generic strategy, what works best?

[Tim Delles]

After looking in the past of what I have found to work the best there are 3 basic ideas.

1.) When thinking of strategy, do not ever rely on having an alliance partner. To many times will you get to competition and be facing an alliance down a partner or 2. So if you have a strategy that relies on another team, get rid of it.

2.) When thinking of strategy, remember that a win is a win is a win. This goes the same in qualifing as it does in elimination matches. If you can shutout your opponent, or completely outscore them, then you have won the match. And if you can do this every time, then you are likely going to be seeded first or second.

3.) No idea is a bad idea. Make sure that all ideas put out by team members (ideas should be within the rules and within manufacturing capabilities) should never be thrown out.

But above all else the most important idea i believe is the first one i have listed. If you rely on a partner to do a specific task, then you are not going to do well if you are not paired with a team that can do that.

Just my 2 cents

[efoote868]

A lengthy brainstorming session usually helps the team out. The entire first week of the build season (no lie) is devoted to "How will we play the game to be an attractive alliance partner?".

As for reliable drivetrains:
Which of your teams have actually designed (not built) drivetrains before the season, then used them during the year?

How has that worked out for you?

868 did that last year with the mecanum drive... we spent about 4 weeks before the season started researching, arguing, and designing drivetrains (but not building mind you). The mecanum won out for last years game.

[Donut]

Our team usually picks one scoring method, and focuses on accomplishing that. We try to keep some kind of "secondary" thing as an option, but it's not the focus and if we can't do it oh well. We keep our resources in mind for anything of course; machining is not an option, and we don't want anything that begins to wrack up the $$$.

In 2004 we focused on scoring balls in the mobile goal and capping it (we couldn't cap the stationary one). We finished as AZ Regional Finalists and were the #5 seed.
In 2005 we focused on capping tetras as high as possible to ensure the top tetra. We made it to the semi-finals, were the #4 seed (got picked by #1), won the GM Industrial Design award at AZ, and missed the highest score thus far in FIRST by 1 point (Florida scored just higher 1 hour before).
In 2006 we focused on scoring in the center goal using the camera. We made it to the semi-finals, were the #24 seed (got picked by #2), and were one of a handful of teams at AZ that could score in autonomous with the camera.

As for actual matches, our strategy is "get a higher score than the other team". If you do that you usually win.

[Andy Grady]

Two words....speed kills.

Not necessarily drive train speed, or speed at picking up balls, or any other system for that matter. If you are fast at the key element to a game, you are going to win. Lets take a look back...

1992 - The Gael Force championship robot had a speedy way of picking up balls off the field. All you do is drive over them and its yours, you cant get faster than that.

1993 - TI and Greenville, the roller system was speedy.

1994 - Sunny D, shooter mechanism. While everyone else was waiting around 30 seconds to lift up a load of balls, they were shooting them into an empty goal 1 by 1. By the time the lifts got up there, the goal was filled.

1995 - Raychem and Woodside "Stealth" had a very quick ability to pick up balls in the "mosh pit". The most important element of that game was to get the ball fast and be the first to the top.

1996 - Tigerbolt. Fast enough to get a perfect score. Just pure speed in drive.

1997 - Beatty and Hammond, 6 seconds to cap the goal. Match was over in 6 seconds. Doesn't get any faster than that.

1998 - Kokomo and the other wicked fast team the Bobcats, each had a very speedy pickup element. The invention of the roller claw. The roller claw to this day is the fastest way to pick up a single ball.

1999 - Juggernauts + Aces high. Get up on the puck fast, and you had the upper hand to hold the ground for the big points. Juggernauts did just that.

2000 - Speed in descoring. 25 and 131 could unload points from a goal so fast, that they single handedly could swing a match victory their way. Slower teams with the same ability, while effective in many matches, couldn't make the cut in the end.

2001 - How can you say speed isn't key in a game where you stopped the clock for points?

