What won in 2006?
 

We are doing training sessions for new members, and in that, we want to teach them about strategy. The way we're doing that, is by going through a few years of games, having them brainstorm strategies, present them, 'decide' on them, and then play a practice game with people as robots, then, finally, reveal what won that year.

I want to do 2006, because it is such a strategy intensive year, but, considering I wasn't around (around FIRST, that is), I need some help. Would someone around here be so kind as to enlighten me on that front? Thanks in advance.

Re: What won in 2006?
 

Archived docs and competition results are available on FIRST website By clicking on "game and season info"

You can also find it on http://www.thebluealliance.com/ along with match videos.

Re: What won in 2006?
 

While I wasn't there as well, I do know a good enough amount about the game played that year, and have re-watched enough matches, to know what won.

If you don't know exactly what the game was, points in Aim High were scored by either pushing balls into either of the two side goals on the ground, or by shooting balls into the center goal in the air. That year, the game was split into offensive and defensive rounds, with alliances alternating between who was on offense and defense. In an offensive period, teams were free to make shots. In defensive period, teams were required to keep one of their alliance partners in their side of the field, while the other two robots attempted to stop the offensive alliance from scoring.

Autonomous was a big part of that year. Strong teams/alliances could score 30+ points in that period, creating a huge advantage for the rest of the game. That period had it's own strategy, since robots were lined up on each side of the field, some to go up to their own goal and score, and some to interfere with their opponents. Having a good camera and shooter in this round was good, but you also had to be able to counter defense. I don't know how a lot of teams did that, but I know some teams had pauses in their autonomous period to allow would-be defenders to drive right past them, then continue to the goal and unload. Because the center goal could be located with the camera, having a good camera and programmer was a huge asset for that period, and used to great effect by some of the stronger teams!

Teams that won that year excelled at making shots at that center goal. That involved being able to sink those shots quickly, consistently, and in large amounts. Because offensive rounds only lasted 30s, teams had to be able to make the most of it, requiring a large storage for balls, and a quick, consistent shooting mechanism to score points. That also involved be able to acquire balls quickly, which many teams did with rollers (like you may have seen in 2009).

Teams had to have the ability to play offense AND defense, though. Since there were periods where you couldn't score, you didn't want to just be sitting on your hands for 30s. Some teams used this period to refill their supply of balls, while others would drive in front of their opponents, in an attempt to stop them from scoring. Robots with extreme pushing power made a huge impact in the game.

I'm afraid I don't know enough about the "end-game" to be able to tell you what strategy won for that round. I do know that the "end game" consisted of driving up onto a fairly steep ramp to score bonus points. Since the last period of play was open for anyone to score, it was a team's preference of if they wanted to climb the ramp, or shoot and score more balls. If you watch some of the matches, you may be able to see if it was a necessary part of the game at the higher level, but I do know most alliances had at least one team on the ramp at the end of the game.

Oh, and one more thing: Don't fall over.

I hope this is what you were looking for, and that it helps. If not, feel free to ask.
-Leeland

Re: What won in 2006?
 

2006 was not one of my favorite games. The winner of the first part of the round ended up with a huge advantage. Often this advantage would make scoring near to impossible if the strategy played out. That is in the defensive mode, if you picked up a lot of scoring balls, the team on offense had nothing to score. When your turn came, you were holding a lot of scoring objects and were able to win the day.
We had a combination of storage (at least 12 balls), an exceptional aiming system, could score ten balls in less than ten seconds, and had a method of locking the robot in place so that it couldn't be bumped while shooting. If an alliance could not win auto then it started the match in offensive mode usually without any balls. (the alliance would have scored most of what it had at the start of the match.) With that, robots then had to spend much of their offensive round picking up balls so they could shoot and score. While on defense, the alliance could be picking up balls and could start their offensive round with a full load. The last period was a free for all and scoring occurred in a manner more normal to other games. Part of the scoring strategy then had to be for the robot to hold as many of the ten balls as were allowed for the start of the match.

