What won in 2006?

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Molten

I recall a strategy that hasn't been mentioned yet. Some robots would go up onto the ramp and shoot from there. It was a simple robot that stored alot of balls and parked just in front of the goal. It made it next to impossible to miss once they were up there. I can't recall any team numbers that had this particular robot, but I just remember being surprised when I first saw them. Of all the hair-brained schemes I had, that one never passed my mind.

Jason

A lot of the good teams were capable of doing this (and also shooting from the floor). It was less a specific strategy, and more a method of scoring points.

[Tetraman]

You know what really won Aim High? Targeting the goal.

Imagine how many top-tier robots of the time wouldn't have been good at all if there wasn't the ability to target that goal. It might have been the one FIRST game where you almost HAD to use the camera system on your shooter. And the robots that were the best could not only snag that target with a camera faster than other robots, but also could keep that camera eye fixed on the farget as they wizzed around on their side of the field and avoided defenders.

Having the ability to hold many of the poof balls and shooting them well was yes a winning combo for a robot, but without the ability to target you were dead reconing your shots.

[Peter Matteson]

1.) Good autonomous shooting. Winning auto was worth a 10 pt bonusand it left the auto losing alliance on offense right away having to collect balls to shoot wasting time while the auto winners could reload while defending.

2.) DEFENSE- control of the ramp and middle of the field while sweeping up balls. The goal was to minimize scoring during the alliaince's individual offense periods.

3.) Ramp bonus at the end. Any 3 robots on your ramp was a 25 point bonus which was substantial. If you were good in the middle of the game you had one of your opponents pinned on the ramp which was legal that year.

[jwfoss]

I may be a bit biased, but 2006 was my favorite year of FIRST as a student.

The value of autonomous can not be understated, but you didn't have to score in the high goal. Running across the field and throwing your opponents off target and stopping them from scoring was just as effective as scoring yourself. Auto-mode was sometimes won by the "guaranteed" dumper robots who scored in the low goals.

This game, as well as 2004 for those of you who remember, made diversification in design the best way to put together an alliance.

Out here on the East Coast at the CT Regional, defensive play won most of the matches. With a lot of designs having high CGs, pushing your opponents up the ramps while they were attempting to shoot often resulted in robots flipped over. Also designs that maximized a robots height allowed you to park in front of shooting robots to block them.

2006 was the year that pushed me to look into always designing for a way to ensure that you will be able to score. For Aim High, these designs include dumping in the corner goals or parking up on the ramp to shoot, which became known as “Ramp Camping”.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by jwfoss

...
The value of autonomous can not be understated, but you didn't have to score in the high goal. Running across the field and throwing your opponents off target and stopping them from scoring was just as effective as scoring yourself. Auto-mode was sometimes won by the "guaranteed" dumper robots who scored in the low goals.
...

Originally Posted by Peter Matteson

1.) Good autonomous shooting. Winning auto was worth a 10 pt bonusand it left the auto losing alliance on offense right away having to collect balls to shoot wasting time while the auto winners could reload while defending.
...

Originally Posted by gblake

Watch the Cheesy Poofs during the Aim High Silicon Valley Regional, and notice that they appear to want to lose the autonomous part of the match. ...

I'll repeat; take a look how the Poofs made use of the autonomous time. I didn't talk to them about it; but I believe their successful strategy included purposefully losing the Autonomous period. That creates a good argument against saying that winning the autonomous bonus was important, and instead supports a counter-intuitive assertion that winning autonomous could be a problem instead of a benefit.

N>3 manually-assisted shots that go in at the beginning of the 1st teleop period, instead of M>3 attempted shots during autonomous that go awry erases the autonomous bonus; and puts you in good shape for getting accurately reloaded by human players before the 3rd teleop scoring period.

Blake

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by gblake

I'll repeat; take a look how the Poofs made us of the autonomous time. I didn't talk to them about it; but I believe their successful strategy included purposefully losing the Autonomous period.

