Is Defense Back in a Big (Bad) Way?

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

My prediction is that defense will not be as effective against elite teams who designed to play the game to be very hard to defend against but extremely effective against everyone else. Shooting from the outerworks and over any defenders is a great way to negate defense. This shooting ability will be a tiny minority though. Everyone else is going to face Aerial Assault but even worse since the goals are narrower.

[barn34]

I definitely agree on the potential for defense to really play a big factor this year. This is the first game I can remember where if you don't have a certain minimum score, you can't access a lot of the point potential an alliance can obtain from capture/climb and that's not really figuring in how many points you stop from keeping them under 8 goals scored. If you force them to go low goal, that's also 2.5 times less efficient than 1 high goal scored so they need to score 3 times to your one to come out ahead on point potential.

These are just some of the reasons we've intentionally kept our design flexible to cater to the defensive evolution of the game this year. This could prove to be FCS blockers from 2013 and goalie poles from 2014 on steroids, or some tandem offensive strategies could evolve that consistently prove to knive through defense attempts like they were toilet paper. It'll be interesting to watch the evolution, that's for sure.

[mathking]

Here is my take, based on an admittedly small sample set of one practice competition. But also on a bunch of simulated games using remotely controlled Lego Mindstorm robots. Defense in the courtyard is very effective one on one. Not nearly as effective when the offensive robots cooperate. If a robot can either score from the protection of still being in the defense or it can score from the batter then good cooperative tactics can cut down on the effectiveness of defense in the courtyard. I think that during qualification matches, particularly in the first few weeks, defenders will have more of an advantage. But once teams figure out how to block and pick and roll it will be tougher.

I think simply blocking one of the defenses may be the most effective way to slow opponents down. Particularly since I see a lot of alliances with 1-3 defenses they can't cross in qualifications. In our simulated games slowing opponents as they come out of your courtyard and again as they try to cross back in was just about as effective as defense inside the courtyard. (Caveat: We were playing with a bunch of bots that had a "race to the batter and score" offensive strategy, so once they got around a courtyard defender they were hard to stop.) This will be one of the games where it will be hard for the great robots to dominate on their own. I think effective scouting is going to be absolutely imperative. You need to select the defenses that will most inconvenience your opponents and then use a strategy that takes advantage of your selections.

[ASmith1675]

I'm having a tough time reading how this game is going to play out defensively. In 2014 it was clear defense was going to be a critical part of the game as only 1 game element per alliance ostensibly forced 2/3rds of all the robots on the field into playing defense (since there wasn't much else to do).

This year a highly effective defender might be able to partially shut down scoring in the tower, since it is a relatively small area to defend. At the same time, I think an offensive blitz strategy can and will easily overwhelm the forced single defender. In my opinion the most effective defenders will be the ones that can force turnovers and deposit boulders in the passage. This will make the opposing alliance "waste" cycles going back through the defenses to grab more boulders.

[Justin Montois]

I think one thing that's missing in this thread is the fact that the opposing alliance will (I think) be focusing more on getting their RP's than on playing defense.

From the Week 0 events, putting 8 balls into the tower was rare from what I saw. Without those 8 Balls, that's a Ranking Point left on the table. Devastating to teams trying to seed high. Further, taking down the defenses quickly enough to leave enough time to score 8 balls must be a team effort. Failure to breach your opponents outer works would again leave a Ranking Point on the table and again devastating to teams trying to seed high.

In most cases, if you play well enough to get your two RP's in the match, the additional RP's from winning the match will most likely follow ensuring a high seed.

I think the nature of both alliances trying to get those all important ranking points will limit defense and create a fun, high scoring game to watch. I hope.

[Joe Johnson]

Good discussion of defense, but I think that this is going to be a penalty nightmare for many defensive robots. When can they touch a robot, when can't they?

The early weeks of the season are going to see so many penalties due to teams playing aggressive defense around the defenses.

It will sort itself out by weeks 3 or 4 but not so much in those early weeks.

Dr. Joe J.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

I think one thing that's missing in this thread is the fact that the opposing alliance will (I think) be focusing more on getting their RP's than on playing defense.

I agree. An average of four cycles for each of two robots (damage defense + scoring on the tower) looks to be significantly harder than an average of three cycles each for three robots.

That said, on any alliance where you know you're not going to breach and/or capture, that defense can really obliterate a game plan.

[Josh Goodman]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

That said, on any alliance where you know you're not going to breach and/or capture, that defense can really obliterate a game plan.

Or, let's say, against an alliance that you know is capable of doing both.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Josh Goodman

Or, let's say, against an alliance that you know is capable of doing both.

In elims, sure. I'm not sure that in quals denying their qualifying points is priority over maximizing your own game points.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

In elims, sure. I'm not sure that in quals denying their qualifying points is priority over maximizing your own game points.

Depends how the alliance thinks. Is risking 1 breach point a better option than risking 2 win points. I would imagine there would be no defense only if both alliances believed they could score more than the other by focusing on offense. If an alliance feels weaker on scoring, playing defense to secure the 2 win points may be more worth it than focusing on breach and capture points.

[Josh Goodman]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

In elims, sure. I'm not sure that in quals denying their qualifying points is priority over maximizing your own game points.

I think that depends on the situation. I'm more talking about trying to maximize your RP by snagging the W. If they're capable of a breach and a capture, there's a very good chance (in the quals) that solidifies a win. If you can shut down a fantastic scorer with a mediocre scorer playing defense enough to prevent your opponents from capturing, you have a much better chance of winning that match.

(Sorry, thought process was stupid convoluted and deserved more than a one sentence response.)

[pandamonium]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

I think one thing that's missing in this thread is the fact that the opposing alliance will (I think) be focusing more on getting their RP's than on playing defense.

I totally agree with this. It may be able to contain a shooter and lower point output but will it be enough to change the outcome of a match? The other thing that is missing here is the defense free end period and autonomous mode. A top level robot that can shoot 2 balls in auto and a few during the end of the match.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by pandamonium

I totally agree with this. It may be able to contain a shooter and lower point output but will it be enough to change the outcome of a match? The other thing that is missing here is the defense free end period and autonomous mode. A top level robot that can shoot 2 balls in auto and a few during the end of the match.

No ranking points in elims.

Also a win is worth the most in quals (as I doubt many events will see consistant breach and captures early in season).

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

No ranking points in elims.

Also a win is worth the most in quals (as I doubt many events will see consistent breach and captures early in season).

I don't think the 20+25 bonuses in elims are necessarily small potatoes, for what it's worth. Maybe I'm wrong.

I hope teams considered how often are they would get 2 rank points in a match they lose in their strategy.

[tindleroot]

I've been noticing similar trends about defense (and maybe Karthik has too?).

As far as I've seen low, ranged shooting robots are going to be extremely common since those designs can easily cross the low bar and shoot in the high goal. However, there is an inherent flaw in that design in that given how long it takes vision (or manual alignment) to line up a shot, those robots can easily be blocked by a tall robot or by a pool noodle blocker. And, if a robot has a decent drivetrain but a poor scoring mechanism, they can play this role in a match and be extremely effective.

Winning in quals is more important than the other ranking points since winning is worth 2 RP, plus you deny the opponent 2 ranking points, which helps you advance farther than the competition. I can guarantee that any smart alliance will do their best to shut down a high-potential scoring robot if it is easy to stop them, as is the case with the low-shooting robots. This will happen in both quals and elims, and it will definitely happen if the team in question is high-ranked.