Best Stragtey

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

Strategy wise, perhaps they are the same. Shooters can score at close range, but dumpers can outperform them in terms of ball volume and rate of fire, since a "shooter" is generally constrained by firing 1 ball at a time.

By that measure, I'm not sure why people would pick a shooter over a dumper. All data points to dumpers currently being the best choice.

JVN had a good post about the problem in breaking robots down into "shooters" vs. "dumpers". There is a complete continuum of scoring mechanisms. Is 254 a shooter or dumper? 148?

If by definition a shooter scores one ball at a time, perhaps the motivation would be so that in the event of a "bad shot", only one ball gets wasted. When a dumper misses, boy does it miss. For example, Miss Daisy takes a few seconds to deliver all her balls, but if at any point the target gets away we can instantly stop the flow of moon rocks. So far that ability has paid off for us. And even though they haven't yet captured a banner this season, I'd take a robot like 25, 103, 217, or 1114 on my alliance over your average dumper any day.

[coldfusion1279]

103 is a dumper now

Taking a page out of 2753's book.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by coldfusion1279

103 is a dumper now

Taking a page out of 2753's book.

They are both a shooter AND dumper now from the looks of it...

[EricH]

What match is it? Are there any "unattended" trailers? Who are my partners? Opponents? What do they do?

[NoahTheBoa]

Our strategy depends completely on who is on our alliance and who we are playing against.

[MikePres]

This is our funny story:
Our mentor convinced us that games this year would be decided with "2.. maybe 3!" balls. Well... he was wrong, badly, as we all have seen games with even 100 points. Back to our story, we planned and built a dumper AND a shooter on our robot and also a conveyor. 2 weeks before shipping our mentor decided to go on vacation in New-Zealand and due to return in April.
The result of all this: A) A crappy dumper, B) a crappy shooter, C) the most useless conveyor you have ever seen, i doubt if it picks ANYTHING... as we finished it almost in the last second.
Regional in 3 days ^^.

AKA: We are SO dead ><".

[Johnny]

I believe that the best method of scoring has been to pin opponents robots near your side of the field/human player and effectively use it to your advantage. In this fashion, regardless of what you alliance partners can do, you can score with dumping robots, score with your human players, and/or prevent opponents from scoring on you and your opponent from scoring PERIOD. It's a proven method. The best robots haven't really been dominating in elimination matches because of less sophisicated robots getting together, strategizing, and using one such as this. You don't need to be the fastest robot on the field to pin an opponent and get their trailer filled up. I've seen it done time and time again.
Ask Ms.Daisy how effective this stratgey works, they beat RAWC(968)!

[AlexD744]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

Other:

Be prepared for alliance selections. This would mean that you have a list that has been prepared carefully and with forethought, written legibly and in an orderly fashion. Scribbles on scraps does not make for a list of potential alliance partners.

Edit: I realize this thread is for game play strategy. I think this list is a part of that.

I know what you mean. THe number 1 seed had a worse alliance than they should have had apparently because they accidentally read the 3rd person on their list instead of the 2nd when the 1st declined. They lost in the quarter finals when we a 4th (eventually 3rd after 2 seed went with 3rd) seed and made it to finals with a narrow loss.

[writchie]

Originally Posted by AlexD744

I know what you mean. The number 1 seed had a worse alliance than they should have had apparently because they accidentally read the 3rd person on their list instead of the 2nd when the 1st declined. They lost in the quarter finals when we a 4th (eventually 3rd after 2 seed went with 3rd) seed and made it to finals with a narrow loss.

I thought that the Alliance selections at the Florida regional were a bit bizarre. If you look at the elimination results, versus the "average" seeding rank, the pattern is clear. The finals were a close match between the teams with average seeding ranks of 12.7 and 12.3. The teams that lost in the semifinals had average ranks of 18.0 and 17.5.

The way the alliance selection works, the expected average seeding for all teams should be 12.5 or better and the first seed picking 2 and 17 could average as low as 6.7, even less if teams below 17 were still available. Even the 12th seed (in the 8th alliance) can do no worse than picking 14 and 24 for an average of of 16.3.

As it turns out, the average seed of alliances in the Florida regional was 19.3 and the lowest were 12.3 and 12.7. The highest were 29.7 and 25.6. 9 Teams ranked 14 -24 (average 16.1) were left unpicked while 8 teams from 25 - 47 (average 35.2)

I would have expected teams ranked 14 - 20 to be picked, especially over teams ranked (36 - 47 etc). Several alliance captains appeared completely unprepared. Going by name recognition, low team number, loudest shouts in the stands, color of t-shirt, etc. is not likely to be a successful strategy.

Seeding for sure is not the sole reason for picking a partner. The alliance must be balanced as well. And there are often mechanical breakdowns or other reasons which explain poorer performance. But, if this were the case we would see teams with higher average ranks doing better in the eliminations. After 9 matches, the seeding is likely to reflect much more than the luck of the draw - things like pinning ability, consistency, human player ability, driver ability, penalty avoidance, etc. I think the alliance selection at Florida left a lot on the table.

The teams that have a possibility of doing 6 wins or better have to be prepared for alliance selection immediately following the last match. Your first pick can always be a team ranked 14th or higher and your second pick can always be 24th or better. You will never be able to pick a team ranked higher than you. Don't worry about them. They won't be on your list. You should know which robots ranked below you that are complementary to you. Unless you have a good reason otherwise, you may want to pick the lowest seed that is complementary.

IMHO alliance selection should account for 1) proven performance against the field (an objective measure based on final seeding rank), 2) balance for the team (shooting/defense/empty cell) and 3) experience (often reflected in lower team number).

