Einstein?

[Miss]

Originally Posted by Freddy Schurr

What happens if a robot is disabled during the Finalist of the Champiosnhip?

Im not sure if you're talking about the 330/910/1270 DQ, but what happened to was 1270 was disabled on either "intentionally flipping" or "contact outside the bumper zone". We're still not sure what exactly was the call, but the alliance was DQed in SF 2-1.

Does anyone have this match on footage? The blue alliance has it, but it doesn't show our interaction with 71. I couldn't see exactly what happened; I was behind the drivers’ station so I want to see what the actual contact looked like from other people's point of view. But I do want to say that I know my drivers and they would not intentionally flip another robot, that’s not the kind of game play we promote. 1270 was trying to get in a position to score the ringer that was in our claw when 71 ended up on top of us and flipping.

Anyhow, congratulations to 71, 233, and 179 on the win. The last match (Einstein: SF2-2) was intense! Great driving 179, making it up that ramp was game ending!


I want to especially say thank you to our alliance, teams 330 and 910.
In all my years, this was the smoothest working alliance I’ve been in. The 3 drive teams made smart decisions on the field and covered each other’s backs. You all did a great job and better be proud of yourselves! Thanks again and good luck in future competitions!

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Miss

Im not sure if you're talking about the 330/910/1270 DQ, but what happened to was 1270 was disabled on either "intentionally flipping" or "contact outside the bumper zone". We're still not sure what exactly was the call, but the alliance was DQed in SF 2-1.

Does anyone have this match on footage? The blue alliance has it, but it doesn't show our interaction with 71. I couldn't see exactly what happened;

I watched the match from the stands and thought I saw both robots with ringers trying to score the same spider on the scorer's side of the field. The next thing I saw was 71 flipping backwards and the 1270 robot backing away with the ringer still in its gripper. The head ref immediately ran over to the red alliance station and disabled 1270.

When I got home, I watched the match again (I had recorded NASA TV's broadcast), but during the critical moment, the TV coverage was showing 330 and 179 battling on the crowd side of the rack. The next view had 71 already on the ground and the ref heading towards the red alliance station. Given the head ref's decisive action, he must have felt that 1270 had intentionally tipped 71.

After the very rough play I had just witnessed on Curie, I was somewhat surprised to see the red card flashed on 1270. The message here is that different referees will have different levels of tolerance for aggressive play. After 13-14 matches with a referee crew that "just let's them play", a less tolerant referee can catch you off guard.

It's a hard thing to swallow, but the ref's have a very difficult job and are doing their best to enforce the rules.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

So, what stops alliances on Einstein from swapping out teams to create stronger alliances. For example, what if 177 "broke" on Einstein and needed to be replaced by 1124? What if 910 "broke" and needed to be replaced by 1732 who also "broke", so was replaced by 67?

[henryBsick]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

So, what stops alliances on Einstein from swapping out teams to create stronger alliances. For example, what if 177 "broke" on Einstein and needed to be replaced by 1124? What if 910 "broke" and needed to be replaced by 1732 who also "broke", so was replaced by 67?

Tom, thats odd, the 6 or so other 125 mentors were thinking the exact same thing.
Ethics Q: Would such a move be called good strategy or ungracious play?
If ever teams were required to demonstrate a lack of functionality, who is to decide just how functional robot in question should be?
To sum our talks, we were theorizing that in a division, the three best robots could play WITH each other... depending upn their seed and alliance selection.

[Corey Balint]

Originally Posted by Henry_222

Tom, thats odd, the 6 or so other 125 mentors were thinking the exact same thing.
Ethics Q: Would such a move be called good strategy or ungracious play?
If ever teams were required to demonstrate a lack of functionality, who is to decide just how functional robot in question should be?

If this was in effect last year, there is no way I wouldn't have tried something. It is smart play, and it is in the rules as fair. We had a half functioning robot, and by all means we would have easily taken them out. And by chance, maybe that first alliance captain would have been "broke" as well, and we could've gotten some other fantastic alliance partner.

It might not be ethical, but it is fair.

[Matt_Kaplan1902]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

So, what stops alliances on Einstein from swapping out teams to create stronger alliances. For example, what if 177 "broke" on Einstein and needed to be replaced by 1124? What if 910 "broke" and needed to be replaced by 1732 who also "broke", so was replaced by 67?

I actually wondered the same thing myself when I discovered the rule of the alliance captian being the backup. However your last question with 910 needing to be replaced by a "broken" 1732 thus brining in 67 would not have been able to happen. The rule stated that if the alliance captian would not be able to participate because or being broken/declining the offer, they would then revert to the normal system of the highest ranked non-drafted team from thier division.

