|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Teams breaking the game
Dear Firsters, I'm wondering what you guys think are the best examples of teams that have broken the competitions over the years. This means teams that have figured out the game so well that they are almost impossible to beat, like what happened in 2002 with team 71.
|
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Teams breaking the game
469 in 2010 is a pretty solid example. It took some lucky breaks for their opponents on Einstein to beat them.
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Teams breaking the game
469 in 2010 fulfills this perfectly even though they lost on Einstein. They had a chokehold strategy that was almost impossible to outscore.
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Teams breaking the game
Any details/videos/pictures of 469's robot?
Nobody ever gives specifics in these discussions... ![]() |
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Teams breaking the game
Quote:
This was after wedging themselves into the tunnel and locking to the tower--and kicking a couple of balls into the goals themselves to start the cycle. If they had a sweeper and a striker on their alliance, they were just about unbeatable. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Teams breaking the game
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TgjyRqrobc
Here's a video of 469 And here's 71 in 2002, they're the robot that immediately contacts the goals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eKvva_ZCHw |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Teams breaking the game
Quote:
|
|
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Teams breaking the game
Quote:
In fewer words, robots scored points by being across the line closest to their driver station. Goals scored points for an alliance by being in the middle-ish zone on the opposite side of the field. Balls in goals scored for an alliance if the goal was on the opposite half of the field. In short, if you could control all the goals, you could almost completely deny your opponent any scoring opportunities. The only scoring they'd have left is robots in home zones, which was weighted equal to a goal, so wasn't enough to win. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure 2002 was the last year you could completely deny scoring to your opponents and win. 2003 had an... interesting strategy where an alliance losing in the eliminations could completely descore their own points and deny the "winning" alliance points necessary to win the 2 of 3 matchup. Which was the last year we had to deal with that sort of game design fail. Last edited by Kevin Sevcik : 27-04-2013 at 22:43. |
|
#9
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Teams breaking the game
Really, the only team to really "Break" a game has been 71 in 2002. Everyone pretty much agrees that Hammond broke that game. With that said, I think the GDC has done an extremely good job since then of ensuring that games can't be "broken." Yes, 469 in 2010 came as close to what you might call "breaking the game" as possible without doing so, but I would argue that their strategy - however difficult to defeat - was not unbeatable, and as such can't be accurately called a game breaking strategy.
What made 469's robot so special in 2010 was that they weren't a one-trick pony. Even if they had no balls cycling, their robot was so well designed that they could still outplay probably a vast majority of teams conventionally. No, they weren't in the same conversation as teams like 67 or 1114 in terms of pure ability, but they could certainly hold their own until they got their cycles going. And obviously given what happened on Einstein in 2010, they certainly weren't unbeatable - so, given all of that I don't know that any robot besides Beatty's 2002 machine can be called "game-breaking." And I'm sure that the GDC will see to it that it stays that way. That said, I think that 469's strategy in 2010 was one of the most unique and powerful strategies I've ever seen employed in an FRC game, but certainly there have been more and will continue to be more. That's what makes FRC so amazing! |
|
#10
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Teams breaking the game
I'm hoping some old-timers show up to regale us with stories of some of the pre-2001 games. I swear I've heard a story of a game breaking robot in 1995 that could score an unbeatable number of points once they got their hands on a ball by cycling it round and round one of the poles of the field goal.
|
|
#11
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Teams breaking the game
Quote:
|
|
#12
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Teams breaking the game
Quote:
|
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Teams breaking the game
Quote:
Just an opinion though. It was a ground breaking robot that obviously has gone down in FRC history as it is still remembered more than a decade later. Last edited by NotaJoke : 28-04-2013 at 19:31. Reason: Thanks XZVRW :) |
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Teams breaking the game
Quote:
I am pretty sure that the first year for autonomous period was 2003. There was a point at the national championships that a few teams in 71s division found a way to beat them, they did not have a reverse once they lifted the goals and dropped the feet. if you could spin them, they couldn't turn back around, but from what I understand they fixed that problem and smashed the competition the rest of the way. I mean it did help that 173 was a total ball scoring beast that year as well. |
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Teams breaking the game
190 had a "breaking the game" strategy is 2008, where instead of driving around the track with the track balls, they would move to the side of one lane, pickup a ball, swing it around the center divider, then hurdle it again. (hurdle was the game term for a track ball passing over the overpass for those of you who are not familiar.). Their strategy was deemed partially illegal because track balls were required to touch the ground after a hurdle AND not be possessed by the robot. So they had to drop the ball, then pick it up again, which proved rather difficult.
Long story short, the strategy didn't really work because of some subtle rule interpretations and changes, but it was one of the more extravagant attempts to break the game. For those of you who haven't seen it, it's also one of the more well designed robots I've seen from a mechanical standpoint. (I'll look for pictures). |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|