|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#16
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Seeding Overatted
Seeding has more to do with luck and playing style than ability to win.
Parings in QP matches are random so the luck of the draw decides how even the teams are. Often the bot with the worst partner in a close match often loses and suffers the low score. Bots paired with better partners that win get the same score even if they break or get disabled early in the match. Executing your strategy the best and winning doesnt guarantee high QP's. Last year Beatty grabbed three goal and crawled into their scoring zone making it impossible for their opponents to win. They never got the 30 points for those goals, because QPs last year were 3X the losing score last year (possibly zero point for winning). Ball bots seeded better last year. Beatty did not seed but was the first pick by #1 seed Rage 173 (a great ball bot). This year some bots colluded to keep the score high win or lose. Fixing matches is not a feature that will help a bot win elims but they got high seeds. In 2001, seeding was more meaningful because the objective of the 4 bot alliance was to score the absolute highest amount of points possible. |
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#19
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
71's arm was the best that I saw at Nationals. Period. It was fast and simple. If you had an arm on your bot it was very tough not to have a high center of gravity. In case you strategists haven't figured out by now, a great strategy to stop arm bots is to either 1) put something in the way of the arm such as a robot or 2) go back into them under the bar and push them, if that's possible. #2 may not work on some robots due to the fact that they can't be pushed around easily.
In my opinion, we sorta over-engineered our arm. It was too heavy and too large for the job we wanted it to do. Cudos to 71 ![]() |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quick re-cap
Here is the short version.
We saw 25 line up to come under the bar to push us. We then switched to another little seen auto program that can hit the bins the "conventional" way and then park on top of the ramp. Once on top of the ramp, we are tough to remove. However, Team 25 shot under the bar and just clipped our tail which caused our auto to hit the outside wall. After auto, we were pushed out-of bounds by 25. Even then, it would not have mattered because we had lost a chain during the beating. Our partner ( 522 ) was tipped early and the match was lost. For Wayne: As for looking a "little slow", we all looked slow compared to your team's machine. More amazing than the speed was that the driver had any control at all. While I am not a fan of the strategy, that was the game this year and your team always finds a way to be competitive. Sincerely, Brian Beatty |
|
#21
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
thanks guys... but as for the battlebots becoming ever present in FIRST.... well, that's why we like 111 so much: they depended on some amazing engineering rather than being one of about 200 plus bots tht did nothing but bulldoze and beat up another robot. we didn't want to go with the flock, and you can't win 'em all. but we did show what we could do, and we had a LOT of fun while doing that.
|
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
so are you saying that it doesnt take "amazing" engineering ability to create a powerful drive train, along with a universal gearbox |
|
#23
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Quick re-cap
Quote:
I think, in your defense, what you probably intended to say was that you didn't like how the rules and gameplay were biased in such a way as to promote their strategy. I, like you, it seems, had hoped that more robots would do some amazing things with bins, stacks, and multipliers. But, I didn't properly interpret the rules and examine likely scoring scenarios. For that, I'm a fool, not the people who took the simple, straightforward approach and did so well. |
|
#24
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
and to bring this thread WAY off topic, wood was right, everyone complained that there was not enough contact in games like 2001, and now there is too much contact, i dont ever think FIRST will bring a "perfect median" they try to please everyone while making it a Veiwer friendly competition, so with that i thank all the people in first for all either hard work setting this game up |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
A “natural target” would be a post where the message was derogated due to a total disregard for capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. With respect to my contribution: A “natural target” would be the one team that may lay claim to three national championships. |
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hammond as a "Natural Target" pretty much means that a lot of teams wanted to dethrone them from their back-to-back championships by any means necessary.
|
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clarification
I normally do not comment about replies to my posts as that is the process. But just to clarify my position so there is no misunderstanding. I have been a big fan of team 25 since the 2000 game with their arm--great, original thinking. Just because I am not a "fan" of the strategy does not mean I am upset or disrespect what team 25 and others did. Yes, like every year, the game drove the strategy--the 12 finalist teams looked like a line of Abrahms tanks. We felt that was where the game was going( look at Car Knack predictions ), but our challenge was to design a machine that could compete without being a total tank. If we built a tank, we would have been one of a couple of hundred tanks. We built a very good tank in 2002, but we did not like the game or the strategy necessary to do well. We don't want FIRST to become Battlebots or tank building contests every year--machines are about helping mankind to do bigger and better things. We think the 2001 game was great, although we realize we are in the minority.
In conclusion, my feeling is the challenge for FIRST is to design a game that has "vigorous interaction", but does not let this interaction be the driving component of the game. Sincerely, Brian Beatty |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well said, Mr. Beatty. I also loved the 2001 game, and I disliked both this years game, and last years game, because all you needed to do well was a fast or powerful drive train.
FIRST should put more emphasis on dexterity and BUILDING something, as opposed to power, and tearing things down. The game was called "Stack Attack." Need I say more? Last edited by Ben Mitchell : 19-04-2003 at 15:22. |
|
#29
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Clarification
Quote:
![]() |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
In other sports, they have years to fine tune the rules to balance the game. We don't have that luxury because the game is different every year. Like Team 71, our robot had a big arm for hitting the stack. We also had 2 other arms for stacking which saw no action except to push bins. In hind sight, what change to this year's game would have shifted the importance from speed and power to stacking, dexterity, etc.? That could be valuable in helping to make next year's game better. (Maybe that should be a new thread, so I'll start one.) Last edited by DougHogg : 19-04-2003 at 16:39. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| The Death of FIRST | Anton Abaya | General Forum | 23 | 03-05-2006 17:18 |
| Loss of Gracious Professionalism Among First Teams | Melissa Nute | General Forum | 82 | 31-03-2003 19:34 |
| The 2003 Index of team's post about their robot... | Ken Leung | Robot Showcase | 4 | 28-02-2003 00:18 |
| More 'Best' Robots (a well thought list) | archiver | 2000 | 2 | 23-06-2002 23:11 |
| Disqualifications | archiver | 1999 | 13 | 23-06-2002 21:53 |