Which robot(s) did you like the best this year?

[cjl2625]

Originally Posted by Cory

Statistics will never convey how dominant 71 was in 2002, due to the game structure. It was the first "chokehold stragey" and to this day the best implemented chokehold strategy (469 2010 was more beatable, IMO).

It would be foolish to compare our SVR performance this year to 71's 2002 season. One was basically a time trial, the other was flat out domination of the opponent.

I've heard all these legends about 71, but from TBA, it didn't look like they were overwhelmingly dominant.
They won the championship, but their record that year was 30-14-4, and their OPR was never particularly high compared to other robots that year.

Is it just incorrect to judge 71 that year based on these statistics?

[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by cjl2625

I've heard all these legends about 71, but from TBA, it didn't look like they were overwhelmingly dominant.
They won the championship, but their record that year was 30-14-4, and their OPR was never particularly high compared to other robots that year.

Is it just incorrect to judge 71 that year based on these statistics?

Yes and no. 71 had a fatal flaw that caused them to lose the Western Michigan Regional. If the opponents could push them around at the start of the match so that they were not facing the correct orientation, they were unable to turn back on track.

However, 71 fixed that for (then) Nationals, and they went on to win it in a dominating fashion. Like any year, the best teams aren't always the ones with the highest OPR or the best record. With Hammond in 2002, it's just something you had to see to believe. Many of their videos are available on youtube, I encourage you to watch some (especially Newton SF 1-1), and it becomes readily clear why they were so dominant that year.

[Darkseer54]

Originally Posted by tindleroot

Many of their videos are available on youtube, I encourage you to watch some (especially Newton SF 1-1), and it becomes readily clear why they were so dominant that year.

Their full season recap is up on Cory's channel. However it is and hour and a half long, so you should probably find a good time to sit down and watch through it. It has some great shots of their robot in action.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by cjl2625

They won the championship, but their record that year was 30-14-4, and their OPR was never particularly high compared to other robots that year.

Is it just incorrect to judge 71 that year based on these statistics?

Yes.

The 2002 game had two very different strategies for qualifying matches and elimination matches. In qualifying teams were ranked based on the sum of losing alliances scores. However, the elims were solely win-loss. 71's chokehold strategy was great at guaranteeing wins, but was a terrible seeding strategy, as it prevented their opponents from getting any Goal or Ball points. As such they didn't always apply their chokehold in quals, which explains the win-loss record that they had.

What they did in the elims at Champs was just unholy. Pure and utter domination. (Also helped by a perfectly created alliance.)

[dodar]

Also, a lot of people say that 71 won that year during build season. They found the biggest loophole in the rules from 2002 and exploited it to the max. And showed how a team can think outside the box.

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by cjl2625

I've heard all these legends about 71, but from TBA, it didn't look like they were overwhelmingly dominant.
They won the championship, but their record that year was 30-14-4, and their OPR was never particularly high compared to other robots that year.

Is it just incorrect to judge 71 that year based on these statistics?

In a game of keepaway, and with a bot whose strategy encouraged high-scoring opposing teams and alliance members to push them around the entire match, I'm not surprised their OPR would be low, if not negative.

Originally Posted by dodar

Also, a lot of people say that 71 won that year during build season. They found the biggest loophole in the rules from 2002 and exploited it to the max. And showed how a team can think outside the box.

Like Karthik said, there was the inherent flaw in the chokehold that it would ruin your ranking if you did it every qualification match. Although it wasn't the be-all-end-all perfect chokehold from the beginning, it was the closest thing to it. Other teams attempted similar methods, but few (possibly nobody) else grabbed all three goals, and none were as effective as 71.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

In a game of keepaway, and with a bot whose strategy encouraged high-scoring opposing teams and alliance members to push them around the entire match, I'm not surprised their OPR would be low, if not negative.


Like Karthik said, there was the inherent flaw in the chokehold that it would ruin your ranking if you did it every qualification match.

It wasn't an inherent flaw. They rarely needed competent alliance partners, so seeding first was not important to them. It wasn't until Championships (and perhaps Einstein) that they were really bailed out by the other talent on their alliance.

[fargus111111111]

What, 2826 is not on this list! Being in the hopper playoffs I was able to see this thing up close on the field and it was awesome! My team was across the aisle from 33's pit and as a result I learned about their automated tote loading system, one of the coolest coding features I saw this year.

[allgoodthehood]

Not only is 2826 missing from the poll, but 987 is also missing.

[jajabinx124]

Originally Posted by allgoodthehood

Not only is 2826 missing from the poll, but 987 is also missing.

987 is on the poll. They are under 148.

[allgoodthehood]

Originally Posted by jajabinx124

987 is on the poll. They are under 148.

That's only slightly awkward....