Strategic Responses

[Hubicki]

Any one have any responses to my thoughts on strategy?
I believe that all purpose bots in general will have a difficult time dealing with the rigors of the two on two game play. Such a design may require intricasies that would be broken easily in a pushing match. I believe that the seemingly popular "technically always be in the home zone" strategy will probably fail due to future rulings. Also, such an object in the home zone could easily be moved (it can't attatch to the floor) to another zone, or even the enemy home zone. Even if it's deployed at the end of the match, it may fall under the projectiles or entanglement rule. This is just my opinion of coarse.
~Chris~

[Skanker]

I disagree (about the multi-purpose thing). It may be a little tougher to play the game, having multiple abilities. BUT being versatile is a huge advantage. f

or example: say a team gets two robots that can both score balls, and that's all they can do (remember during the seeding rounds, team setup is pretty random). They can score as many balls as they want, but they can only score a max of 20 points (2 robots in the end zone).

Okay, MAYBE they can manage to bump a goal across the line to their side... keep in mind that the goal now weighs in excess of 180 lbs (close to 200), and the robot only weighs 130 MAX. The robot will need to exert a signifigant (but not hard to achieve) amount of force on the goal. Ramming the goal like this is likely to cause damage to the robot (the goal exerts force right back).

Say, maybe the other team has a bot that can grab goals (regardless of what else it can do). it can mozy right on into the scoring zone and take the goal right out. the ramming of robots will be powerless to stop the goal mover.

Now, it's too bad our team chose to focus on only one thing.

[Skanker]

Another note:

The key to this game is the ability to CONTROL as many points as possible. if you can grab 1, 2, or even 3 goals, great! you are able to control up to 50 points (3 goals + 2 robots). If you are able to manipulate balls and goals, then you can potentially control up to 90 points (right?)--not counting the balls behind the glass.

Control of resources (points) is key to victory.

[Hubicki]

You're probably right, in the sense that versatillity is incredibly important in the qualification rounds. However, the tendency for a versatile design is to slightly slacken in each of its functions to make the power, weight, and size limits. I would love to build an 'everything' robot, but in all likelyhood, the subsystems would be complex and intertwined (i.e. drive, ball sucker, goal manipulator). If one system broke at competition, it would be difficult to repair it without tampering with other systems. In the qualification rounds, most every functional robot (in a pinch) will be able to push a goal (it only takes 30 lbs of force), whether it's designed to or not. Also, a goal manipulation alliance isn't totally 'ball handicaped'. They can still use the player station balls or steal the other team's goals with the balls in them. The pusher/lifter bots can still move goals to correct positions and hinder the other team from scoring balls (scattering balls or whatnot). In the end, many teams that are picked for finals are specialized in one (maybe two) areas. The robots that can perform their specific tasks most efficiently, effectively, and reliably will be top picks for finals, regardless of qualification score.

[Hubicki]

O yeah, I love your survivor analogy

[Skanker]

Thanks (about the analogy thing)

You may be right... but I still disagree...

I'm excited to see what other teams choose to go with (one objective or two or three). Well, I guess it all really comes down to how it's designed. a well designed all-purpose robot may perform better than a specialist, but if it's poorly designed, then it may not.

I guess we'll have to wait and see eh?

[Wayne Doenges]

Team 535 is designing a robot that will be able to do three (3) seperate tasks.
Fact or Fiction.....You decide when you see us
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Wayne Doenges

[Hubicki]

I wish the best of luck to you

[Jeff Waegelin]

Ditto. Good luck

In a two vs two match - stop thinking about doing it all by yourself, and start thinking how you can maximize the chances of the alliance. A poor robot partner can do 10 or less points in qualifiers.
A fair partner can score between 10 and 20 pts.
Good - 20 to 29. Excellent 30 or above. How it does it is not as important as how consistently it does it.

There are two ways to get in the elimination round. The first is to qualify - here a well rounded design is probably going to prevail. - The second way is to have an oustanding capability (probably
defensive) that makes you a good alliance pick.

Look at the 2000 game (In which team 255 won the national championship.) The 255 robot was one of the simplest designs in the competition - 4 motors, no pnematics, FP drive motors, but it reliably could score 22 points in about 45 seconds which was enough to win 10 out of 12 Qualifying matches.

During the elimination rounds the 255 robot played
4 out of the 12 matches - relying on two allies who
were primarily defensive.

There is alsways a danger in having a robot that is
defensive - even if it is great at defense, it is going to have low QP. Defensive play during QP does not contribute to any potential ally QP. Only a spectacular defensive/offensive capabilty - i.e.
one robot that can grab and control all 3 goals, and move at least one into scoring position would be a good candidate, as could a bully bot who could always capture and tow an opponent back to it's home zone

"Ask not what your robot can do to your opponents,
rather ask what your robot can do for your alliance"

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally posted by Dr.Bot

There is alsways a danger in having a robot that is
defensive - even if it is great at defense, it is going to have low QP. Defensive play during QP does not contribute to any potential ally QP.

Generally speaking that is probably the case. There is, however, the luck of the alliance draw. Our '99 robot was purely defensive. We scored a grand total of one floppy in our three competitions. As luck would have it, though, we ended up with some good offensive partners in our Q matches at nationals and ended up as a qualifier.

Kit,

I agree luck of the draw will be important - you want to be slightly better than all the other alliances during Qualifying Rounds. HOWEVER - the best strategy and design will take into
account that the abilities of the other robots on the field will vary greatly, and be able to deal with it. In other words, the best robots will make their luck.

[Hubicki]

I very much agree. The defensive robots will be extraordinary robots in the elimination rounds (which is mostly all that counts). You could also expand upon that to include robots that can steal points. Stealing points acts as both offense and defense because you're gaining points and stripping the other team of theirs. In fact, the most effective elimination matches would require a very quick offensive, then switching to a purely defensive game. The alliances that can obtain points quickly and maintain their defense most effectively will ultimately be victorious.
~Hubicki~

[Mike Norton]

Don't forget if you make a robot that you can change in a matter of a few minutes.

One match big and strong and next match high ball scorer.

Most of the time you know at lease what three teams you will have to compete with. you might not know if they will be your team mate but you can figure out what kind of robot you are going to need in that macth

[pavelthegeek]

Originally posted by Mike Norton
Don't forget if you make a robot that you can change in a matter of a few minutes.

One match big and strong and next match high ball scorer.

...

Don't forget that the robot with all of its possible transformer attachments can only weigh 130 lbs (all of the parts that will ever be used on the robot have to make up that 130 lbs)