i see alot of ball getters

[Chris Hibner]

Originally posted by Solace


That would be stupid. If the other teams realize that they can't win without any goals, all that they would have to do was make sure to stay out of their own end zone and the "winning" team would recieve ZERO qualification points

My original response was to someone who said you couldn't "win many matches without balls". My response meant that a team can WIN every match without getting balls. My response dealt nothing with qualification points, just with WINNING. I was simply correcting the first comment which said that you couldn't "win ... matches" without balls. This is obviously not true.

My original response was mostly geared toward the elimination rounds, where qualifying points do not matter - only winning.

-Chris

[kevinw]

Joe,

Let's imagine that Chief Delphi and The Monsters are an alliance for one match (it could happen). Let's also imagine that our team is losing 30-20 and we are unable to do anything to win (assuming we've tried). I would hope that we would still try to maximize our score for the match.

I guess I can see a great team (say Chief Delphi for instance) being able to justify getting 0 qualification points for a round because when they drop their lowest score, it wouldn't matter whether they drop a 0 or a 20.

However, for their alliance partner, it might make a big difference. If my team already has a 0 (or a 10) because we were partnered with another great team that decided to do the same thing, then to continue doing this would hurt us drastically.

It would be a real shame if the alliance element turned out to work in a way in which you lost points just to spite the winning alliance.

[Paul Copioli]

Kevin,

The point you make is extremely valid. However, after seeing your robot and knowing what your team is capable of, if your robot works 1/2 as good as I think; you will have no problem getting into the eliminations no matter how many 0 rounds you have.

Hey Chris Hibner,

I like the CVT idea. I thought you guys at TRW were all electrical guys. Where did that MECHANICAL device come from? Anyway, we are using a CVT utilizing planetary gearsets. A much different approach than yours, but hopefully the same outcome. See you at Great Lakes.

-Paul

[Joe Johnson]

My point is not that I would want to take a zero rather than give them a 20X3 Qualifying Points.

Here is what my point is: It is perfectly fair to get your score to zero in an attempt to make the OTHER alliance either score some points for you or give a goal to let you score for yourself.

This strategy counts on the rational behaviour of your opponents. By giving them the option between a zero QP win and a potential loss with some points, you may be able to get your opponent to let you in the game.

I am NOT saying that this is a good strategy or that it is the strategy that I am actually advocating. What I am saying is that it is a perfectly valid part of the game.

The purpose of the 3X QP rule is that FIRST wants matches to be somewhat of a balanced affair. I think that given the rule it is not sneaky or underhanded or evil for a team to try to utilize that rule to try to win a match or to try to maximize their QP total.

Here is how I think such a strategy is likely to play out. Assuming Alliance A has all 3 goals in their control and Alliance B has no hope of gaining control of any of these goals.

Alliance B has the option of scoring points for themselves and losing 30-20 (assuming that it takes both A robots to hold the goals in place and that they don't have multi-zone capabilities) or taking 0.

If they take the 0, Alliance A has several options.

They can back their robots into the home zone of Alliance B, thus making the score 30-20, but... this a risky thing because if Alliance B runs home at the last minute, Alliance B could sneak out a 40-30 win.

Alliance A could choose to have one of their robots put a goal or 2 into scoring position for Alliance B but again that is a risky strategy because a B robot could head home or it could perhaps drop a bunch of balls in the goal or it could do some other sneaky thing.

The thing that makes this interesting is that no matter what Alliance A chooses, it will create SOME kind of opportunity for Alliance B. It may pay off or it may end up a disaster. Either way it is a part of the game as far as I veiw things.

I think that this is going to be part of the wonderful excitement of this year's game.

Joe J.

[junkyarddawg]

We have all shipped our machines by now so this is really academic, but I really enjoy other peoples opinions because it shapes and molds my own.
The most aggresive strategy would be to have two machines that could pickup other robots without damaging them and bring them home immediately. Although this would not produce good results in your average qualifying score, it would just about guarentee you a spot in the elimination rounds. No, we did not pursue that strategy because there were to many ifs, if you could design a method of picking up any robot without damaging it and if you were allied with another robot just like yours. I think in the end, only the final location of the goals and robots will determine the winners. It is going to be fun watching, I'll say that. Hopefully this will be the best game yet from the spectators perspective.

Tim Gates

[prtynpink5]

Our robot can pick up and store up to 30 balls in our machine, we also have a mechanism to deploy them into a goal we attach to or a goal hmm say....15ft away! And I think that the ball go-getters will definatley play a major role in the finals, I mean why would you want two robots that can only grab goals?? If one can do in efficiently you dont need two or three robots that do the same thing. And if you did acquire all three goals the other two teams who you go against could totally screw you over and not put their robots in the end zone wich means you would get a grand total of 0!!! SO THINK TEAM 191 WHEN YOU CHOOSE ALLIANCES, OR MAYBE WE WILL CHOOSE YOU!!

[Wayne C.]

Here's something to think about-

How does a ball getter score points if the other team ejects all of the balls off the field? (quickly and efficiently) This year they aren't replaced during the round.

