The Highest Levels of Play

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by EricDrost

1. Win matches.
2. Seed high.
3. Desirable to partners.

I'd have to disagree with this and would instead suggest:

1. Seed high
2. Win matches
3. Desirable to partners


While typically, winning matches is the key to seeding high it is not always the case. Reading the manual and understanding HOW to seed high is incredibly important to controlling your own destiny come alliance selection time.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Reading the manual... is incredibly important

Fixed that for you.

[Deke]

I would add playoff versus qualifying strategies as well. Recycle rush had elements that were different in qualifying and playoffs with co-op and can races. At our second event, we realized that we made more of a qualifying robot than a playoff robot. We seeded high at every event in position to be a captain, but failed to bust into the finals losing in the semi finals all year (except MSC we survived octo and were eliminated in quarters).

After going through this season, I would say it is better to design a playoff bot that might seed lower and contend for the finals, than a qualifying bot that just can't quite cut it in the playoffs. This was a different element than previous years IMO.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Infinity2718

I would add playoff versus qualifying strategies as well. Recycle rush had elements that were different in qualifying and playoffs with co-op and can races. At our second event, we realized that we made more of a qualifying robot than a playoff robot. We seeded high at every event in position to be a captain, but failed to bust into the finals losing in the semi finals all year (except MSC we survived octo and were eliminated in quarters).

After going through this season, I would say it is better to design a playoff bot that might seed lower and contend for the finals, than a qualifying bot that just can't quite cut it in the playoffs. This was a different element than previous years IMO.

This actually brings up something that is on my mind right now. When does it become necessary/advantageous for a more average team to build multiple robots to compete at both a regional/district level and at the championship level?

[Ben Martin]

Originally Posted by marshall

This actually brings up something that is on my mind right now. When does it become necessary/advantageous for a more average team to build multiple robots to compete at both a regional/district level and at the championship level?

When you are willing to commit to the almost-every-day-after-build-season schedule that you need to get your value out of the 2nd robot.

Since the second robot is a huge time and money sink, to get the full value out of it, you need to spend a lot of time practicing with it and upgrading it. There are many teams that build the second robot, but don't execute on it right (they don't behave the same, or they don't commit to the practice schedule required to truly get mileage out of it).

I believe that teams that don't build practice robots should focus on strategies with low movement that still score good points, with a focus on minimizing the impact of driver error and on game piece control in their robot design.

In regards to the priority discussion---

Our priorities in 2013/2014 were these:
1. Win local competitions
2. Do well at world competitions

For 2015, it was:
1. Get to Einstein
--though priorities from the past years factored a lot into the design.

We always try to build robots to be the #1 pick for elimination rounds and try to include all the features that might make someone want to pick us (we had a goal to have the fastest can grabber in MAR this year, in addition to wanting to have a 3-tote auto to seed high and to score points from the landfill, since we figured it was the harder task to do and would thus be more desirable at high levels where there would be a ton of feeder station bots).

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by marshall

This actually brings up something that is on my mind right now. When does it become necessary/advantageous for a more average team to build multiple robots to compete at both a regional/district level and at the championship level?

We started building a second robot in 2013. Here's a general synopsis of how it has affected us:

No practice bot: 2008-2012
-2 championship appearances in 5 years
-no appearances in championship eliminations
-no regional wins
-normally seeded 15-30
With practice bot: 2013-
-2 championship appearances in 3 years
-2 appearances in championship eliminations
-1 division win
-1 regional win
-normally seed 1-10

In 2013, we simply decided we wanted to have one so we did it. We had a rough start, not actually finishing the practice bot until week 2 of regionals, but it helped immensely. It's always advantageous to have a practice robot, it will allow you to make huge improvements to your robot during competition season.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

It's always advantageous to have a practice robot, it will allow you to make huge improvements to your robot during competition season.

Let me clarify my question a bit. I think y'all are assuming I meant building two identical robots. That's not quite what I meant.

When does it become necessary/advantageous for a more average team to build two different robots to compete at both a regional/district level, using Robot A and strategy A and at the championship level, using Robot B and strategy B?

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by marshall

When does it become necessary/advantageous for a more average team to build two different robots to compete at both a regional/district level, using Robot A and strategy A and at the championship level, using Robot B and strategy B?

I think that's a contradiction in terms. Building two different robots is beyond the capability of an average team. If they're capable of building two different competitive robots in three months, they are considerably above average.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

I think that's a contradiction in terms. Building two different robots is beyond the capability of an average team. If they're capable of building two different competitive robots in three months, they are considerably above average.

Fair point. Maybe I meant "above average".

