|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Highest Levels of Play
Quote:
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The Highest Levels of Play
Quote:
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. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The Highest Levels of Play
Quote:
North Carolina is moving to a district model for 2016. No surprise there really. However, if you've been watching 900, you'll know that we're a fan of the niche play the last few years. It makes it fun and different for us. District play doesn't lend itself to niche roles though and if we hope to get back to St Louis (and we do) then we may have to 'abandon' our unique interpretations of the rules in favor of building a robot that is a little more mainstream. Nothing wrong with that but I'm not under any delusions that we could keep up with the teams who have been building robust and awesome mainstream robots for many years. We're good but we ain't that good. Having a more mainstream robot instead of a niche play is less valuable at Championships if we seek to go further... and we do. I suspect that the niche robots are more valuable as alliance partners during selections at Championships than they are at a district event. Of course, I could be completely wrong. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The Highest Levels of Play
Quote:
Take 27 and 2848 for examples. If they weren't pre-qualified teams, 27 would have made championships (by merit of their MSC finalist appearance), and 2848 would not have, as they only made finals at their second event, where 1817 received a wildcard, and they would not have. Both were solely cappers, and both ended up in championship eliminations. Role players are likely to consistently make eliminations at their events, and thus accrue district points, as well as robot awards. And with the stuff I know 900 is capable of(building sold machines with sick controls), you should have no problem qualifying for championships via district points with your machines. |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The Highest Levels of Play
Obviously, every game is different, but I would put a lot of caution into intentionally designing as a "niche" or "support" robot in a district structure. Generally speaking, you're taking away your ability to "control your own destiny" when it comes to district ranking and reach the district CMP and subsequently the CMP. In some areas, a large enough portion of the population will reach DCMP that you may be willing take that risk and hope you end up on a successful DCMP alliance. In others, you may end up watching from home.
Sometimes a niche/support robot won't even be viable/useful at lower levels of play. There were teams who's only real utility was grabbing center cans that went undrafted at district events this year, because at those events, simply putting up points was more valuable than getting additional cans that weren't likely to be utilized. Keep in mind that alliance captains will often have goals other than winning the entire tournament in the district structure, as a semi-finals or finals run is worth more than a boom-or-bust run that loses in the quarters. Other times, a quality niche/support robot will curse itself to the "valley of doom." Frequently, the top notch support robots will be selected at the end of the first round or early part of the second round of alliance selection, ending up on one of the lower ranking alliances as a result. Prior to 2015, that meant a QF tango with some of the top ranked teams at the event, not a favorable scenario to be in. Each team will need to do that math to determine if a couple ~8 point selections and QF exits will be enough points for them to reach their DCMP, as it will vary based on district size. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Highest Levels of Play
Quote:
We knew we wanted to get that autonomous tote stack ourselves, because the likeliness of three individual robots getting that stack together was approximately 0%. There's a bit of gut feeling involved as well; we figured a robot that could build an entire stack within itself and then score it (the bottom-up stacking style) would be more efficient than one that made stacks on the platform one at a time. I'll probably edit in more things later. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The Highest Levels of Play
With only six weeks to work on the robot and an extremely busy seven week competition season, even the best teams need to realize that doing everything perfectly just isn't possible.
The highest level of play is usually achieved by teams who pick one method of scoring, and become the absolute best at it. Reliability is just so important in FRC, and there isn't time for any team to completely master every part of every game. If build season was a year long, things might be different. 1114 in 2015 couldn't do coopertition, pick up stacks of multiple totes, or place containers on top of existing stacks, yet only missed Einstein finals by a few points because of reasons unrelated to their design. In 2013, Einstein wasn't filled with 30 point climbers because teams who prioritized shooting were simply able to score more points. 1114, one of the best robots with a 30 point climber that year ended up being eliminated after they slipped off and could no longer climb the tower. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|