Best Theoretical Alliance

[Racer26]

The trouble with threads like this is that there's 8-12 teams that are right at the top there, and they're pretty much interchangeable for the purpose of a discussion like this.

A dream team consists of 3 teams that have compatible 30 pt climbs, and at least 2 of them have dumps. Additionally 1 must have a 7 disc auto. Better if one of the others additionally has a W2W 5 disc.

254, 67, 1114 fits this bill nicely.

The lack of a 30 pt climb really hurts 2056 for being placed on one of these 'ideal' teams.

254 could easily be substituted for 1986. Their robots perform nearly identical functions in a nearly identical fashion.

67 could be swapped for 1334, again, similar functions.

There are a number of teams from which you can form these dream alliances. Any one of these dream alliances would be pretty much unstoppable.

[Rynocorn]

There are about 20 alliances that would all be almost equal but I would have to go with 254, 1806, 67 being the best.

The two full court shooters could empty all the discs with 254 cleaning up and possibly taking some discs from the opponents side of the court. After discs are gone 1806 and 67 climb and 254 climbs at the very end.

13 in auto- 78
45 in top goal- 135
3 climbs (30,30,20)- 80
6 discs dumped- 30

=323 buttt the whole time 254 can be scooping up the other teams misses, which always happens so the total will be higher.

Also, this team would be incredibly repeatable as each of the robots isn't doing anything hard at all but each a relatively easy task but working as a team.

That's my thought on the whole thing

[Kevin Leonard]

1986-1918-1114
Wait WHAAAAAAT?
1986- 5 Discs in auto (centerline)
30 Point Climb
1918- 5 Discs in auto
30 Point Climb
20 Point dump
1114/67/1334/etc- 3 Discs in auto
30 Point Climb
10 Point Dump

Really this alliance has no advantage over the others in this thread, but it's an option that is a little different than the others. It still maximizes the amount of points one can get, but in a different way by replacing the 7-3-3 auto combination with a 5-5-3 auto combination. Now, if 1918 could do a 7-disc auto, they'd be the only team in the world with a 7-disc auto and an outside-the-pyramid 30 point climb.
I would probably run 67 in this set, just for the fact that they, alone, can score the entire feeder station's worth of discs.

[Mrcope9]

Each alliance should have...

1 consistant full cout shooter- I give this one to 148. They had one if the most accurate full court shots this year. I think they probably scored more than 100 frisbee points in a single game a few times this year. Besides The Robowranglers, 67 and 469 both had quality FCS. But, it goes to 148.

1 reliable cycler. We saw in the championship that 3 cyclers was the best type of alliance. A cycling robot with a fast floor pickup makes a great addition. I would probably go with either 2056, 118, 3476 or 1477. All of these can score, but I give it to 2056.

1 fast climber with a solid shooter. I have to go with 254. They could climb to 30 in the time it took most to reach 10. 1986 and 1114 also had great climbs, but The Poofs get this one.

In total, 148 could hit at least 25 shots from full court + autonomous + a 50 pt. climb and dump. That's well over 120 pts, give or take. 2056 had a 7 disc auto + a deadly accurate shooter, and a 10 pt climb. Probably about another 100 pts right there. Then, 254 has its 7 disc auto + another quality shooter + a 10 second 30 pt. climb. I think this group can hit 300 pts.

[Walter Deitzler]

Originally Posted by Mrcope9

Each alliance should have...

1 consistant full cout shooter- I give this one to 148. They had one if the most accurate full court shots this year. I think they probably scored more than 100 frisbee points in a single game a few times this year. Besides The Robowranglers, 67 and 469 both had quality FCS. But, it goes to 148.

1 reliable cycler. We saw in the championship that 3 cyclers was the best type of alliance. A cycling robot with a fast floor pickup makes a great addition. I would probably go with either 2056, 118, 3476 or 1477. All of these can score, but I give it to 2056.

1 fast climber with a solid shooter. I have to go with 254. They could climb to 30 in the time it took most to reach 10. 1986 and 1114 also had great climbs, but The Poofs get this one.

In total, 148 could hit at least 25 shots from full court + autonomous + a 50 pt. climb and dump. That's well over 120 pts, give or take. 2056 had a 7 disc auto + a deadly accurate shooter, and a 10 pt climb. Probably about another 100 pts right there. Then, 254 has its 7 disc auto + another quality shooter + a 10 second 30 pt. climb. I think this group can hit 300 pts.

One quick flaw: 148 can only climb to 20 and does not dump. If you want the FCS/50pt climb and dump, go for 67.

[Chris is me]

I love thinking about this kind of thing and I'll possibly come back later to contradict myself.

First things first, full court shooters aren't going to help here. There are a few (67, 148, 195, 2169, etc) that are accurate enough to be a part of this discussion, but with 45 + 6 discs, it's just too easy to get 11-12 cycles out of three good cyclers. Anyone who wants to contest this can go watch Einstein and IRI again. One could argue that an FCS will more efficiently feed a ground loader, but there aren't a ton of ground loaders that work as quickly as an optimized cycler even with a ton of discs on the ground.

Autonomous mode has to be covered. At least 13 discs for the alliance, which isn't hard to do. 15 discs is nice but I don't think it's absolutely necessary - I'll say it'll break a tie in this discussion but so many robots are good at covering the middle discs that it almost doesn't matter.