For lunacy, it appears to me that the most successful alliances consists of an excellent shooting bot and a good defensive bot that can reliably play defense on the opponents best scoring bot and pin opponents for easy human scoring. During the early phase of the game, pinning for human scoring is essential. In the latter phase, when humans run out of moon rocks, neutralizing the opponents top dumper (or equivalent shooter) is essential. In all phases, penalty avoidance is essential. Teams that draw penalties or waste moon rocks on poor targets are usually reflected in the standings.

Just my $0.02

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by writchie

I thought that the Alliance selections at the Florida regional were a bit bizarre. If you look at the elimination results, versus the "average" seeding rank, the pattern is clear. The finals were a close match between the teams with average seeding ranks of 12.7 and 12.3. The teams that lost in the semifinals had average ranks of 18.0 and 17.5.

Spoiler for hidden to reduce length:

The way the alliance selection works, the expected average seeding for all teams should be 12.5 or better and the first seed picking 2 and 17 could average as low as 6.7, even less if teams below 17 were still available. Even the 12th seed (in the 8th alliance) can do no worse than picking 14 and 24 for an average of of 16.3.

As it turns out, the average seed of alliances in the Florida regional was 19.3 and the lowest were 12.3 and 12.7. The highest were 29.7 and 25.6. 9 Teams ranked 14 -24 (average 16.1) were left unpicked while 8 teams from 25 - 47 (average 35.2)

I would have expected teams ranked 14 - 20 to be picked, especially over teams ranked (36 - 47 etc). Several alliance captains appeared completely unprepared. Going by name recognition, low team number, loudest shouts in the stands, color of t-shirt, etc. is not likely to be a successful strategy.

Seeding for sure is not the sole reason for picking a partner. The alliance must be balanced as well. And there are often mechanical breakdowns or other reasons which explain poorer performance. But, if this were the case we would see teams with higher average ranks doing better in the eliminations. After 9 matches, the seeding is likely to reflect much more than the luck of the draw - things like pinning ability, consistency, human player ability, driver ability, penalty avoidance, etc. I think the alliance selection at Florida left a lot on the table.

The teams that have a possibility of doing 6 wins or better have to be prepared for alliance selection immediately following the last match. Your first pick can always be a team ranked 14th or higher and your second pick can always be 24th or better. You will never be able to pick a team ranked higher than you. Don't worry about them. They won't be on your list. You should know which robots ranked below you that are complementary to you. Unless you have a good reason otherwise, you may want to pick the lowest seed that is complementary.

IMHO alliance selection should account for 1) proven performance against the field (an objective measure based on final seeding rank), 2) balance for the team (shooting/defense/empty cell) and 3) experience (often reflected in lower team number).

For lunacy, it appears to me that the most successful alliances consists of an excellent shooting bot and a good defensive bot that can reliably play defense on the opponents best scoring bot and pin opponents for easy human scoring. During the early phase of the game, pinning for human scoring is essential. In the latter phase, when humans run out of moon rocks, neutralizing the opponents top dumper (or equivalent shooter) is essential. In all phases, penalty avoidance is essential. Teams that draw penalties or waste moon rocks on poor targets are usually reflected in the standings.

Just my $0.02

I think this clearly shows, as any FIRST vet will tell you, rankings are not what's important (especially in an event that runs less than 11 or 12 matches).
Last year's Championship winning alliance was constructed of teams ranked 1st (1114), 12th (217), and 57th (148) out of 86. An average ranking of more than 23. In 2007 the Championship winning alliance was ranked 9th (190), 37th (987), and 50th (177), or an average rank of 32nd.
Even in Lunacy this still applies. Look at the Cass Tech event, which ran 12 qualification matches. 469 started out 1-7, finished 5-7, and ranked 27th out of 40. Yet 469 was selected 2nd and reached the finals.

Seeding doesn't equate directly to robot quality.
While I'll agree some captains were unprepared, as they always are, most of them did a fine job in picking out who was ranked higher and lower than they should have been.

[384drtysteve101]

IF A ROBOT TRIES TO PIN OR BLOCK ANOTHER ROBOT THAT MEANS THAT BOTH ROBOTS ARE NOT MOVING MUCH. WHICH INTERN MEANS BOTH ROBOTS ARE PINNED. SO DRIVERS NEED NOT TO PIN BUT NEED TO JUST MOVE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE IT IS THE BEST BET TO SURVIVE

[IKE]

Plain and simple. There are two main startegies and both work equally well.

1. Score more points than the opposing alliance.
2. Figure out how to make the opposing alliance score fewer points than you.

Either one works well.

[PlatyPi Gunner]

Our alliance used the same strategy throughout the elimination matches, we had 2 turret bots, and whatever you called ours(technically a shooter? maybe?). we were fast and heavy, we scored fast and scored early, kept moving and kept to our side of the field. At one point in a quarterfinal our robots pushed the other alliance into our corner from the center of the crater and held them there for maybe 30 seconds. We won our regional as the 8th seed, one of our picks was 34th, i'm not sure of the other

[steelerborn]

We were picked by the number one seed at long beach just because of our defensive capabilities (we were 57/60). We showed teams how great we are at neutrailizing a robot.

[BenX02]

Originally Posted by PlatyPi Gunner

Our alliance used the same strategy throughout the elimination matches, we had 2 turret bots, and whatever you called ours(technically a shooter? maybe?). we were fast and heavy, we scored fast and scored early, kept moving and kept to our side of the field. At one point in a quarterfinal our robots pushed the other alliance into our corner from the center of the crater and held them there for maybe 30 seconds. We won our regional as the 8th seed, one of our picks was 34th, i'm not sure of the other

They were actually 43rd of 46. I just found this out.

And is that you Patrick?