State Power Alliances 2015

[Kevin Leonard]

In the general them of this thread from 2014, but not limited to robots that attended championships, what would be the power alliance from your state/province/country in 2015? It may not be the best three robots in a state, but instead the three robots that compliment each other best, can put up the highest scores, or win the majority of finals matches.

In New York, I'd have to say 340-5254-1507 would be our best possible alliance.
340 makes 2 stacks from the feeder station, and can cap any stacks of 5 made by either 5254 or 1507 that are without containers for whatever reason, as well as grab 2 containers from the step faster than nearly any other robot in the state
5254 makes 3 stacks from the feeder station,
1507 hits their 3-tote auto, and makes a few stacks from the landfill. They can also grab a container off the step during teleop if necessary.

What's your state's power alliance?

EDIT:
There might be slightly different alliances for qualifying rounds vs. Eliminations rounds as well. For example, I might switch 340 for 263 during qualifying rounds, since can grabber speed is less necessary, and 1507 might be able to grab the additional necessary cans for the match, or 1507 for 329 if the tote stack auto was less important (or didn't work with 5254's ramp) than a really fast can grab in eliminations. Feel free to post both the eliminations version and the qualifications version of your state's alliance.

[halowaffle47]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

What's your state's power alliance?

For Michigan it could be 33, 107, 1918.

33 puts up 2-3 six stacks with RC, one of them will have litter, from the landfill

107 puts up 2-3 six stacks with RC and litter, from the chute door(Yes, chute door).

1918 has RC burglers, and can put up 2 six stacks with RC and litter, from the human player station.

Only thing I would change, cheesecake RC burglers on to 33 if the dont have them already.

[MikLast]

for the PNW (its a state, don't argue.):
1983
2930
955

OR just 1983 and 1318.

[The other Gabe]

Originally Posted by MikLast

for the PNW (its a state, don't argue.):
1983
2930
955

OR just 1983 and 1318.

why have 3 feeder station robots when you could have 1318 or 2471? I'd pick Mean Machine over IRS just because they can cap if needed, and I think their canburglar's a bit faster
also 4488 is a bit better than 955, and could get the 4th can (i'd keep skunks around to manage the downed containers)

the thing about the PNW is that we didnt have an over powered landfill bot (a 1114, 1717, 118 type robot), and the robot you pick there determines a lot of your other strategy. I would prefer a PNW alliance completely different from yours, although both could be quite strong

Left feeder: 4488. best robot in the PNW, fast canburglar too. their need for upright containers is their only real flaw
Landfill: 4911. by Champs, they had a 2 can burglar that was faster than 2471's, and can get 2 uncapped stacks of 6 from the landfill and still have some capping time. their noodle thrower is also quite talented
Right Feeder: 948. yes, 955 can pump out more stacks. but this alliance doesnt need that. with 3 cans used by 4488 and 1 for 4911, to optimize point values, having the 3 point auto makes more sense- 92 points for two noodled stacks of 5 and an auto stack, compared to 84 points for 2 stacks of 6.

with all 3 cans that they go for burgled, this alliance could score 272 points before noodles

[Dunngeon]

Originally Posted by The other Gabe

Left feeder: 4488. best robot in the PNW, fast canburglar too. their need for upright containers is their only real flaw
Landfill: 4911. by Champs, they had a 2 can burglar that was faster than 2471's, and can get 2 uncapped stacks of 6 from the landfill and still have some capping time. their noodle thrower is also quite talented
Right Feeder: 948. yes, 955 can pump out more stacks. but this alliance doesnt need that. with 3 cans used by 4488 and 1 for 4911, to optimize point values, having the 3 point auto makes more sense- 92 points for two noodled stacks of 5 and an auto stack, compared to 84 points for 2 stacks of 6.

with all 3 cans that they go for burgled, this alliance could score 272 points before noodles

I agree with your first pick, although 4488 performs much better on the right feeder for obvious reasons.

I don't agree with your landfill pick for 2 reasons, the first is that 4911 doesn't produce 2 capped stacks consistently, and second is that 2471 is at least 200ms faster into the cans than 4911 was. 4911 wasn't even close to Mean Machine in terms of speed. Also, 4911 was a single can grabber, whereas 2471 was a 2 can grabber.

948 will provide the auto, but little else the alliance needs. This third bot would preferably be able to play with tipped over cans, and create 2 of their own capped stacks. 948 doesn't do tipped over bins and rarely (ever?) did 2 full stacks. 1983 would be my pick here. They consistently do 2 stacks, capped and noodled, provide decently quick can grabbing ability, and are extremely reliable.

Left: 1983
Mid: 2471
Right: 4488

[zinthorne]

Originally Posted by Dunngeon

I agree with your first pick, although 4488 performs much better on the right feeder for obvious reasons.