[Corey Balint]

Originally Posted by Matt_Kaplan1902

I actually wondered the same thing myself when I discovered the rule of the alliance captian being the backup. However your last question with 910 needing to be replaced by a "broken" 1732 thus brining in 67 would not have been able to happen. The rule stated that if the alliance captian would not be able to participate because or being broken/declining the offer, they would then revert to the normal system of the highest ranked non-drafted team from thier division.

Ah, we had been told it was then given to the alliance captains first pick.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Henry_222

Tom, thats odd, the 6 or so other 125 mentors were thinking the exact same thing.
Ethics Q: Would such a move be called good strategy or ungracious play?
If ever teams were required to demonstrate a lack of functionality, who is to decide just how functional robot in question should be?

I don't think it would be a strategic decision. Your alliance has worked with you though the division eliminations. They know how to play your strategies, and suddenly having to replace them on Einstein should probably only be used if your partner is disable, not just to get a "better" robot. This game is not won by robots, it's won by alliances.

[Corey Balint]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

I don't think it would be a strategic decision. Your alliance has worked with you though the division eliminations. They know how to play your strategies, and suddenly having to replace them on Einstein should probably only be used if your partner is disable, not just to get a "better" robot. This game is not won by robots, it's won by alliances.

It may be won by alliances. But if you have three offensive powerhouses....I think it might do just as well, if not better.
The example Tom and I have been discussing today is of ours last year on Einstein.
195 was having issues, from Newton Elims, that we could not identify, but they were still semi functional. With this option, we could have put in 111 as our third partner (note, they were the first pick of the A.C., this is what we were told and basing our theory off of).
The question we had was "Which would win; 25, 968, 195, or 25, 968, 111?" We both had a hearty laugh about it, and continued on with different ideas.
While yes, the A-Bomb, would not have been implemented without 195, but with 111 on our side, why would we need it? This year was different as you know, and definitely very alliance oriented though. I was talking to some other s online at the time of selections, and as soon as you made your alliance, I had declared you guys the clearcut winner of Newton, and my odds-on favorite for Einstein, just because I knew the compatability, and the style you guys woudl play.

[henryBsick]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

I don't think it would be a strategic decision. Your alliance has worked with you though the division eliminations. They know how to play your strategies, and suddenly having to replace them on Einstein should probably only be used if your partner is disable, not just to get a "better" robot. This game is not won by robots, it's won by alliances.

Sorry for the IM posting...
For example I will use Archimedes div. from this year.
494 seeded first and picked 254. 494 then whent on to pick 997. Lets say that that alliance met the 233 alliance in the Archimedes finals and beat them. Now on Eintein the 494 254 997 alliance has the option to declare 997 as broken to opt for 233. (no offense to 997, but 233 is 233: enough said)
This new hypothetical 494 254 233 alliance by your logic would not fare as well in competition? I think not.

[Noah Kleinberg]

Originally Posted by Henry_222

Ethics Q: Would such a move be called good strategy or ungracious play?
If ever teams were required to demonstrate a lack of functionality, who is to decide just how functional robot in question should be?
To sum our talks, we were theorizing that in a division, the three best robots could play WITH each other... depending upn their seed and alliance selection.

Although I understand that it's perfectly within the rules, I find it unfair in a few ways. First of all, it's unfair to the team that you declare "broken". Even if their drive team agrees that it's a good move strategically, there would obviously be someone on that team who would be insulted; they spent six weeks building this robot and all weekend to get to this point, only to be switched out at the most exciting part of the competition, and losing a very rare opportunity to play on Einstein.

I also think that it's mildly disrespectful to the champions of the other divisions. They might stand no chance of winning without using the same strategy; what if they don't feel that it's an allowable strategy?

This is not to mention the type of underhanded play during divisional eliminations which go along with this strategy (let's say you're AC 1, you want to pick the second seed but instead pass them up knowing that on Einstein you can swap them in, so you pick the next best robot instead; or the alliance captain throws the finals knowing that they can be swapped in on Einstein).

P.S. Not trying to bash your idea at all, I thought of the same thing.

And, offtopic, would a backup robot brought onto Einstein be considered Divisional Champions (as far as trophies, etc.)?