[Harshizzle]

Re: Two different robots,

Its interesting to look at what some teams that were prequalified for champs did. Both 27 and 2848 went specialist routes, both being canburglars/cappers. I can't say whether this would have changed if they werent prequalified, but on our team, our early ideas involved being a tote specialist. We scrapped that design because we didn't want to rely on other teams for most of our points at the regional level (now our robot ended up relying on other teams anyway, but that's a different problem). At champs we thought that design would have done well, but we still had to qualify first.

In short, building a champs specific robot and a regional specific robot probably won't be feasible for most teams. The time and money investment only makes sense if you know you'll qualify for champs. But if you've already qualified, why build a regional specific robot at all?

There could also be an argument made for qualification specific designs vs. Elimation specific designs.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by marshall

Let me clarify my question a bit. I think y'all are assuming I meant building two identical robots. That's not quite what I meant.

When does it become necessary/advantageous for a more average team to build two different robots to compete at both a regional/district level, using Robot A and strategy A and at the championship level, using Robot B and strategy B?

I don't think I've ever heard of a team building two different robots intended for use at different levels of competition.
I'm also not sure there's a legal way of doing so within the rules of FRC.

The only comparisons I can come up with are total robot rebuilds, where much of the robot is rebuilt or replaced using the withholding allowance and COTS parts, and when 2826 brought an entirely new machine with them to IRI 2013.

[The other Gabe]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

I don't think I've ever heard of a team building two different robots intended for use at different levels of competition.
I'm also not sure there's a legal way of doing so within the rules of FRC.

The only comparisons I can come up with are total robot rebuilds, where much of the robot is rebuilt or replaced using the withholding allowance and COTS parts, and when 2826 brought an entirely new machine with them to IRI 2013.

team 2980 managed it this year: their robot had some sort of structural issue at their second event, so they completely disassembled it, and it was rebuilt by DCMP... IDK how they managed it, though...

also, on the subject of practice robots: they only help if you make robots that are at least decent. 2013 is the smudge on my team's record, and our practice bot didn't do too much to help. heck, even when it could climb, the competition robot still couldn't on field. however, this year, our robot was about average, but because of all the driving practice, we were able to become slightly above average, and discovered that we could upright containers

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

The only comparisons I can come up with are total robot rebuilds, where much of the robot is rebuilt or replaced using the withholding allowance and COTS parts, and when 2826 brought an entirely new machine with them to IRI 2013.

16 made a whole new robot for 2013 IRI as well.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

So you'd rather NOT control your destiny... ok, well, that makes 0 sense.

If you're the first seed but you're not desirable, nobody would hesitate to decline your pick. Curie 2013 and Wisconsin 2015 come to mind.

1. win matches
2. desirability
3. seed high

I have no problem with being a pick if I can consistently win matches, and being a desirable robot generally increases your likelihood of being picked by another high scoring, less in-demand robot that corresponds with your design. (landfill & feeder, trusser & finisher) Generally, winning is going to make you seed high, and you'll be desirable because you win. Just my two cents.

[artK]

Originally Posted by marshall

Let me clarify my question a bit. I think y'all are assuming I meant building two identical robots. That's not quite what I meant.

When does it become necessary/advantageous for a more average team to build two different robots to compete at both a regional/district level, using Robot A and strategy A and at the championship level, using Robot B and strategy B?

Could you give an example of what your talking about happening? Because I see two ways this might be happening. One is like what 1241 and 1285 did this year having two robots with two strategies? The other is like what 900 did this year with the harpoons at champs.

[iVanDuzer]

Originally Posted by artK

Could you give an example of what your talking about happening? Because I see two ways this might be happening. One is like what 1241 and 1285 did this year having two robots with two strategies? The other is like what 900 did this year with the harpoons at champs.

1285 and 1241 are two separate teams based in one school. Last year, which was 1285's rookie year, they built identical robots, but this year they stayed as separate as possible. For all intents and purposes, they're two distinct teams (like 254 and 1868). It's actually a really cool program: all the students get to choose what team they join at the beginning of the year. Apparently the numbers naturally split with more rookies / second year students going to 1285, and the veterans gravitating towards 1241.

I think a more relevant example would be 503 in 2008. After seeing 1114's dominant performance at Midwest that year, Frog Force completely revamped their design and played in Newton with a very Simbot-esque design. They were obviously not as polished as 1114 that year, though, and while the designs were similar, it didn't really work out for them in the long run. There aren't any videos from Great Lakes that year, so I don't know exactly when they made the switch. Compare: Week 1 Midwest regional and Newton Division.