I don't agree with your landfill pick for 2 reasons, the first is that 4911 doesn't produce 2 capped stacks consistently, and second is that 2471 is at least 200ms faster into the cans than 4911 was. 4911 wasn't even close to Mean Machine in terms of speed. Also, 4911 was a single can grabber, whereas 2471 was a 2 can grabber.

948 will provide the auto, but little else the alliance needs. This third bot would preferably be able to play with tipped over cans, and create 2 of their own capped stacks. 948 doesn't do tipped over bins and rarely (ever?) did 2 full stacks. 1983 would be my pick here. They consistently do 2 stacks, capped and noodled, provide decently quick can grabbing ability, and are extremely reliable.


Left: 1983
Mid: 2471
Right: 4488

Just a note 4911 had a fairly fast 2 rc grabber at champs that nearly got their alliance into finals. They were a 3rd pick due to some unlucky qualification match pairings. They only got to play one elimination match, but beat the other robot to the cans and got both.

My ideal alliance would be 4488, 3663, and 2471. I picked this alliance to maximize scoring, and consistency. 3663 and 4488 tied in PNW for the farthest playing team in worlds this year as division finalists. Both are very consistent, and both have can grabbers. 2471 has a 2 can grabber that is also fast. 4488 would put up three stacks of 6 capped and noodled. (They could start by grabbing a rc in the middle or by the right feeder station depending on the alliance being played...) 3663 would take the left station and one rc from in front of it, creating two stacks one capped and noodled and one not. 2471 would place on more can for 4488 to use and then make one stack of their own, cap it, then cap 3663 second stack. The remaining rc (if in possession) would be put on the highest stack remaining. Once 3663 is done with the second stack they can go and do a 4-6 high stack from the landfill.

[The other Gabe]

Originally Posted by zinthorne

Just a note 4911 had a fairly fast 2 rc grabber at champs that nearly got their alliance into finals. They were a 3rd pick due to some unlucky qualification match pairings. They only got to play one elimination match, but beat the other robot to the cans and got both.

My ideal alliance would be 4488, 3663, and 2471. I picked this alliance to maximize scoring, and consistency. 3663 and 4488 tied in PNW for the farthest playing team in worlds this year as division finalists. Both are very consistent, and both have can grabbers. 2471 has a 2 can grabber that is also fast. 4488 would put up three stacks of 6 capped and noodled. (They could start by grabbing a rc in the middle or by the right feeder station depending on the alliance being played...) 3663 would take the left station and one rc from in front of it, creating two stacks one capped and noodled and one not. 2471 would place on more can for 4488 to use and then make one stack of their own, cap it, then cap 3663 second stack. The remaining rc (if in possession) would be put on the highest stack remaining. Once 3663 is done with the second stack they can go and do a 4-6 high stack from the landfill.

a few problems with this, at least for me. the first is that your entire alliance has issues with downed containers (which was the main reason I chose 4911 over 2471; I've seen them handle the cans better overall than Mean Machine). While they had a great robot, the main reason CPR advanced so far into playoffs was their brilliant scouting, allowing them to create a super solid alliance in one of the strongest divisions; keep in mind that 492 technically placed higher, qualifying for Einstein (even if they never played a match on there), and that was because they were on the best team in their division. Also CPR would have neither the time nor the ability to go from the Landfill (I have gone to every event they have, and they have never done landfill). for your alliance, I feel like the Skunks would make more sense (assuming you want all 4 containers, if not, 955)

[quote=Dunngeon] "I agree with your first pick, although 4488 performs much better on the right feeder for obvious reasons."
I was visualizing the feeder stations from the step, not behind the alliance wall, sorry for the confusion
[quote=Dunngeon] "948 will provide the auto, but little else the alliance needs. This third bot would preferably be able to play with tipped over cans, and create 2 of their own capped stacks. 948 doesn't do tipped over bins and rarely (ever?) did 2 full stacks."

I was relying on 4911 to right containers in the way my team did for CPR and 255 did for 4488, eliminating that issue. also, having been the lead scout for my team, I watched every match on Curie, and seem to remember them doing 2 capped 5 stacks in tele during elims, and 1+ during Quals (since they did co-op instead)... I have some evidence here (although my team unfortunately stole all their containers, so only one stack is capped) http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2015cur_sf1m1 these appear to be 6 stacks, too, which makes my argument for them even better Skunks are a good pick too, though

(sorry, havent figured out multi-quoting)

[Sunnykx]

