|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Lessons from Week 3
Before the competition, we knew that we wanted both an analyst and a HP for whatever circumstances our alliance partners need. Training the analyst prior to the competition involved watching 2007 matches and Week 1/2 matches. Also, being able to do the math (or just simply memorizing scoring scenarios) for optimizing the points scored/tubes hung ratio. Our alliance won without once completing a logo on the top row.
On the field, what I tried to keep in mind (perhaps you can see my bouncing back and forth behind the coaches across the entire alliance station in the camera shots): -Get the tubes that the opponents need the most -Never have 3 robots holding the same tube, because that spells out traffic jam at different heights on the rack. I don't think we had two robots holding the same tube very often, and that requires the analyst to coordinate with the coaches. -Figure out where the most reliable minibot is deploying at 40s based on their location on the field (in our case 3393), and tell the other minibot deployer to go to the opposite side (2990). -Determining which is more advantageous: minibot race or an "eye for an eye" minibot sacrifice. If you look in Finals 1, Seed 1's minibots scared us (45-30 minibot score, in their favor), so I asked 2990 and 1899 to delay the opponent alliance's minibot deployment, which made the minibot race 30-0 in our favor for Finals 2. A low scoring win is just as good as a high scoring win. -Keeping track of time. From 120s-50s, if you're an underdog alliance, your defense should be at their opponent alliance wall. From there, the defense should do everything to stop the opponent's more reliable minibot scorer from getting to the tower. -Flexibility. By around 60s, the analyst should reconcile individual efforts of tube-scoring teams. For example, if there are already 2 logos up, and two more triangles up, stop working on one and finish one logo; the analyst needs to know the limits of the teams and when to stop working individually on logos. -Anti-defense. I think the most common phrase that I said as analyst was "Get <opponent team number> off of <alliance partner>" With only one robot that could score on the top row and two minibots between 2 and 3 seconds, strategy by far was what pulled us through. A keen analyst is a must. Last edited by penguinfrk : 20-03-2011 at 02:59. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Lessons from Week 3
Most of the same could be said over on the cascade field. Also, don't throw tubes onto the pole, because if it interferes with minibot deployment it is a red card. Our human player did this, but it did not interfere with the minibot, so it was all good. But they did say something about it.
|
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Lessons from Week 3
Quote:
The tubing the pole one was rescinded after somebody pointed out that the HP who threw the tube was on the affected alliance--but it sure looked like there would be a third match in that set. Something I saw: Strategy, Strategy, Strategy. After 842, 330, and 2662 lost a semis match (blocked from the towers, and a red card on 330 for contact with a deploying robot), they re-strategized. The next match saw 330 and one of their partners waiting at towers ready to deploy well before the 15-second mark, before anybody was ready to defend the towers. (That was the one where a tower base plate came up while a tube was being picked up.) Two more matches with similar strategy later, and all three teams had blue banners. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Lessons from Week 3
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|