The ten behind the wall aren't enough....

Better be able to get goals and keep them

Just a pleasant thought this Sunday morning

WC

[prtynpink5]

Well you see it works this way, our robot is fast enough, our drives system, to at least get 20 of the balls from the field. So looks like we could get those 20 and the ten from the player station! That is 30 balls if I am not wrong. Enough to make a significant difference in the scoring.

[GregT]

Originally posted by prtynpink5
Well you see it works this way, our robot is fast enough, our drives system, to at least get 20 of the balls from the field. So looks like we could get those 20 and the ten from the player station! That is 30 balls if I am not wrong. Enough to make a significant difference in the scoring.

Yeah, but you still need control of a goal to put them in.

Greg

[prtynpink5]

Well if tons of teams are handling goals........oh and we do have a claw for a goal. So, hopefully our robot will be needed in some form. What does your robot do?

[Ken Leung]

I really do believe that this 2002 game is more complicated than just a bunch of robots pushing each other... And I am on the same line as Joe J.... I know enough to know that I don't know.

True, as soon as you are in control of three goals, and score them in goal zone, you win... But any situations other than that will be much more complicated.

Here is a few of scenarios:

Two goals with two robots, and some balls beating one goal with two robots, and some balls.

One goal with two robots, lots of balls, beating two goals with two robot.

one goal with two robots, tie with one goal with two robots...

In all those three cases (which will be likely cases during finals), their result all based on how many balls each alliance can get. Any situation with even less control on the goals... Balls will be even more important in controlling the score.

And, looking at a lot of the robots, the competition in general, and how final alliances are formed, I will have to say that one side getting all three goals won't be likely, even in finals.


And all these are assuming robots don't have extension, which I believe is a deciding factor in a game. To be able to control the goals while your opponent have to go back into home zone is really important. Either they give up the goal and let you push it into your goal zone, or they stay out holding the goal in scoring position, while you fight with it out there while scoring 10 points.

Suddenly, in the non- three-goals situation, balls would be even more important if the two goal alliance want to win against one goal, two robot with one or two extensions.

This game is getting more and more complicated as you think about it more...

I am willing to bet that different regionals will have different combinations of robots in champion alliance... just because of the different kind of robots at each regional, and how the selection process for finals pair them up.

The national champion alliance will have at least one extension, and one really good ball robot.

What do you think?

[Jnadke]

Here's one thing that came up our last match at the pre-ship scrimmage in Sussex (Wisconsin)...

We were the only team there that could handle 2 goals (bot picture). The first round we grabbed 2 and stood in the center and put 1 goal in each scoring zone. We dominated that round, but the other teams started to catch on...

The last round, we (red) had 2 goals in our scoring zone. Our [red] partner (a ball handler), was only able to get 9 balls in our 2 goals (the last one fell out). Our partner headed back to our robot zone because they couldn't handle goals (though they prolly shoulda rammed the last one out of scoring position), while we stayed and hung onto our two goals in the scoring zone (we had to fend off the other 2 robots)... This brought us at a total of... 39 points

The blue alliance, one robot was a strict ball handler and the other a ball handler with a claw mechanism. They grabbed one goal and brought it into their position. They filled that goal with only 10 balls and then both headed back to their robot scoring zone. This brought them to... 40 points

They won that round by 1 ball. I hope this helps demonstrate the effectiveness in not only handling two goals, but having the ability score points using the balls.

To think that one team can control all three goals is foolish (and downright arrogant, because there are still 2 robots w/ no goal and nothing to do!). No robot design is the best. One thing I hope you see from our team's blunder that round, is that there is no best bot. The best bot is the one with the best driver/human player/coach that is able to strategize quickly and appropriately. Our alliance was not able to do this, and as a result, our alliance lost the match. Both our teams had our faults and suffered because of the inability to strategize.

This proves a point that ball handlers can still play an important role in the elimination rounds (providing they can still get 1 goal). On the other hand, so can goal handlers. As I said, and want to beat into your heads, no bot design is best.

[Wayne C.]

Hey Jnadke-

From what I keep seeing, everyone assumes that there will be lots of balls available for a ball getter to grab on the field. What happens if you have a little, wedge fronted bot that is very fast, start the round by running down the opponent's edge of the field and shoveling the balls off the floor. For that matter simply blocking the machine's path may be enough.
Maybe the ball getter will get a few balls but I doubt if they will get all 20 on their side. Meanwhile the bad boy's partner is grabbing goals or balls on the other side of the field.

I haven't had the opportunity to play rounds yet but I can see ball grabbers having trouble if the line of balls is shoveled out or scattered.

Just an opinion.....

WC

[Jnadke]

Yeah... that's a possibility, but there are balls on 2 sides of the field, and I'm sure the ball-getters can get the ones on the other side. That's still 20 balls, plenty enough to make a point difference. Then there's the ones in the player station...

Scattering the balls is a good thing to do if you are against an alliance who are both ball-getters (in the qualifying round). You can also attempt to steal their goal after they fill it with balls if they don't have a very good grabbing mechanism. Take away their hard work for your advantage...