2002 - First team to the goals in the middle was the winner. If it was a tie, then it came down to traction and power. Usually, that team was 71. They were fast enough to get there before another team could anchor, and powerful enough to finish the job.

2003 - Wildstang got to the top of the mountain first, and once they were there, it was pretty much over. The only chance you had of winning against them, was to beat them to the top....which couldn't be done very often, especially in autonomous mode. Also, many times the first to the wall was the winner, due to the boxes falling in the right direction for points.

2004 - Speed in automode to knock down the bonus ball before your opponent whacked you. Defensive speed. The Martians while having a strong drive train, were fast enough to get in the way of anyone scoring.

2005 - You needed to be able to score aloooot of tetras to win. To do this, you had to be able to pick them up and deliver them very fast. The winners did just this.

2006 - Speed in shooting. You needed to be able to unload a good 5 or 6 balls before your opponent got to you. This is why teams like 25 and Las Guerillas were so good. By the time you got over to defend them, they were already empty.

Well, there you go. After all my years in FIRST I have let the secret out. (Unfortunately, a secret I am horrible at following myself!). Now you know how to win FIRST. Essentially it comes down to this...

There are 1 or 2 key elements to every game. If you figure out which element that is, and gear your robot up to do it very fast...you stand a very good chance.

Sounds easy enough right?

Here is the kicker....you never really know what that key element is, until after the season is over. Thats why the game design committee is so evil.

Good luck everyone!

[BBnum3]

Originally Posted by Andy Grady

There are 1 or 2 key elements to every game. If you figure out which element that is, and gear your robot up to do it very fast...you stand a very good chance.

Sounds easy enough right?

Here is the kicker....you never really know what that key element is, until after the season is over. Thats why the game design committee is so evil.

Good luck everyone!

This is exactly what I was thinking too. If you are lucky enough to figure out one of those key elements, you might have a chance.

My team thought we were going to build a shooter this year, until we went and talked with a former mentor of team 10. After we explained the game to him, he already knew that very few teams would have a really good shooter. He was right. One of the things that made so many shooters not as good was the fact that robots could be easily pushed. We decided to go defensive, and it worked incredibly well. In my mind, that was one of the big elements this year, the ability to stay still while shooting (think of 25's brakes). This upcoming year we will try to reduce the game down to its most basic elements, and try to come up with a robot that exploits one of those elements or performs it really well. Making the robot really good at one thing is the key, because it's a way to make construction of the robot manageable and focused.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Andy Grady

Two words....speed kills.

Not necessarily drive train speed, or speed at picking up balls, or any other system for that matter. If you are fast at the key element to a game, you are going to win.

Speed and EXECUTION. In FIRST, execution is often a very direct metaphor for accuracy or your manipulation device and/or human players. Your bot has to do it fast, do it right, and do it right the FIRST TIME. A missed shot in 2006, and 3 out of 4 and either that ball is gone, or the defender has caught up before you get another chance with it. A dropped tetra in 2005 was tremendously devestating in a close match. You drop a doubler ball in 2004, and very rarely would you get another chance to cap it. I don't even want to get into what happens when you mess up stacking a bunch of boxes or miss your oppurtunity to knock down the wall in 2003. Etc etc etc.

But beyond everything, there is really one key to winning a regional. Survive. Almost every elimination series is won by the alliance that encounters the least problems with their robots. By the time the eliminations roll around, the bots are beat up, and are being run more frequently than they had all weekend. 2006 Einstein finals, if 195 didn't have half of it's drive system stop working, we may have a different set of FIRST champions. 2006 Einstein semi-finals, if 1126's and 177's shooters both don't have problems, they might have been able to finish off the 25, 968, 195 alliance. 2006 Curie finals, if 70's shooter doesn't have issues, their alliance might have been able to make it to Einstein. 2006 Newton semi-finals, if 254 doesn't start one match with an essentially dead battery, Poof and RAWC might have clashed for the Newton championship. 2006 Greater Toronto semi-finals, 229's shooter has issues and 217's loading system jams. I think you get the message.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Andy Grady

... If you figure out which element that is, and gear your robot up to do it very fast...you stand a very good chance.

