|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Predictions Week 5: Ascending the Ranks
It was very hard to play defense against them, very quick robot. If you let them through once they already have made 2 trips. It was definitely a robot that we needed to adapt to.
|
|
#17
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Predictions Week 5: Ascending the Ranks
48 will be watching Buckeye from home. We'll be at Crossroads Week 6.
Last edited by Travis Hoffman : 27-03-2013 at 22:55. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Predictions Week 5: Ascending the Ranks
Glad to see the two Florida teams back on their feet for Alamo. Definitely going to be an interesting competition!
|
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Predictions Week 5: Ascending the Ranks
Does anyone know why is the Blue Alliance is so wrong this year when it comes to what teams are registered for/attending which events?
|
|
#20
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Predictions Week 5: Ascending the Ranks
Quote:
When a FLR spot opened up, Buckeye was punted to the curb, but TBA still shows it as a phantom event for us. |
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Predictions Week 5: Ascending the Ranks
I think they updated during build season and haven't updated it since. We were signed up for Vegas but ended up deciding not to go due to financial reasons. The first website though is entirely accurate though if you wanted to be absolutely sure if a team is going somewhere.
|
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Predictions Week 5: Ascending the Ranks
I think the climber/shooter hybrid has the potential to be the greatest threat in this game. If they have a minimum 18pt auton and a 20pt dump with the climb...watch out!
![]() |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Predictions Week 5: Ascending the Ranks
Quote:
As for converting those 2's to 3's. We're working on it. Also improved our hopper so we won't lose that top disk on about half of our traversals of the field. Should be good for 8-10 points/match improvement, I figure. I agree it will take another team seeding #1 to take down the duo. I honestly think that of the 6 mentioned, 1310 is the most likely to be able to pull it off, and EVEN THEY would require a rather favourable schedule. I could see 4343 doing it also, but it would nearly require that any matches against one of the duo being paired with the other. 4343 had a relatively easy schedule at GTREast, being paired up with 1114 and 2056 each once, and only against 1114 once, never against 2056. The real question is: If someone out-seeds 1114 and 2056, which one do you pick? 2056 for the 7disc auto, or 1114 for the 50pt climb+dump? |
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Predictions Week 5: Ascending the Ranks
Depends on who you are, who else is available, and what their seeds are. If they're seeded high enough to decline you, it might be a moot point (other than forcing them to not be picked by another captain). If I'm a team with a 5+ disc auton (say 1241 or 1310), I'd probably go 1114. If I think a 30-50pt climber is going to be available at the end of the draft (say 2013), I'd lean towards 2056.
|
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Predictions Week 5: Ascending the Ranks
Do you really think they'd decline?
I can't foresee any scenario in which either of the two would fall below the 4th alliance captain position. If 4343 seeds #1, I would probably choose 2056 who would likely be #2-#4. If 2056 declines, I'd choose 1114. 2056 would KNOW that, so they know that if they're outseeded, there's no chance of the two pairing up. Even if 2056 declined in order to be the #2 alliance captain, who would they choose that would be a strong contender against an 1114/4343 alliance? (The logic behind the strategy doesn't change much if you substitute any of the other strong 2nd tier bots for 4343, except that 2056 could choose 4343 and not have 2 robots with extra disc autons). A #1 alliance of 4343/1114 means that most of the remaining strong contenders (1310, 1241) have extra disc auto's that conflict with 2056's reducing the alliances total scoring power from that of the sum of its parts. I just can't see 1114 or 2056 declining a #1 seed picking them, barring a freak situation where a weak robot ends up #1. The same situation happened last year at west when 3161 picked 1114. 1114 was #2. They could have declined, knowing they'd be up against a 3161/2056 alliance. Last edited by Racer26 : 28-03-2013 at 11:38. |
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Predictions Week 5: Ascending the Ranks
Racer26, did you forsee 2056 falling to the 7th seed last year? 2056 also declined the #2 selection last year. Granted, there's no coopertition bridge this year, but it only takes 2-3 losses to fall down into the 5-10 range. Even the best teams can suffer a few "fluke" matches over the course of an event thanks to uneven match-ups, technical failures, or loads of foul points.
The two teams will be very aware that they're likely on a collision course. They'll do everything in their power to ensure they have the ideal alliance to beat the other. If they don't feel the #1 (or #2) seed is the proper partner, they will decline. Especially knowing that they can get an earlier 2nd round selection from a later captain position. What would be really intersting is whether or not the #1 seed attempts to "scorch the Earth" before picking 1114 and/or 2056, in order to encourage them to accept if they know they can't pick other alliance captains. |
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Predictions Week 5: Ascending the Ranks
Quote:
|
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Predictions Week 5: Ascending the Ranks
Quote:
And yes, 2056 was only that low because of the coop bridge. Not coopertating with 1114 and 2056 was a very common strategy in Ontario last year. |
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Predictions Week 5: Ascending the Ranks
Quote:
Good luck to all teams at Livonia. |
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Predictions Week 5: Ascending the Ranks
Based on W/L/T, 2056 would have been 6th last year. They were 8-2. Five teams were 9-1. Assuming hybrid points were the first sort, 1114 would have been 1st though, and presumably selected 2056.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|