|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Starve Them!
Quote:
I have thought about it - alot. I have watched many matches and both Great Lakes and Detroit. It seems that the "lost time to reload" is penalizing teams that try to win auton but fall short. My observation is obviously just my opinion about the dynamics of the game period sequence. I am not part of the game committee, so I cannot argue "intent". But, I do not see why it would be "the wrong thing to do". Please explain to me what you obviously think I am missing here. PM me if you want to - I have no problem discussing this that way either. Mike |
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Starve Them!
Mike,
I think as it stands, we can all see the large, large advantages to winning autonomous. 10 points, plus defense, offense, offense. It's a powerful combination. So, think about the inverse. The team that wins autonomous, call it Blue, goes on offense first. They've just shot all their balls to win auto, even if the Red team doesn't do anything. Worse, if they scored all the balls, then Red has complete control over those balls, and Blue is left with the 10 remaining balls in the bins. So, Blue gets maybe 10 more balls to work with, plus the reloading penalty. Red gets to starve Blue and be on offense 2 periods in a row. Worse, Blue can't reload for their final offense period until Red has scored points. Overall, I think all that adds up to a disadvantage much larger than the 10-point bonus. So you'd have the odd situation of the really highly capable teams NOT wanting to win autonomous. It might be interesting to see robots aiming for opposing goals in autonomous trying to score just enough points to put the opposing alliance on offense first, but it wouldn't be right. |
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Starve Them!
I'm just glad autonomous means something again after two years of meaningless "victories" (ooo I released all the balls or cool I capped the center goal and got a couple more tetras).
The first year autonomous meant something because you have to clean up all those boxes that got thrown into your side of the field. It changed how you played the game. You see it this year and this is the way autonomous should be. |
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Starve Them!
I think the way the game set up requires more thought into strategy. That way, if you choose to try and autonomous mode, you better win it or you are left with no balls to shoot and have to reload for most of your first offensive period.
There have been a few rounds where we knew we couldn't win autonomous and elected to keep the balls until the final round to score. We would reload our helix and then go and human load all the balls they scored with and then tried to score them in the final round. We would starve their human player so they couldn't reload. It is risky, and it might burn us against really good opponents (or if you drop a chain like we did in Detroit), but it was the strategy we chose to take for that round. |
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Starve Them!
Quote:
I must hijack this thread to congratulate you on your performance this weekend in Detroit. (Despite the fact that your 12-0 record meant you defeated 1188 3 times on Saturday. And how did that alliance in last round of qualifying come about, anyway?) Usually there are about 3 tiers of robots in a competition - the good, the average, and , not being mean but realistic, the "thanks for trying". 469 was a cut above, creating it's own tier.Back to whether winning autonomous mode gives the alliance too much of an advantage, wasn't that what was requested by many after the low benefit of scoring a vision tetra in Triple Play? |
|
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Starve Them!
Quote:
[Thread Content] Dan, our lead strategist, came up with the requirements of our robot based on the same discussions we had concerning the game at the beginning of the season. We had to hold 30 balls, be very tough to move, have a turret to track the target, and have a good enough drivetrain to get out of a trapped position. I think our combination of maneuverability and speed in one mode and power in the other makes it difficult to trap us one-on-one. Then, if you put two robots on us, hopefully we have a partner like 217 that can also load up and get to shooting... |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Stop The Madness | Josh Hambright | General Forum | 37 | 29-03-2005 14:34 |