. Our sincere apologies to both of our alliance partners. Good luck for the rest of the competition. We are rooting for you!

The opposing alliance was also fantastic! Congrats to you!

Re: 2011 Galileo Division
 

Going into Q71, we went in that match knowing our overall alliances were evenly matched in stats other than OPR (thank you scouts!). Tubes hung, autos completed, and top 2 minibots were both about dead-even. Everyone has that one bad match every now and then though. It does show that any number of things can happen at the champs. While we did our part with 1 logo and a tiny defensive nudge at the end, 469/1218 put on a good show.

There's a good assortment of teams on Galileo. Some teams are outstanding at placing tubes (3 teams have placed 45+ tubes in 8-9 matches), some have good auto-modes (1 team has put up 10 ubertubes in 8 matches), and some teams have good, consistent minibots (NONE have a perfect record ... though I admit there is a chance we missed one due to fatigue). Yet surprisingly, those three game objectives are somewhat mutually exclusive. According to our scouts' data, there are only 2 teams that are outstanding at all three objectives, whereas there are many teams that are GREAT at one and good at another.

Reliability in auton and minibot hasn't been quite where we'd expect it. Only 7 teams have a >78% autonomous reliability and only 8 teams have a >78% minibot reliability. Those two stats are mutually exclusive for the most part.

JVN is wise indeed.

Re: 2011 Galileo Division
 

Jesse, one question: if I understand you correctly, a team with 7/9 (77.7%) for these two measures is not counted, correct?

If this is not correct and 7/9 is counted, how much does it change when dropping to 75% (6/8) as the cutoff? I ask because about half the teams have yet to complete their 9th match.

Re: 2011 Galileo Division
 

Didn't realize about the 8/9 match thing at the time -- I simply counted the # of teams who have hung 7+ tubes, and assumed an average of 9 matches played. Using a correction from 1094's Galileo scouting paper, it appears that about half have played 8, half have played 9; I also took the opportunity to correct 2 teams' auto modes, and now get 8 teams with 7+ ubertubes. Yet I also have circled teams who've hung 1 in the last 5 straight auto modes and that # is 7, so I figure I'm not too far off. Even if it's 10-15, it seems low for what we should see at the championships -- especially for an autonomous mode that's nearly identical (if not easier) than what we saw 4 years ago.

Re: 2011 Galileo Division
 

Hmm... looking at the data from 1094, I see the following:
254 and 1114 averaging for than one ubertube (2 teams).
548, 2137, averaging one ubertube (2 teams).
111, 610, 357, 40, 1885, 2337, 967, 1218, and 230 missing once (9 teams - four of whom have only played eight matches).

The other assumption is that we are only interested at this point in top row ubertubes.

I am not present at the competition, so all I have to go on are other's reports.

Re: 2011 Galileo Division
 

2011 is absolutely easier than 2007 in terms of scoring in autonomous. And this is coming from someone who scored in autonomous in 2007 and not in 2011.

2007's goal would be re-oriented randomly, with three axes of freedom, before each match and had only one viable sensing option, which was a someone difficult to use camera tracking. Not to mention the scoring rack itself would shake when contacted by a robot. Dead reckoning autonomous codes would sometimes work, but were very low%. 2011 has a stationary target, no opponent interference (there were teams that would bumrush the other side of the field in auto in 07), and multiple sensing options.

Re: 2011 Galileo Division
 

I agree with you Sean, though I have seen some opponent interference. I am actually surprised it isn't used more often, particularly against teams that can score twice in autonomous.

Re: 2011 Galileo Division
 

Scenario:
1771 - 1st
111 - 9th
1114- 10th

I haven't watched enough of 1771 to get a feel for how 1114 feels about them. 1114's goal is clearly to win it all, and if they feel they can build a better alliance from the 7th or 8th spot, they could decline. Suppose that 111 is then picked next (or other picks before them decline). If I'm Raul, maybe I say "no" just because I feel that 1114 might be left in the 9th or 10th spot when all is said and done, and entirely out of the eliminations.

Could be really really interesting.

Though I doubt 1114 says no knowing this risk.

Re: 2011 Galileo Division
 

Galileo Alliances

1. 1771, 1114, 294
2. 254, 111, 973
3. 399, 40, 175
4. 469, 610, 188
5. 694, 195, 341
6. 2337, 548, 70
7. 2137, 967, 935
8. 1706, 1056, 1218

Re: 2011 Galileo Division
 

I wanted to get this out there before I went to sleep for the next 20 ours.
http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles...pdate%2016.pdf
It seemed like the refs on galileo missed this update entirely when they made their ruling on the first match of the finals. Overall the referring seemed sub par on galileo and it might just be me being upset about some of the questionable calls against us in the eliminations but this rule seems to clearly state the opposite of the ruling in the first match of the finals.

Re: 2011 Galileo Division
 

The thing is, 469 had a tube while they were pushing 254 into their zone. That leaves at least three possible motives:

1) Trying to get the tube in to score.
2) Playing defense on 254.
3) Attempting the 'one move win.'

All three are pretty plausible. I don't think one can so quickly say that the refs did a bad job on this call. The "G61 does not apply" update and the updates to the update are poorly conceived, because the refs have to guess the motives of the drivers in addition to observing what happens on the field. The rules put the refs in a pretty tough spot on this one. I personally wouldn't fault the refs for calling this one in either team's favor.

Re: 2011 Galileo Division
 

So does that mean if my bot is holding a tube I can pull off the one move win and have a god strategy in eliminations? Seems like the entire purpose of the rule is to prevent any way of making a one move win. The rule states that an attempt to do this will be seen as "egregious behavior" instantly which means that intent should not matter.