[quote=The other Gabe;1485536]a few problems with this, at least for me. the first is that your entire alliance has issues with downed containers (which was the main reason I chose 4911 over 2471; I've seen them handle the cans better overall than Mean Machine). While they had a great robot, the main reason CPR advanced so far into playoffs was their brilliant scouting, allowing them to create a super solid alliance in one of the strongest divisions; keep in mind that 492 technically placed higher, qualifying for Einstein (even if they never played a match on there), and that was because they were on the best team in their division. Also CPR would have neither the time nor the ability to go from the Landfill (I have gone to every event they have, and they have never done landfill). for your alliance, I feel like the Skunks would make more sense (assuming you want all 4 containers, if not, 955)

[quote=Dunngeon] "I agree with your first pick, although 4488 performs much better on the right feeder for obvious reasons."
I was visualizing the feeder stations from the step, not behind the alliance wall, sorry for the confusion

Originally Posted by Dunngeon

"948 will provide the auto, but little else the alliance needs. This third bot would preferably be able to play with tipped over cans, and create 2 of their own capped stacks. 948 doesn't do tipped over bins and rarely (ever?) did 2 full stacks."

I was relying on 4911 to right containers in the way my team did for CPR and 255 did for 4488, eliminating that issue. also, having been the lead scout for my team, I watched every match on Curie, and seem to remember them doing 2 capped 5 stacks in tele during elims, and 1+ during Quals (since they did co-op instead)... I have some evidence here (although my team unfortunately stole all their containers, so only one stack is capped) http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2015cur_sf1m1 these appear to be 6 stacks, too, which makes my argument for them even better Skunks are a good pick too, though

(sorry, havent figured out multi-quoting)

The Other Gabe - I'm not sure who you are, but I think I love you (the 'brilliant scouting' remark). We work VERY hard on our scouting and felt elated with our PNW District Championship and Curie Finalist Division alliance selections in 2015. Everything that people have commented about the merits of the different robots mentioned are things our scouting team considered. Rather than discuss specific robots, I will say our strategy involved picking very reliable teams that addressed what we lacked (example- sideways can up righting ability). In 2015, ranking was determined by averages. Reliability was critically important. We advanced past teams with greater upsides (and downsides) at World's because of our reliability, or other teams' lack thereof.

Now, with Stronghold in 2016, we may consider a different strategy. Since we are back to the win-loss format, picking a 3rd bot that is high risk-high reward may be something we will consider more strongly. Having a kamikaze defensive bot may be worth our while.

Given our choices, we were pleased with our alliance selection at 2016 Week 1 Auburn Mountainview. We chose 3393 as our first pick because they were fantastic at breaching, had fast, smart driving, and were the best low scoring robot at the competition. Their skill at doing everything they chose to do exquisitely well put them ahead of other high goal scoring robots we could have chosen. For our third bot, it would have made sense to pick a crazy-fierce defensive bot, but none of the bots remaining met our criteria for autonomous crossing, smart defense, lack of fouls, and being able to still be powered throughout a whole match. We might have been able to overlook some fouls, but the lack of autonomous and staying powered throughout the match was a deal breaker. We chose instead 3223, a skilled bot with smart driving. They did a nice job on defense, crossed in autonomous, and were capable of helping us on breaching if we needed it.

We survived the fiercest defensive bot, 2907, in quarterfinals, partly due to 2907 committing fouls (although in terms of risk/reward, they were effective at limiting our shooting). Our survival through quarterfinals was a major accomplishment. No other alliance had to face the type of defense we experienced in eliminations. Then, in semis, we faced Skunks (1983) alliance. We lost the first semifinal match by 3 points. They, of course, went on to win the whole thing. They were simply better than we were. Their victorious qualification match in which they were the only robot of the alliance who showed up on the field was probably the most impressive thing I have ever seen.

To win in Auburn Mountainview, we needed to have completed more features on our robot (autonomous shooting, scaling, vision recognition tele-op shooting). However, these are in process and we hope to have some of them ready for Glacier Peak and all of them ready for Mt. Vernon. I am thrilled with the 39 District Points we received our first week of competition in the historically toughest district in PNW. We plan to just get better and better and I think we realistically have plans to make that happen.

Good luck to everyone in Stronghold!

[Stayskull]

Originally Posted by Dunngeon

948 will provide the auto, but little else the alliance needs. This third bot would preferably be able to play with tipped over cans, and create 2 of their own capped stacks. 948 doesn't do tipped over bins and rarely (ever?) did 2 full stacks.

948 never had to deal with tipped over bins because our auto didn't knock any over. At worlds once we sped up our lifter (Basically once we got to elims at worlds) we consistently did 2 stacks of 6

My ideal alliance from Washington would have been 1983/948/2471

I have a hard time deciding between 1318 and 2471

[Deke]

Originally Posted by halowaffle47

For Michigan it could be 33, 107, 1918.

