[KrazyCarl92]

It's not really a paradox, in my view. It's just about tradeoffs between different strategies and the designs that are required/effective for executing them.

It is a very effective alliance strategy to first prioritize about depositing all of the 51 discs from the alliance station into the high 3 point goal. If you do this, it is very rare that an opposing alliance will outscore you in teleop. Add a floor loader to the alliance and they can pick up misses, opponents' misses, and loose discs to swing the teleop score in your favor.

Then the extra auto points (presumably some extra auto disks coming from that floor loader) and extra climb points beyond 10 are simply to raise the alliance's point ceiling.

It just so happens that the simplest possible robot design that can be a part of an alliance that can execute this strategy is a cycler. So it is not surprising that there are a relatively high number of effective ones in relation to other styles of robots. Since the population size of effective cyclers is larger than any of the other types of effective robot designs, it makes sense that in general the best cyclers will have better accuracy than the best of the other robots, so they are very good at taking discs from the feeder station and getting them into the high goal without risking giving those disk points to the opponents. Remembering that we stated that this was the priority for the alliance strategy, we can begin to see why cyclers emerge as an attractive engineering solution to this year's game.