I don't think I've seen any vids of 254 during that regional, but perhaps they knew their auto wasn't accurate enough to win the auto periode, so they saved their balls for teleoperated when they were more accurate. If this is the case, while it is a wise call by 254, it does not support the arguement that autonomous is not that important. I'm sure they would rather have an accurate auto and win autonomous than an inaccurate one and save thier shots for teleoperated.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by gblake

I'll repeat; take a look how the Poofs made us of the autonomous time. I didn't talk to them about it; but I believe their successful strategy included purposefully losing the Autonomous period. That creates a good argument against saying that winning the autonomous bonus was important, and instead supports a counter-intuitive assertion that winning autonomous could be a problem instead of a benefit.

N>3 manually-assisted Offensive period shots that go in, instead of M>3 attempted shots during autonomous that go awry erases the autonomous bonus; and puts you in good shape for getting accurately reloaded by human players before the 3rd teleop scoring period.

Blake

This is a very good point, however its definitely in the minority.

Many many teams won entire regionals based purely on the fact they were able to drain 10/10 in automode every time out.

2006 was definitely the best year for the camera. I thought that 2010 had a good chance of duplicating that, but from the looks of it it wasn't nearly as important as 2006. Teams like 25, 111, 233, 217, 11 all took advantage of the camera to such a large degree that they were often incredibly difficult to stop. Other teams such as 254/968 utilized specific scoring strategies that often yielded incredible results.

I think everyone who was around for the infamous "A-bomb" strategy will testify to how awesome a game it was. For those who were unfamiliar with this, teams 25, 968 and 195 were aligned together in Newton. The teams had devised a strategy that greatly highlighted the individual team strengths. Team 195 was a "dumper bot" that year. They were a fridge-like robot that would scour the field collecting balls. Team 968 was one of the fastest rapid fire shooters in FIRST, and often utilized "ramp camping" to ensure as many balls as possible made it into the goal. Well after 968 had climbed the ramp and emptied their first clip into the goal, they would climb off of the ramp. They would meet up with team 195 around midfield, and 195 would dump their entire hopper into ground feeder of team 968, essentially refilling them in an instant. Team 968 would then climb back up the ramp and unload an entire hopper into the goal. The alliance ended up losing on Einstein, however it was not for lack of creativity.

To me this is still one of the coolest plays I've seen happen in FIRST. Being close with many of drivers on those teams made it very memorable for me. I think this speaks to the diversity of Aim High and how awesome a game it was.

-Brando

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by gblake

I'll repeat; take a look how the Poofs made us of the autonomous time. I didn't talk to them about it; but I believe their successful strategy included purposefully losing the Autonomous period. That creates a good argument against saying that winning the autonomous bonus was important, and instead supports a counter-intuitive assertion that winning autonomous could be a problem instead of a benefit.

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I don't think I've seen any vids of 254 during that regional, but perhaps they knew their auto wasn't accurate enough to win the auto periode, so they saved their balls for teleoperated when they were more accurate. If this is the case, while it is a wise call by 254, it does not support the arguement that autonomous is not that important. I'm sure they would rather have an accurate auto and win autonomous than an inaccurate one and save thier shots for teleoperated.

This strategy was employed against us on Einstein by the 25/968/195 allaince in the 2nd and 3rd matches after we beat them big in the first match. (The explaination here is me paraphrasing a member of 25 i talked to about this)The reason this was done was because our alliance was hitting 17-20 balls in auto all through elims. The opposing alliance knew they would lose to that and our defense in auto. They were more accurate in human control and didn't want to unload and lose balls that didn't score. Thus they would be in good position to score 20+ balls right as the first period started and their human players could reload 25 and get in more runs because all our balls were in their goal. In the end this strategy had nothing to do with the outcome of the matches. In match 2 we were ahead until 968 pushed us over backwards when we tried to pin them on the ramp (A perfectly legal play that year) making a 3 on 2 our alliance couldn't overcome. In match 3 1126's shooter broke in auton and we didn't have the needed firepower anymore.

The only reason to play this way is if you weren'y accurate in auton so you wanted to be loaded and ready for human control and not have to reload before you start playing offense.