33 puts up 2-3 six stacks with RC, one of them will have litter, from the landfill

107 puts up 2-3 six stacks with RC and litter, from the chute door(Yes, chute door).

1918 has RC burglers, and can put up 2 six stacks with RC and litter, from the human player station.

Only thing I would change, cheesecake RC burglers on to 33 if the dont have them already.

I would do this:

1023: 20 pt auto, 3 capped 6 stacks, good noodle thrower

1918: 2 capped 6 stacks, fast can burgulars

548: 2 capped 5 stacks from land fill, fast can burgulars

1023 and 1918 will clear out the chute totes, 548 can landfill. 1918 and 548 are two of the faster can grabbers that are able to stack the cans after getting them.

302 points with 7 cans (no noodles thrown)
250 with 5 cans (no noodles thrown)

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Infinity2718

I would do this:

1023: 20 pt auto, 3 capped 6 stacks, good noodle thrower

1918: 2 capped 6 stacks, fast can burgulars

548: 2 capped 5 stacks from land fill, fast can burgulars

1023 and 1918 will clear out the chute totes, 548 can landfill. 1918 and 548 are two of the faster can grabbers that are able to stack the cans after getting them.

302 points with 7 cans (no noodles thrown)
250 with 5 cans (no noodles thrown)

I mean IMO (as a non-Michiganer), any MI alliance without 33 isn't as good as it could be, because 33 is the only MI bot I know of capable of making three stacks from the landfill. It might seem crazy to leave 1023 out of the ideal MI alliance, but if you want two fast canburglars, the MI alliance might be 33-548-1918. Or 67. 67's canburglars were wicked fast at worlds, beating 3339 to the cans every time they raced.

Michigan (as always) has a ton of really powerful potential alliances to choose from. (27 could easily end up in some really cool alliance, considering their fast canburglars as well).
33-27-67 would be a crazy alliance along those lines (one of our scouting notes about 67 in Carson was how fast they were at stacking compared to how long it took them to acquire cans).

[Deke]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

I mean IMO (as a non-Michiganer), any MI alliance without 33 isn't as good as it could be, because 33 is the only MI bot I know of capable of making three stacks from the landfill. It might seem crazy to leave 1023 out of the ideal MI alliance, but if you want two fast canburglars, the MI alliance might be 33-548-1918. Or 67. 67's canburglars were wicked fast at worlds, beating 3339 to the cans every time they raced.

Michigan (as always) has a ton of really powerful potential alliances to choose from. (27 could easily end up in some really cool alliance, considering their fast canburglars as well).
33-27-67 would be a crazy alliance along those lines (one of our scouting notes about 67 in Carson was how fast they were at stacking compared to how long it took them to acquire cans).

I agree 100% 33 is the best landfill team from Michigan. If they could beat 548 to two cans in auto, I would take them.

1918 was much faster at champs with the can burglars, they could have been higher pick at MSC with that speed.

I don't see any power alliance leaving out 1023, they just dominated Michigan from week 1 to champs with their consistency and scoring. I would pick 107 for a replacement for the auto and stacking ability.

[Lij2015]

Virginia runs into a huge problem in that we have no real can burglars... But if that's not a problem somehow then 2363 on the landfill and we can get cans off in tele-op (this isn't optimal but we have no landfill bots that cap their own stacks), 384 and 623 on the human player stations.

[TDav540]

Originally Posted by Lij2015

Virginia runs into a huge problem in that we have no real can burglars... But if that's not a problem somehow then 2363 on the landfill and we can get cans off in tele-op (this isn't optimal but we have no landfill bots that cap their own stacks), 384 and 623 on the human player stations.

I'd imagine it would be an issue. Though there are a few possible options here:

1086: IMO best landfill bot in Virginia. Especially as time progressed, their drivers (only juniors btw), improved significantly and can now do at least three four or five stacks, depending on their partners.

2363/384: Although I would take 2363 just based on more driver experience this year (Chesapeake), both teams are interchangeable and highly effective at making capped six stacks.

1885/540 That's where the VA canburglars are. Although I haven't seen enough matches to truly gauge their effectiveness, I know that they made the playoffs in Carson and did well at Pittsburgh and Greater DC. They can cap 1086's stacks and clean up the cans 2363/384 doesn't use. 540 only has a one canburglar unfortunately, but we can also quickly grab cans off the step and cap stacks during tele-op as well.

You're right that the state does lack major canburglar power though. However, there are multiple options for a powerful alliance.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

I thought 254 fed almost exclusively from the human player at CVR, using their old intake system.

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

You might want to re-watch CVR.

You're right, I had it backwards. 254 added the LF capability at SVR and a ramp.