Defense Type and Position Selection

[GKrotkov]

Originally Posted by jblay

The other thing that I have been thinking about is defense position. The things that came into play when we were selecting defenses was field vision, but also what routes teams would have to take to do their scoring. We wanted to make their routes as long as possible and create as much congestion as possible for the opposing alliance.

Yes! The position of defenses is not thought about nearly enough at events I've been to. Generally, here's Dawgma's process (oversimplification, of course, but there's no one good way to pick for every match):
1) Figure out what defenses are toughest for opponents to crack, preferably by match data. If unavailable, use pit scouting. If that's not conclusive, go with the CdF, Ramparts, Sally Port, and Rock Wall.
2) Position the defenses such that the defenses that one opponent will likely cross is right next to the one the other will cross in order to funnel your opponents. I consider long routes a bonus. Often if you're faced with an alliance of 2 cyclers, what you can do is figure out which will use what defense, an alternate as best you can, depending on audience selection.
3) Consider whether there are conditions drastic enough to merit use of the drawbridge. Are you severly outgunned in boulders? Make it so that your opponent's big shooter can't see when they're lining up to shoot.
4) If you wanted to use the drawbridge, think again. Are you sure? Are you really sure? Check with your drive coach.

[Kevin Leonard]

After having gone through a regional- I don't give a Flying Toaster about defense selection.

Unless my opponents are known to be really bad at something in particular, I'm probably going to put the Moat, the Rock Wall, the CDF, and the Sallyport in almost every time for the purposes of my own visibility.

If my opponents are bad enough that their alliance can't get a breach done regardless of what I throw at them, I'm going to win the match anyway, at which point who cares what defenses I place?

People seem to get stuck on the moat and ramparts equally, and the CDF is both more difficult and easier to see over. The Sallyport might occasionally be replaced with the drawbridge if I really don't want my opponents to have an easy 10 points sitting on the table.

Defense selection is cool, but lends very little strategic value to the game once you get to a point where every robot at the event can get a breach solo.
(And if you can't get a breach solo regardless of the defenses placed, you probably messed up your strategic design from day 1, because robots near the bottom of our picklist at Tech Valley got solo breaches when their partners lost comm. There are a few exceptions to this, but for the most part this holds.)

[TDav540]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

After having gone through a regional- I don't give a Flying Toaster about defense selection.....

Defense selection is cool, but lends very little strategic value to the game once you get to a point where every robot at the event can get a breach solo.
(And if you can't get a breach solo regardless of the defenses placed, you probably messed up your strategic design from day 1, because robots near the bottom of our picklist at Tech Valley got solo breaches when their partners lost comm. There are a few exceptions to this, but for the most part this holds.)

I'm going to ignore the first part of the statement and focus on the second half.

All events are different. Just because at one event the bottom of your picklist has teams that can solo breach doesn't mean everyone's does. Honestly, at both of our events so far, we haven't been able to put anyone beneath the 8th position at our picklist who can solo breach, simply because that's who could solo breach at our events.

But my main point is this: just because a team can't solo breach doesn't mean they fail to be a valuable partner. Does it make it much, much easier to select someone who can? Of course, having that flexibility is great. But if I have a team who can score 6-7 boulders per match, and is only missing maybe one or two catagories of defenses, I think it's worth considering. A special case? Maybe, but I've seen it more than a few times. They might not have failed their strategic design; likely, they might have just gone about it differently.

And the point about Auton by Paul Richardson is also a good one.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by TDav540

I'm going to ignore the first part of the statement and focus on the second half.

All events are different. Just because at one event the bottom of your picklist has teams that can solo breach doesn't mean everyone's does. Honestly, at both of our events so far, we haven't been able to put anyone beneath the 8th position at our picklist who can solo breach, simply because that's who could solo breach at our events.

But my main point is this: just because you can't solo breach doesn't mean you fail to be a valuable partner. Does it make it much, much easier to select someone who can? Of course, having that flexibility is great. But if I have a team who can score 6-7 boulders per match, and is only missing maybe one or two catagories of defenses, I think it's worth considering. A special case? Maybe, but I've seen it more than a few times. They might not have failed their strategic design; likely, they might have just gone about it differently.

And the point about Auton by Paul Richardson is also a good one.

At the end, I did say there were exceptions. 4481 was at the Tech valley regional this past weekend, and they couldn't solo breach, but they did hit 6 high goal shots in a match once. But they're definitely the exception rather than the rule.

I might amend my original statement though- if you can't solo breach when the Sallyport is on the field, you probably failed your strategic design from day 1. Not doing the low bar can make sense if you can do the bumpy stuff, the CDF/Portcullis, and do the sallyport backwards.

[TDav540]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

At the end, I did say there were exceptions. 4481 was at the Tech valley regional this past weekend, and they couldn't solo breach, but they did hit 6 high goal shots in a match once. But they're definitely the exception rather than the rule.

I might amend my original statement though- if you can't solo breach when the Sallyport is on the field, you probably failed your strategic design from day 1. Not doing the low bar can make sense if you can do the bumpy stuff, the CDF/Portcullis, and do the sallyport backwards.

I can agree with that. With every robot being able to do the Sally Port with intelligent drivers, it basically allows you to choose a defense you don't want to do (assuming you're low bar capable).

[BrennanB]

Some smart teams put all the easy to cross defenses on one side so that robot auto modes can collide. Especially when the B or D defense is the audience selection.