Sounds easy enough right?
...

It sounds simplistic, and somewhat obvious, that in a sport-like contest the team that scores the most points will win

but its amazing how many teams each year focus on being able to do a function, but dont really focus on doing it fast.

Last year, when a thread came out, asking if it would be possible for one robot to score ten balls in the center goal, in ten seconds, some people reacted as if it were against the laws of physics and nature.

Ive also noticed that many people think of robot functions in human terms. They visualize the robot scoring points the way a human being would, or picking up balls one at a time. Its hard for people to think of a robot as a machine designed for a mass quantity, or high speed function.

One way to fall into this trap is to have humans act out the game, to plan your strategy. When you have people running around on the playfield, pretending they are the robots, its hard to make the jump from what a human can do (with legs and arms and hands and eyes....) to what can be done with a highly specialized machine.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

One way to fall into this trap is to have humans act out the game, to plan your strategy. When you have people running around on the playfield, pretending they are the robots, its hard to make the jump from what a human can do (with legs and arms and hands and eyes....) to what can be done with a highly specialized machine.

Well, i'm inclined to disagree with that. This year we acted out the game, although we did put everyone on rolling chairs. It really did show us alot of things, first off: 10 seconds is no time at all; secondly: it is very easy to defend a shooter, a little tap and the thing is completely off its mark (which is why we had retractable wheels; other successful teams countered this in other ways). Lastly, we learned that the team winning auton could "control" the total number of balls on the field during the other team's offensive period.

I will agree with the fact that if the acting isn't done properly, then it will hurt the strategy.

These subtle things we learned really did impact our strategy, for the better.

[KenWittlief]

my point was we tend to think of our robots in human like terms.

If you have a basketball game, like last year, the normal path is to think of a person shooting basketballs, one at a time.

Who was the team from Canada with a bot last year, the one that looked like a paint roller machine? I believe it had 3 parallel paths, and could shoot three balls simultaniously.

Its hard to make that leap, unless you have someone on your team with 6 arms.

One way to get around this is to do things backwards and upside down. Set up the field in the way you want it to look at the end of the match. Then figure out, how do we get to this, from the way the field looks at the start, and go backwards.

Anything that pushes you out of normal linear thinking can take you to a unique solution.

[DanDon]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Who was the team from Canada with a bot last year, the one that looked like a paint roller machine? I believe it had 3 parallel paths, and could shoot three balls simultaniously.

I believe you're thinking of team 188.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by dhoizner

I believe you're thinking of team 188.

yep, found them in the photo archives: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...=paint+rollers

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

If you have a basketball game, like last year, the normal path is to think of a person shooting basketballs, one at a time.

Who was the team from Canada with a bot last year, the one that looked like a paint roller machine? I believe it had 3 parallel paths, and could shoot three balls simultaniously.

We have "stu-bots" (student robtos) every year, and we came up with that idea. We ultimately didn't pursue it very far because, by nature, it reduces the accuracy of your shooter (as it creates a wider "shot"), and weight/complexity issues that come along with it.

[Dan Petrovic]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Who was the team from Canada with a bot last year, the one that looked like a paint roller machine? I believe it had 3 parallel paths, and could shoot three balls simultaniously.

Team 95, Palmetto finalists, had the same idea. They could shoot three at a time.

That gets back to the topic of speed that Andy Grady brought up.

10 balls, easily, in one second. That robot was so much fun to watch.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

Team 95, Palmetto finalists, had the same idea. They could shoot three at a time.

As someone who witnessed their robot in action, I can attest that it did result in a fair number of balls missing--but it also had a lot of balls connecting with the center goal.

Sorry about the drastic off-topic swerve there