Climbing points are where the discussion gets interesting. Obviously an ideal alliance wants as many as possible - but the more climbers you have, the less end game cycling happens. There's also diminishing returns to a small extent on climbing, as only two robots need to dump. I think it's pretty reasonable to say the ideal alliance needs at least two thirty point climbers.

So let's see what robots we have to work with here. I'm assuming every robot is playing at their peak performance in season or IRI. I won't consider "a better driven version of Team XYZ" or anything like that though.

My first guess for an alliance would be 254, 1114, 67. 67 is *the* 50 point dump FCS - and they happen to be one of the most accurate and fastest FCSes in the world. A perfect fit for a floor loader like 254. 90 climb points, 30 pyramid points, all 45 white discs in the goal, and 13 discs in autonomous gets you 303 points. I won't really try and guess how many opponent discs they can go for without some very hard data on how effective these three teams are...

The other three-climber alliance that could possibly exist would be 1986, 1114, 1334. This alliance gives up full court shooting in exchange for quicker and more reliable cyclers. I don't think there's a doubt in anyone's mind that these three robots could each manage four cycles a match. 1986's floor pickup isn't stellar in teleop but it's good enough that they could probably manage to get a cycle of missed discs. Same point ceiling, different (probably safer) strategy. Plus this alliance has more of a "new school FRC" feel to it.

There are other non 30 point climbing bots that are so exceptionally good that they deserve consideration. 2056, 469, 1310, and 118 are all absolutely excellent robots at their peak and I believe all of them have had 90+ point contributions in a match before. The only way these teams could keep up is if they found 20 points (opponent missed discs, etc) that 254 / 1986 couldn't find. That said, if anyone could do that, it'd be 2056 and 469. That would be an interesting alliance, 1114 / 2056 / 1334... now where have I seen that before...

[Abhishek R]

I find it interesting that a majority of people seem to value the two centerline disks in auto over an overall better fit for strategy.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

I find it interesting that a majority of people seem to value the two centerline disks in auto over an overall better fit for strategy.

See, I disagree. I think any of these combinations of teams could score every disc in the feeder station. Or at least most of these combos.
Any combo with 67 involved only needs someone to pick up a few discs off the floor to score every disc, technically.
I think the 67-254-1114 alliance could EASILY score every disc in the feeder station.
Additionally, I think the 1986-1918-67 could do it as well.
Really it comes down to scoring ALL of your discs, maximizing auto points, and maximizing climb points.
Reliability might come into play, as any alliance with 67 fcs'ing is inherently unreliable due to the ease at which one can block 67. But there are other ways to do this. Cycling can likely score all these discs as well.

In summary, I think most of these combos definitely consider alliance composition and strategy.

[lemiant]

67 will probably not FCS unless you're dedicating one of your cyclers to defending them and even then they still suffer from defence. I don't know why everyone keeps pretending they can factor that ability into their strategy. It's a nice plus you can use once in a while, nothing more by the time the game has evolved this much.

To be fair they are an amazing cycler. That's what I think we should be counting them as good cycler with a 50 point climb/dump and a trick up their sleeves.

[Abhishek R]

No, I mean auto is important, you definitely have to have the 7 disk, just that the centerline isn't as important because it can be defended relatively easily, so I wouldn't consider it a factor when creating an alliance. That's why I like the alliance 254 - 1114 - 67 because an FCS plus floor pickup with a cycling climber is a wide variety of options that all fit well together the best in my opinion. All the alliances suggested were great alliances, I just feel this one is 1% better.

Yes 67 can be defended, but if you have a robot defending them, you're down to a 2 vs 2.5 since 67 can still cycle, unless the defender is also a fast cycler (i.e 1477) which would make it a 2.5 vs 2.5. If you decide to not dedicate a defender to 67 I think they would just outscore you.

Another idea for variety could be 1114, 118, 469. Basically relies on massive teleop plus 1114's climb.

[Lil' Lavery]

469, 469, and 469

[Bryce2471]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

469, 469, and 469

I have to agree. 469 was one of the few robots this year capable of scoring all the fisbees by themselves in 2:15.

They were a good enough fcs to empty the feeder in a minute and leave more than enough time to pick up their scraps.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

469, 469, and 469

As tempted as I am to agree with this - 469's on season performance is only rivaled by 2056's IRI performance - if we're talking about "perfect" alliances you can't leave 72 (20 + 20 + 20 + 30 - 18) net points on the board. While 254, 1986, 1114, etc. are not at 469's disc-handling level, they're good enough to score all the discs together and they have the additional climb points.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

As tempted as I am to agree with this - 469's on season performance is only rivaled by 2056's IRI performance - if we're talking about "perfect" alliances you can't leave 72 (20 + 20 + 20 + 30 - 18) net points on the board. While 254, 1986, 1114, etc. are not at 469's disc-handling level, they're good enough to score all the discs together and they have the additional climb points.

Could someone please throw a 30 pt. climber on 469's bot so we can end this discussion? Photoshop will do, just make it look real. Also, is it just me or have we had about five of these threads?

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Basel A

Could someone please throw a 30 pt. climber on 469's bot so we can end this discussion?

If I remember correctly talking to some of their guys at champs, they had a concept for a 30 point climber that ended up getting trashed later in the season. The main artifact of this is the lead screw that moves their arm has a ton of power behind it.

Just some food for the thought.