Quote:
Originally Posted by apalrd
Breakaway was fun to play at the highest level.
That said, if you could score 3 balls in autonomous and hang, you would almost guarantee a win in a rather high percentage of all matches. Without doing anything at all except hanging for the entire teleop period.
That is because the average OPR was just above 1, meaning the average match score was around 3.
|
Mean score based on OPR is probably not the best way to evaluate that. While the mean score may be 3, I'd be willing to bet the median score was underneath 3. If you score higher than the median, you're winning more than half of the matches on average.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Matteson
It's not that hard to come up with the game breaking strategies. You just need some experience at approaching the game from the right perspective.
In 2006 you could win by not playing the game. If you kept the score low all that matttered was the ramp points, and pinning on the ramp was legal. Playing using these factors allowed a robot purely playing defense to control the game over scorers. Most teams didn't play this way or pick up on it but this was a way to break the game.
In 2007 the secret was to again not play the game. Don't go for long multiplier chains but instead break up the rack so the other team couldn't get the multipliers. Before they realize they're wasting time trying to get long chains they can't actually get the time ran out while you got 50 points for lifting 2 robots.
|
Those are much less "game breaking" than other game breaking strategies, and aren't even close to choke hold strategies. Not that either of those strategies couldn't succeed, but they were far from guaranteed wins (or even necessarily the most successful strategy).
If you could successfully force your opponent onto your ramp in 2006 (or they went there voluntarily), that strategy was legitimate. But if they avoided your ramp, they could easily get back to their own to counteract your ramp points. Not to mention if they outscore you in autonomous you're left with a relatively large hole to climb out of (equivalent to 2 robots on the ramp or 40% of 3 robots on the ramp).
In 2007, nothing about preventing/breaking up opponents rows stopped them from also getting their ramp points. And if the ramp points were equal, it came down to who had more on the rack. If both alliances placed 6 tubes, and your alliance placed them perfectly across the rack (to minimize potential rows) while the other alliance build two rows of 3 above one another, they win the rack by a 28-16 margin. It was a rare situation when teams denied themselves the opportunity for ramp points willingly (111 being the obvious example of a team that usually kept scoring rather than going for the end game points). And most alliances were willing to battle intensely for the key positions on the rack, and often would set defenders to stop teams from cutting off their rows.