What did we learn from week 2 of the 2013 season?

[Gregor]

Very interesting chart.

The highest scored was actually 211, not 204, scored by the alliance of 2056, 1114, and 1325 in SF 1-2.

The score published right away was lower, but after the manual count it was updated to 211.

[mashygpig]

You shouldn't rely on climb and dump teams, we picked one as the #1 seed at Superior and they never even climbed. A good strategy can score you lots of points even with bad robots. defense really comes to play in finals.

[ThomasClark]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Very interesting chart.

The highest scored was actually 211, not 204, scored by the alliance of 2056, 1114, and 1325 in SF 1-2.

The score published right away was lower, but after the manual count it was updated to 211.

I know, but FRC Spy sometimes has out of date scores in cases like that.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by ThomasClark

I know, but FRC Spy sometimes has out of date scores in cases like that.

Not trying to discredit your data collection or anything, its just me being nitpicky (only because I'm the one who had to count the frisbees).

[Alex.q]

My former team learned the hard way about the importance of sticking to scouting data rather than gut feelings. The scout leads collected data throughout the tournament at Lake Superior and came up with a strong list of candidates to pick from. Certain members of the team, however, decided that they would rather pick another robot based on more showy abilities, which the data suggested were not as consistent as other potential picks. Ignoring the scouting and strategy advised by the lead scouts, they decided to pick robots which the scouts did not advise. I would love to say that it worked out for them, but that was not the case. Their #1 alliance ended up being outscored and upset by the 8th seed alliance.

The important lesson I hope was learned is to trust your teammates who put a lot of effort and research into their tasks. (Broadening this lesson), it is easy to become sure that your judgment or design is the best way for the team to proceed, but to become so attached to your design or ideas of who to select in eliminations that you ignore the research and data that is presented is a dangerous situation to find yourself in.


Disclaimer: I heard only one side of this story, and I do not mean to offend anyone or call anyone out. I just want to point out a learning experience that can be frustrating but essential. We all become attached to our ideas, and it is important to disassociate yourself from that idea to logically evaluate the situation, and to listen with an open mind to those who have researched the topic.

[AllenGregoryIV]

This game is messing with a lot of things. This might be the first time in along time that I feel that FRC might have balanced a game in a good way(not 2009). The good teams are still good but they aren't leaps and bounds ahead of the lower seeds. Nothing is decided till the matches are played. I'm not sure if this will stay true but it seems like we'll have some good upsets at championships as well.

Scouting is amazingly important. A lot of very good teams get left out of eliminations because the alliance captains didn't have good enough data. At lone star alone I know of at least 4-5 teams that weren't playing on Saturday afternoon that should have been. This happens every year but it seems worse this year. If you're very smart you can put together a really good bottom end alliance. #7 from Lone Star (231, 192, 1429), I still can't believe those three got together after 231 declined 57, all of them were first round picks.

The elimination matches at Lone Star played more similarly to the qualification matches than I thought. I think this is because we saw more qualification defense than in years past at LSR.

There are many different ways to win in this game and I still don't know if we know which way will find success in St. Louis. At some regionals the pyramid discs were in play often (Orlando) and in others only one was scored the whole event (by a 148 human player at LSR).

Also 2056 and 1114 are really good.

[MattC9]

Originally Posted by mashygpig

You shouldn't rely on climb and dump teams, we picked one as the #1 seed at Superior and they never even climbed. A good strategy can score you lots of points even with bad robots. defense really comes to play in finals.

Can you please explain?

[tzjin]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

If you're very smart you can put together a really good bottom end alliance. #7 from Lone Star (231, 12, 1429), I still can't believe those three got together after 231 declined 57, all of them were first round picks.

I do believe you're missing a digit there.

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

At some regionals the pyramid discs were in play often (Orlando) and in others only one was scored the whole event (by a 148 human player at LSR).

Our human player also scored a pyramid goal, but your point still stands.



Once again, autonomous is key. It wins matches, and costs others (us in semi-finals). It is also important that the entire alliance has some sort of autonomous shooting. Our eliminations alliance had all three robots shooting three frisbees into the three-point goal, and we had the capacity to score nearly many points in the first 15 seconds as the first seed alliance, even with 118's 7-frisbee autonomous.

Driver practice is important, as is strategically shutting down the lanes opposing robots use to feed. Picking up frisbees off the ground will only get more important from here on out, as it will save many trips across the field.

Climbing to the third level is important, but can easily be bested if it takes over 30 seconds, and there is a good shooter on the other team. 10-point climb is quick, and much less dangerous (ask 148).