[Francis-134]

Originally Posted by Henry_222

Sorry for the IM posting...
For example I will use Archimedes div. from this year.
494 seeded first and picked 254. 494 then whent on to pick 997. Lets say that that alliance met the 233 alliance in the Archimedes finals and beat them. Now on Eintein the 494 254 997 alliance has the option to declare 997 as broken to opt for 233. (no offense to 997, but 233 is 233: enough said)
This new hypothetical 494 254 233 alliance by your logic would not fare as well in competition? I think not.

If this alliance manged to beat the 233/71/179 alliance, then why would they need 233? Obviously this alliance had better robots, or a better combined strategy than the opponent (still hypothetically). I mean no offense to 1124, my team's alliance was better with different robots. Was 177 a better scoring robot than 1124? Not by the numbers. However, there were very good reasons for picking team 177, reasons that eventually won us the championship. From what I've seen, no TEAM can win a championship, it must come from the alliance; from the AC, to the first pick, and probably most importantly, the second pick.

A lot of alliance captains are similar in nature; powerful scoring* robots that lead the alliance. First picks are also very similar; similarly powerful scoring robots that will either pickup the slack if the lead robot is taking some heat, or the robot that will take the heat for the AC. However, the third pick is a real wild card for most teams. Do you pick a defensive robot? What about another mid level tube scorer? Do I pick a team that may not be good on defense just so I can get their ramps for the endgame or maybe a backup ramp should my other partners get caught up? How about a robot that may not do much of anything but guarantee us 30 points in ramp bonus? All of these are viable strategies assuming that they fit your alliance.
To use my own team as an example, we went with the idea that we wanted to pick our own alliance, even as 8th seed. On our ranked list were teams that could score well either all alone or under hard defense. We then had a second list of what became known as "177 and replacements". The plan from Saturday morning was to pick a good tube scorer like 987 to help spread out the opponents defense, and team 177 or a short list of teams that would be a suitable replacement for them if they were chosen early. Either 190 and 987 would score on the rack while the other was defended, while 177 would go to the back of the playing field and either place tubes on their side, or strictly play defense. We had seen them do both of these things very well on Friday, and we knew they would be able to climb our ramps for a bonus. In the end, it turned out that our ALLIANCE won us the championships.
Think back to two weeks ago when the divisions were released. What were the odds of any of those teams winning the championship? Sure, each team was very strong and had a good chance at getting picked, or even winning the division, but even I was not expecting to be as successful as we were. My own brother said that his team (40) managed to beat 190 and 177 in prior regionals, and 190 had defeated 987 at SVR. It was only "by our powers combined" did we do so well.

*Note that for this year's game, scoring is defined as putting a lot of tubes on the rack, or lifting two robots to 12 with near perfection.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by Francis-134

If this alliance manged to beat the 233/71/179 alliance, then why would they need 233? Obviously this alliance had better robots, or a better combined strategy than the opponent (still hypothetically). I mean no offense to 1124, my team's alliance was better with different robots.

Ok, you take 190/987/177. I'll take 254/233/1124. Want to play a game?

[Nuttyman54]

I would like to mention that there is also a very large factor that has not been brought up about why the 190, 987, 177 alliance would be much more reluctant to pick a replacement.

Every situation, every alliance is unique. In our case it was our ramps. Due to their design, there is a very specific way in which the partners must climb. Prior to picking any partners, we first brought them to our pit and ensured that they could not only drive up us, but that we could lift them. And then we practiced it.

Bringing in a fresh team that was inexperienced at it was a risk we would have taken only in the most dire of circumstances.

The situation is different for every alliance, and every alliance must make the decision for themselves. I would like to think that no alliance on Einstein would purposely use this strategy as a means to win the championships.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Corey Balint

It may be won by alliances. But if you have three offensive powerhouses....I think it might do just as well, if not better.
The example Tom and I have been discussing today is of ours last year on Einstein.
195 was having issues, from Newton Elims, that we could not identify, but they were still semi functional. With this option, we could have put in 111 as our third partner (note, they were the first pick of the A.C., this is what we were told and basing our theory off of).
The question we had was "Which would win; 25, 968, 195, or 25, 968, 111?" We both had a hearty laugh about it, and continued on with different ideas.
While yes, the A-Bomb, would not have been implemented without 195, but with 111 on our side, why would we need it? This year was different as you know, and definitely very alliance oriented though. I was talking to some other s online at the time of selections, and as soon as you made your alliance, I had declared you guys the clearcut winner of Newton, and my odds-on favorite for Einstein, just because I knew the compatability, and the style you guys woudl play.

Had the rule existed then, you actually would have gotten 176, not 111. It's the alliance captain of the finalist alliance, not the alliance captain's first pick.