What happened in the finals at West Michigan?

[mwtidd]

How did
1918 2257 and 27 beat
2054 107 and 67 ????

They kept an alliance who put up
63 and 114 in QF
and 92 and 118 in SF

to only 69 and 56 points in the finals....

to me it looks like it wasn't the best individual robots who won, but the best defense and teamwork that won West Michigan....

Congrats to 1918 2257 and 27!

[Grecelis93]

Match 1-
Both 2054 and 107 lost Comm.

Match 2-
We ran over a popped Uber tube and that got jammed in our whole left drive.

Bad luck happened.

Congrats to 1918, 27 and 3357

Hopefully we'll see again at States

[GGCO]

I agree the technical problems the red alliance encountered need to be taken into account, but lineskier is right - the scores speak for themselves.

Going into the eliminations we knew we'd be facing 2054, 67, and 107 in the finals. We also knew that our bot (3357) would have to shut down 67 while 1918 and 27 scored in order for the blue alliance to win. We did this by:

1. Using Starcraft terms, constantly harassed each team. As soon as they were about to pick something up we rammed them or moved the game piece
2. Pushed all the triangles into our lanes so they couldn't complete a logo
3. Pushed other tubes towards 1918 and 27
4. Blocked teams from scoring minibots

[mwtidd]

Thanks for the insights everyone!

First off I would like to congratulate 67 and 2054 for making it onto my top 25 (based on ETC). 2054 actually taking my #2 spot.

I'm curious if anyone knows what caused the comms problems.

Great strategy Grant! It seems that defense is a (if not the) critical element in many of the finals matches.

[stuart2054]

Originally Posted by lineskier

Thanks for the insights everyone!

First off I would like to congratulate 67 and 2054 for making it onto my top 25 (based on ETC). 2054 actually taking my #2 spot.

I'm curious if anyone knows what caused the comms problems.

Great strategy Grant! It seems that defense is a (if not the) critical element in many of the finals matches.

A little late in the reply but the problem was a bad USB Hub that first reversed the joysticks and then disconnected us from the FMS

[pathew100]

Originally Posted by stuart2054

A little late in the reply but the problem was a bad USB Hub that first reversed the joysticks and then disconnected us from the FMS

Was it the little square one they send in the kit? Whenever teams have joystick problems that's the first question I ask. That thing is notorious for going bad.

[GGCO]

Originally Posted by pathew100

Was it the little square one they send in the kit? Whenever teams have joystick problems that's the first question I ask. That thing is notorious for going bad.

We fortunately didn't need to use it this year. And, yes, it is not very robust (in all fairness, it wasn't ever designed to be).

[stuart2054]

Yeah, It was the little square one. We stopped using it and connect directly to a notebook computer we use as a drivers station. What do you expect for $15 part. Live and learn

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by GGCO

I agree the technical problems the red alliance encountered need to be taken into account, but lineskier is right - the scores speak for themselves.

Going into the eliminations we knew we'd be facing 2054, 67, and 107 in the finals. We also knew that our bot (3357) would have to shut down 67 while 1918 and 27 scored in order for the blue alliance to win. We did this by:

1. Using Starcraft terms, constantly harassed each team. As soon as they were about to pick something up we rammed them or moved the game piece
2. Pushed all the triangles into our lanes so they couldn't complete a logo
3. Pushed other tubes towards 1918 and 27
4. Blocked teams from scoring minibots

You guys played the most effective defense our team has seen all season. You made fans out of our entire shop as we watched a single robot effectively defend three at once!

I personally thought a defense only robot would be ineffective, I was clearly wrong.

[Wayne TenBrink]

Originally Posted by GGCO

2. Pushed all the triangles into our lanes so they couldn't complete a logo

Shhhh! You should keep that one a secret for later. It's a lot more efficient to concentrate on 1/3 of the opponent's tubes when it reduces their scoring potential by up to 2/3. Smart work.

[GGCO]

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink

Shhhh! You should keep that one a secret for later. It's a lot more efficient to concentrate on 1/3 of the opponent's tubes when it reduces their scoring potential by up to 2/3. Smart work.

Ah oh well. I'm looking forward to seeing how teams adapt to this. When they do we'll just think of something better.

[TEE]

Originally Posted by GGCO

2. Pushed all the triangles into our lanes so they couldn't complete a logo

I don't know if team 217 did this on purpose, but when they played against us and 469, we ended up not being able to complete a logo because we couldn't get a white tube (unfortunately, the only one 469 could get to was deflated). So yeah... tube-starving = success

[Wayne TenBrink]

Originally Posted by TEE

I don't know if team 217 did this on purpose, but when they played against us and 469, we ended up not being able to complete a logo because we couldn't get a white tube (unfortunately, the only one 469 could get to was deflated). So yeah... tube-starving = success

Selective tube starvation - more effective than general purpose tube starvation.

[TEE]

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink

Selective tube starvation - more effective than general purpose tube starvation.

That's what I meant
Thanks for catching that

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink

Selective tube starvation - more effective than general purpose tube starvation.

Wouldn't it be worth it to take the penalty and get the tube?
3 point penalty, but completing a top row logo would be worth at least a 12 point increase (3+3=6 becomes 3+3+3X2=18), even more if a ubertube is on a peg.