Interestingly, we never went up against a full-court shooter, so we never felt the need to have a tall-defensive bot that sacrificed the ability to go through pyramids. That being said, 3847 is extremely impressive because it retains the best of both worlds. I still credit our loss in semis to their defense.

[ttldomination]

Originally Posted by mashygpig

You shouldn't rely on climb and dump teams, we picked one as the #1 seed at Superior and they never even climbed. A good strategy can score you lots of points even with bad robots. defense really comes to play in finals.

While I'm inclined to agree, I think this is a gross generalization.

I'd take a consistent climb and dump team over an inconsistent shooter any day (e.g 4451). The key is consistency and making sure that they know that it's up to them to get their 50 points.

- Sunny g.

[Bryan Herbst]

Originally Posted by mashygpig

You shouldn't rely on climb and dump teams, we picked one as the #1 seed at Superior and they never even climbed. A good strategy can score you lots of points even with bad robots. defense really comes to play in finals.

For those who weren't at Lake Superior: 2220 (#1 seed) picked 2177 as their first alliance partner. 2177 was a stellar team that was able to consistently climb to the top of the pyramid and score 3-4 frisbees by the end of qualifications.

Unfortunately, the #8 seed proved a very challenging defense to overcome. 2177 couldn't get to the feeding station to load up on colored frisbees, and in my opinion spent a little too much time trying to get those frisbees (kudos for coming up with a strategy and sticking to it though).

So what I learned in week 2 is that it isn't too difficult to block the feeding station. In general, defense is playing a far larger role in this game than I thought it would. No offensive strategy is without an opposing defensive strategy.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

Also 2056 and 1114 are really good.

Yep. This is something the Canadian teams have been saying for years.

They've knocked it out of the park again. Its amazing how year in and year out the pair can build such elegant machines that play the given game with such finesse.

The 4343/1241/216 alliance was strong enough to win at many regionals, but not up against 2056/1114/1325. Their losing scores were significantly higher than the winning scores at several regionals this weekend.

1114 and 2056 have raised the bar so high for Canadian teams. Canada is overrepresented in Einstein appearances by a large margin. Something like 5% of teams at CMP are Canadian, but in the last several years, there have been at least 2 of the Einstein 12 be Canadian.

2012: 400 teams at CMP, 20 Canadians (5%), 3/12 Einstein Canadians (25%)
2011: 352 teams at CMP, 17 Canadians (4.8%), 2/12 Einstein Canadians (16.7%)
2010: 344 teams at CMP, 13 Canadians (3.8%), 2/12 Einstein Canadians (16.7%)
2009: 348 teams at CMP, 12 Canadians (3.4%), 0/12 Einstein Canadians (0%)
2008: 340 teams at CMP, 10 Canadians (2.9%), 1/12 Einstein Canadians (8.3%)

5yr avg: 4.03% of CMP teams are Canadian, 13.3% of Einstein teams are Canadian.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by MattC9

2. Consistent full court shooters

These were completely negated in the elimination rounds at Waterford. It took teams less than 10 minutes to rivet 60" tall 'shields' onto their third picks. That removed an entire aspect of the game.

I expect the practice to continue and expand. Being a full-court shooter in eliminations is going to become increasingly difficult, or impossible.

[markmcgary]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

These were completely negated in the elimination rounds at Waterford. It took teams less than 10 minutes to rivet 60" tall 'shields' onto their third picks. That removed an entire aspect of the game.

I expect the practice to continue and expand. Being a full-court shooter in eliminations is going to become increasingly difficult, or impossible.

We saw the same thing in San Diego.

[Adam Freeman]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

These were completely negated in the elimination rounds at Waterford. It took teams less than 10 minutes to rivet 60" tall 'shields' onto their third picks. That removed an entire aspect of the game.

I expect the practice to continue and expand. Being a full-court shooter in eliminations is going to become increasingly difficult, or impossible.

I think they just have to be more than one dimensional, if they are not a second round pick.

Our biggest issue was that once we were forced out of the loading zone, we were not that effective.

BUT...a full court shooter does require almost 100% commitment of a defender, if they can line up and shoot really quickly. You know the damage that can be done if they are left alone.

Give me a robot capable of quick full court shots, accurate from the pyramid, and a 50pt hang and I'll take it.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by Adam Freeman

Give me a robot capable of quick full court shots, accurate from the pyramid, and a 50pt hang and I'll take it.

Wouldn't we all Adam, wouldn't we all.