View Single Post
  #19   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-09-2016, 12:01
Chris is me's Avatar
Chris is me Chris is me is online now
no bag, vex only, final destination
AKA: Pinecone
FRC #0228 (GUS Robotics); FRC #2170 (Titanium Tomahawks)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 7,584
Chris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Chris is me
Re: Dream Alliance of Stronghold

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard View Post
A stronghold dream alliance would have to:
Have three robots with high throughput in the high goal, preferably difficult to defend and shooting from different locations.
Have three climbs that can climb simultaneously.
Have as many balls in autonomous as possible without requiring the same field space.

971, 254, 1678, and 195 were the most proven 2 ball autonomous modes, but 1678, 971 and 195 all usually use the low bar. In addition, 195 and 254 have low release points, and defense can impact their scoring more than, for example, 971 and 1678. Additionally, how much these team's climbs would interfere with one another is a question. As a result, I might substitute 148 in for one of the three teams instead.

Something like 971-254-148 or 971-1678-148. But really you could argue for any combination of these teams.
Most two ball auto teams "usually" run it under the low bar, that's just the nature of the in season rules on two ball autos and consistency.

If you sub out a 2 ball auto for a third hang, you're getting the same result in terms of points on the board. So the best possible alliance needs more than 1 2 ball auto I think; a third hang only if possible.

I think you have to include 195, because their scoring volume at their peak and the consistency of their two ball are IMO the best in the world. They can have the low bar.

971 I believe has 2 ball options from other than the low bar, so they can be robot 2. They do plenty of secret passage sniping and crossing defenses to score. Perhaps 254 is a better choice here with more 2 ball options, but I think 971 at their peak could potentially outdo them.

From there you just want a robot with absolute consistency and high goal scoring. I think 2056 can manage that ever so slightly better than 148 can, but it's close enough that I'd need to look at real data to tell the difference.

It's more than possible that 971 and 195 would have such good ball control and quickness in scoring, that their scoring would be ball-limited and not robot-limited, in which case a third compatible hang is more important than absolute ball scoring ability, so that brings you back to 148 as the best team that does that style of hang. 330 is also an option, but their 1 ball auto isn't as consistent.
__________________
Mentor / Drive Coach: 228 (2016-?)
...2016 Waterbury SFs (with 3314, 3719), RIDE #2 Seed / Winners (with 1058, 6153), Carver QFs (with 503, 359, 4607)
Mentor / Consultant Person: 2170 (2017-?)
---
College Mentor: 2791 (2010-2015)
...2015 TVR Motorola Quality, FLR GM Industrial Design
...2014 FLR Motorola Quality / SFs (with 341, 4930)
...2013 BAE Motorola Quality, WPI Regional #1 Seed / Delphi Excellence in Engineering / Finalists (with 20, 3182)
...2012 BAE Imagery / Finalists (with 1519, 885), CT Xerox Creativity / SFs (with 2168, 118)
Student: 1714 (2009) - 2009 Minnesota 10,000 Lakes Regional Winners (with 2826, 2470)
2791 Build Season Photo Gallery - Look here for mechanism photos My Robotics Blog (Updated April 11 2014)
Reply With Quote