Smart team vs. Good Team

[Samwaldo]

Just look at the competitions that the number 8 alliance beats the number 1 alliance!!! Being the smartER team is how they do it. Ephasis on smartER, because great teams are great because they know how to play the game well.

Perfect example was Groton. 195 (and 78) had great and beautiful machines that dominated. As the number 8 seed, captained by a robot that just played defense (with lunacy wheels, yet somehow there driver did an amazing job). We feared the quarterfinals. Somehow in the 4 matches we played (1 became a replay) we beat them 3 times! We look back and believe it was because although the number 1 seed had the best offense in the world, they lacked passing (not as much this) and defense. I am not saying that, any team on the #1 alliance was not smart or good, we just somehow outsmarted them when it came to strategy planning.

Strategy CAN win a match againt the greatest

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

Shouldn't be too hard to figure out after 3 weeks of regionals. Look at the winners. Are they predominately teams with good robots, or "smart" teams with less capable robots?

I have seen multiple very good robots try to score TRUSS points with their missed autonomous balls...in the quarter-final rounds. Said teams did not make it into the semi finals.

In answer to your question, I have yet to see a team that is not "smart" win a regional.

Assuming exclusivity, smart team beats good robot, no question.

[45Auto]

Originally Posted by inkling16

In answer to your question, I have yet to see a team that is not "smart" win a regional.

Okay, have you seen a team without a "good" robot win a regional?

Originally Posted by inkling16

Assuming exclusivity, smart team beats good robot, no question.

Still a big question. All the regionals that I'm aware of have gone to teams with "good" robots, despite smarter play by many teams with less capable robots.

Good robots + decent play > bad robots + smart play

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Average robots playing smart can take down good or great robots who aren't playing smart. I've seen it play out that way more than once so far this season.

I would agree. We won our regional last week, but our toughest match was against 3 robots that played defense extremely well and shut down our alleys to the goal. They just couldn't quite make up the deficit from the auto period. And I saw a regional final where a smart alliance lost to an excellent robot-led alliance only due to penalties.

Alliance cooperation is supreme this year, so be ready to subsume your individual interests to those of the alliance. That also means the top teams must figure out how to use all of their alliance members most effectively.

[wireties]

This is an interesting topic but my experience is that good teams are nearly always smart. A team "good" enough to build a great machine started out "smart" enough to cover their bases, raise money, recruit mentors, have a complete program etc. All the "good" teams I know have "smart" strategy and scouting efforts.

So interesting query but impossible to debate (in my humble opinion)...

[Jim Schaddelee]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I would agree. We won our regional last week, but our toughest match was against 3 robots that played defense extremely well and shut down our alleys to the goal. They just couldn't quite make up the deficit from the auto period.

This has been our strategy from the start. "Win in auton and bury them in teleop"I hope that doesn't sound harsh. The first few weeks of the season it was important to have at least a 2 ball auton because reason and past experience tell you half or less will have auton down.It is very difficult to over come a 40 point deficit after auton if you are trying to play defense and score.But, this is going to change as the season develops.I think the smart teams will be evolving to what the game is going to be and other teams will be working on proverbial 2 ball auton. I would always bet on smart, because smart with a little good is better than good with little smarts

[MaxMax161]

How smart and how good? Never mind actual alliance compositions smart and good alone are too subjective to compare in this kind of way.

[45Auto]

Originally Posted by MaxMax161

How smart and how good? Never mind actual alliance compositions smart and good alone are too subjective to compare in this kind of way.

This is an internet forum. Please refrain from allowing logic and common sense to influence your posts.

[JTEarley]

In general, I would definitely go for the smart team. Especially this year that team play is critical. The teams that win are going to be the ones that are able to make game plans and execute them with whichever alliance members they are with.

They must also be able to adjust their plans during matches if things aren't working as well as planned. Because of this, my bet would be on the the smarter alliance.

That being said, from what I've seen, the good teams generally seem to be the smarter ones.

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

Okay, have you seen a team without a "good" robot win a regional?

Yes, if you can find video of how we won the Philly Regional in 2006 you will see 3 very broken not so good at that point robots win a regional by playing defense that in today's FRC teams would try to shame us over here on CD.

[45Auto]

Originally Posted by peter matteson

Yes, if you can find video of how we won the Philly Regional in 2006 you will see 3 very broken not so good at that point robots win a regional by playing defense that in today's FRC teams would try to shame us over here on CD.

You really believe that Aerial Assist is comparable to Aim High?

Kind of like saying that because a football team won a game with good defense, then a baseball team should be able to do the same thing ....

[Richard Wallace]

A long time ago, one of my elder relatives was fond of asking, "Would you rather be dumber than you look, or look dumber than you are?"

This is that kind of question.

I don't want to mentor a dumb team that builds a good robot, nor a smart team that builds a bad one.

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

You really believe that Aerial Assist is comparable to Aim High?

Kind of like saying that because a football team won a game with good defense, then a baseball team should be able to do the same thing ....

Yes, I do.

Remember in baseball pitching is considered defense, and how often do you hear that pitching won the championship?

But seriously both games are highly defensive open field games where the human player inbounds the game object. The goals are in roughly the same postions along the driver stations as well. Most importantly the advantage from a successful autonomous period can make or break the game because of the position it puts you when human control starts. In 2006 you were down points, the auto win bonus and had no balls to shoot when you went on offense in the first period. Compare that to a missed high goal can put you down 20 pts per miss and you have to get the ball off the field to start the real game. All that adds up to a lot more similarity than other other game in my 12 years mentoring.

[Paul T.]

Strategy cannot win a match alone, there's nothing you can do if you break or your simply over powered. i know its not a direct fit but its relevant. during the 2011 to 2012 vex season (gateway) before the NZ designs completely plagued the competition my team was able to win 5 competitons in a row (october to febuary) the first 4 were undefeated. admittedly the first two we won because we were way more prepared than any other team at the event (we worked all summer preparing for the first one. by the third event teams started to catch up and we won only on a good robot and strategy. by the fourth we weren't even the best team there, the NZ designs were better than "Ronny" and we knew it. it was a combination of luck and a solid strategy. the fifth was all strategy, the NZ designs crushed us in skills (were weren't even in the top 5 in robot skills) the design was faster and more efficient. a top seed picked us on only our reputation and were quite clear about it. they immediately forfeited alliance captain. they had the better robot but they knew we were the smarter more resourceful team.

i think the question should be weather you would like a team with a better robot or strategy. do not forget about a teams ability to adapt, at our last competition (in first now) we had our alliance caption die on the field and still won the match(switch the scoring efforts and use the dead robot as a road block).

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”


― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

[45Auto]

Originally Posted by peter matteson

Yes, if you can find video of how we won the Philly Regional in 2006 you will see 3 very broken not so good at that point robots win a regional by playing defense that in today's FRC teams would try to shame us over here on CD.

I haven't seen the match, but it would seem to me that your alliance's robots must have scored some goals at some point to get ahead. Wouldn't that make them "gooder" offensive robots than your opponents? Or were your opponents just extremely "bad" defensive robots?

If you can shut down the other alliance with three "very broken" robots on your alliance, I would submit that the other alliance couldn't have had very "good" robots.

But hey, you could be the "smartest" person on the "smartest" team in FIRST for all I know, all you need is a box with 4 wheels!