Re: What won in 2006?
 

2006 was great because there were multiple ways to win the game. If you were great at one aspect of the game, you were an asset.

The key was to stay within your team's resources and to build a robot that excelled at some part of the game. If I had to pick just one to be great at, it would be the autonomous mode.

Re: What won in 2006?
 

A summary of what won: Definitely high storage capacity and a quick fire mechanism. A key part was having the part where the ball exited the robot as close to the top as possible. Otherwise you were easily blocked. A strong drivetrain would allow you to push teams that were trying to line up for a shot which gave defense an average impact that year. I believe the ramp used during end-game was the steepest I've seen in FIRST in my time, but that might have been due to our robot tipping 95% of the matches trying to get up. Definitely sturdy was important for teams planning on climbing. One design I saw a few times that seemed to do relatively well was having a helical ball storage with a shaft in the middle that would spin and push the balls up the ramp. At the top was a pitching machine type of device. Using the sensor was definitely key to this game. If you couldn't use it to aim, you probably wasted a few balls getting lined up. This became a bigger deal with the aforementioned defense trying to push you around while you lined up.

Jason

Re: What won in 2006?
 

My favorite robot from that year was team 703. It was such a neat machine. Very clean, relatively simple.

Re: What won in 2006?
 

And sometimes airborne. :yikes: Opponents had to watch their controls in autonomous, they hit the wall so hard.

Re: What won in 2006?
 

I think the optimum alliance was comprised of an amazing Defensive robot, a human loaded ramp camping robot, and a floor loading perimeter shooter. I may be biased though as that was the IRI winning alliance.

Re: What won in 2006?
 

And the Champs winning alliance..

Re: What won in 2006?
 

One thing I liked about 2006 was that fairly simple, well driven robots could compete very well. At Buckeye that year the Martians (494) and the Tiger Techs (963) had the two best performing robots through qualifying. The Martians had an amazing shooter with automatic goal tracking, able to get all or almost all the balls in to the high goal in autonomous even while being pushed and able to shoot from almost anywhere on their half of the field, with a good ball gathering system and funky spiral system to lift balls to the shooter. The Tiger Techs could only score in the low goal, had a good low scoring autonomous that just ran straight along the wall and dumped balls, a good good ball gatherer with a huge basket and a two speed transmission. The Tiger Techs also had a really good driver. They qualified first in spite of not being able to score high and having a couple of rounds in which they played down an ally. The Tiger Techs robot is something we could have built in two or three weeks (if we had been smart enough to conceive of the strategy) while the Martians robot was probably beyond our capabilities at the time.

Re: What won in 2006?
 

Define these three archeotypes :P

Re: What won in 2006?
 

Well defensive robot is obviously one that's great at disrupting opposing shooters to miss as many as possible.

Human loaded robot is necessary to redeem all the points the other team scores, as each ball is a 3 point difference you need to make up.

Ramp camping is more of a location based attribute that brings variety to the shooting arsenal, making your alliance harder to defend.
1 defensive robot will have a hard time covering someone on the ramp shooting and a perimeter robot.

Floor loading is important to score points essentially for "free" as you have paid no toll for them, these give you a +3 point advantage over the other guys.

Perimeter shooting as stated above just makes your alliance harder to defend.

Re: What won in 2006?
 

Watch the Cheesy Poofs during the Aim High Silicon Valley Regional, and notice that they appear to want to lose the autonomous part of the match. That was a wise & clever strategy.

Re: What won in 2006?
 

I recall a strategy that hasn't been mentioned yet. Some robots would go up onto the ramp and shoot from there. It was a simple robot that stored alot of balls and parked just in front of the goal. It made it next to impossible to miss once they were up there. I can't recall any team numbers that had this particular robot, but I just remember being surprised when I first saw them. Of all the hair-brained schemes I had, that one never passed my mind.

Jason