[gblake]

Peter - There most certainly was a reason to consider avoiding winning autonomous during Aim High, regardless of your ability to drill the high goal autonomously.

Winnning Auton, put you on defense, then offense, then offense again during Teleop.

Losing Auton, put you on offense, then "defense", then offense again during Teleop.

Which of those two looks like the better rhythm for scoring, refilling a large hopper and then scoring again?

The trade-off was giving up 10 points in order to get to use the second of the two rhythms.

Your mileage may vary.

Blake

[efoote868]

I remember seeing 233's robot and thinking it was almost the "perfect" bot that year. Reasons being:

1. It could pick up balls off the floor
2. It shot balls out the top
3. It could shoot balls any direction (and camera assisted)
4. It was force-fed and didn't jam.

The weak part was that you couldn't load it from the top.


Having experienced that season, and knowing what I know now, I'd focus my design around four (achievable) things:
1. Be crazy fast and maneuverable.
2. Pick up balls on a minimum of 2 sides.
3. Have an open top (be able to toss balls in)
4. Dump.

[waialua359]

They need to bring back a version of this game in the future. It was by far the best game ever!

[mrmummert]

We won the Nasa/VCU regional that year. We had a good shooter and storage,good auto and a heavy robot that was hard to push, our finals
partners were 1598 and 343. It was built so robust that a couple years
later one of the students drove it off the stage at school and there was
very little damage and it kept running (its since been partly rebuilt to keep it
running for demos) It could also be run by only one student which made it simpler.

We had a auto that could be changed for each match just by turning a switch so the opposing alliance had a hard time countering it. Sometimes we went right out and started shooting...other times it could go forward a little then stop and wait for a opposing alliance robot to come by (with the intention of hitting us) and then move to shooting range and shoot in auto.

On the down side if some one hit us we couldn't shoot at the target
and had to move. Also we lined up in auto using dead reconning since we didn't have time during build to add the camera. Almost all times it worked, but once in a while it didn't. We had to add sights so it was easier for the
students to line it up. If someone got in front of us while shooting they could
block us. Luckly we had a fast shooter.

If I would have added anything it would have been mechanum wheels as it would have made us more manuverable.
While we did great at Nasa/VCU we did'nt do so well at Atlanta and learned the lesson that the winning robots in Atlanta
are in a very different class and we try to aim to built with that in mind.

[Rangel]

I have a question for those back in 2006. Were their any robots that focused on collecting balls and shooting at the same time? Basically a robot that has a rotating and pivoting shooter mechanism with a camera mounted on the shooter. This way the co pilot can aim and shoot with the shooter while at the same time the driver is busy collecting balls.

Thanks

[SM987]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

I have a question for those back in 2006. Were their any robots that focused on collecting balls and shooting at the same time? Basically a robot that has a rotating and pivoting shooter mechanism with a camera mounted on the shooter. This way the co pilot can aim and shoot with the shooter while at the same time the driver is busy collecting balls.

Thanks

987's offering that year is similar to what you describe. There's a few videos on blue alliance. Funny enough, we were teamed up with you guys at CMP in 2006, but I think it was before your time.

Edit- Actually it was in 2008 that we teamed up; I am confusing my years.

[Pat Fairbank]

Originally Posted by Molten

I recall a strategy that hasn't been mentioned yet. Some robots would go up onto the ramp and shoot from there. It was a simple robot that stored alot of balls and parked just in front of the goal. It made it next to impossible to miss once they were up there. I can't recall any team numbers that had this particular robot, but I just remember being surprised when I first saw them. Of all the hair-brained schemes I had, that one never passed my mind.

My favourite play of the year was when 217 did this in the Einstein finals -- having never previously revealed their ability to do so during the whole season. IIRC, one of our opponents pushed them up the ramp thinking it would trap them, but they instead turned around and fired a bunch of balls right into the goal. It made a huge difference, considering the final match was won by 4 points.

Definitely my favourite game hands down, but as a then-member of 296 I'm biased.