Peachtree flip

[sdcantrell56]

Originally Posted by BenX02

Otto broke at the very end of the first match, we won. Second match got restarted. Third match our robot didn't work at all, Otto was, and we still tied you. Fourth we lost badly, I have no excuse for that. Fifth, Otto didn't work at all and we beat you.

I think it seems pretty even to me.

Lets clarify this further. Otto was broken the entire time in the first match. I am almost positive that they snapped there chain when 547 ran full speed into the side of them. I dont see any other reasonable explanation for snapping #35 chain in this years game. The third match otto also was not working as they had forgotten to put on a chain tensioner in their speedy repair and the chain popped off again. The only match that otto functioned in was the fourth match and they were functioning in the 2nd match before it was reset.

Things like this happen and you guys did a good job of putting together a strategy and making it work. Congratulations on the win and I enjoyed chatting with you guys before matches. I just wanted to throw out a possible explanation for the so called "flip" at peachtree.

[BenX02]

Originally Posted by sdcantrell56

Lets clarify this further. Otto was broken the entire time in the first match. I am almost positive that they snapped there chain when 547 ran full speed into the side of them. I dont see any other reasonable explanation for snapping #35 chain in this years game. The third match otto also was not working as they had forgotten to put on a chain tensioner in their speedy repair and the chain popped off again. The only match that otto functioned in was the fourth match and they were functioning in the 2nd match before it was reset.

Things like this happen and you guys did a good job of putting together a strategy and making it work. Congratulations on the win and I enjoyed chatting with you guys before matches. I just wanted to throw out a possible explanation for the so called "flip" at peachtree.

I guess I might be wrong. I was just pointing out that we didn't win because of luck.

I hope to see you guys at the Championships.

[cziggy343]

Originally Posted by BenX02

I guess I might be wrong. I was just pointing out that we didn't win because of luck.

I hope to see you guys at the Championships.

dont say that. b/c everytime anybody wins, it takes some degree of good fortune

[RMS11]

Originally Posted by cziggy343

dont say that. b/c everytime anybody wins, it takes some degree of good fortune

And some degree of skill, especially when you are playing 2 of 3.

[cziggy343]

Originally Posted by RMS11

And some degree of skill, especially when you are playing 2 of 3.

so note my wording, SOME degree of good fortune. im not discrediting the skill needed. it takes both.

[BenX02]

Originally Posted by cziggy343

dont say that. b/c everytime anybody wins, it takes some degree of good fortune

Yeah, what I meant was, completely because of good luck.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by BenX02

Yeah, what I meant was, completely because of good luck.

definition:
luck - the intersection of preparation and opportunity

[BenX02]

Originally Posted by ebarker

definition:
luck - the intersection of preparation and opportunity

Okay... um. Maybe luck wasn't the right word to use then?

You guys are making me feel stupid.

[Andrew Y.]

100% agree with mr. Barker. The way to win the game is preparation, confidence, and experience.

We placed 43/47 because of "shortcuts" during build. After it was sorted out we realized the drivers needed more time together. We gave them a solid 3 hours on the practice field friday. So in a sense you could say we had "bad luck"

Friday night, the kids spent 4 hours scouting ALL the teams. They also spent another hour or two talking about the ideal strategy for this game. That strategy was put in to effect. The strategy worked, and their preparation payed off.

I dont think it was anyones intentions, but let me warn you on how this thread is starting to sound.
"the 8th alliance beat the 1st alliance by luck. We should have won"
just a warning guys, watch your choice of words....

[davidalln]

I personally think it was due to #2415's amazing programming

But, broken robots and all, as a spectator (a biased spectator, but a spectator nonetheless), 2415's drivers really pulled it together after some shaky prelims (especially our secondary driver!) Our human player also was a great shot, and (for whatever reason) all of the sudden our autonomous actually worked well!

I think it could have easily gone either way. #1 had some great strategy. A moment that will stick in my mind forever is when 1746 and 1771 pinned our trailer on opposite sides and both bots emptied a good 10-15 balls on us! That right there probably won them the match!

And let's not forget every single game was close! A couple missed shots, a super cell, a malfunctinon in autonomous, and kablam! It could have gone the other way.

I think that the combination of our robot suddenly exploding exponentially in ability (funny how that happens when everything works), our drivers getting in tons of practice during lunch, and a bit of luck led us to triumph over three amazing teams.

[dtengineering]

I'll also suggest that the nature of this year's game might make it more prone to "upsets" than in some previous years.

While I don't want to discount the importance of having a good machine, this year it seems that good driving and good shooting from human players can make more of a difference than in the past few years.

I say that with a bit of hesitation, however, as our first chance to play will be this weekend.

Jason

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Andrew Y.

I don't think it was anyone's intentions, but let me warn you on how this thread is starting to sound. "the 8th alliance beat the 1st alliance by luck. We should have won"
just a warning guys, watch your choice of words....

Everybody remain tranquil. I don't think anybody is suggesting that 2415, 2655, and 832 didn't deserve to win. You guys did an awesome job and took home the trophy. Nobody here is questioning that. In FIRST, winning requires a combination of hard work, preparation, smart strategy, constant diligence, and, yes, luck. The facts are that in three of the four matches, only two robots on the #1 alliance functioned for the entire match. Would things have turned out differently if that had not been the case? No one can say. Many can argue the point, but it cannot be proven either way. The argument is futile.

While nobody is taking anything away from 2415, 2655, and 832, I have witnessed much frustration among a group of hard working young people. For the second year in a row, this group built what was arguably the best scoring robot at Peachtree. For the second year in a row they were eliminated before the finals because of circumstances beyond their control. In 2008, a combination of a weak autonomous and reliability issues put them in a position where they had to rely on draft selection to even play in the finals. Their alliance partner broke during the semis and they were eliminated. It was a hard lesson, and they worked extra hard this year to avoid that position. This year, they built a bot that performed without a hiccup during every match, outscoring every other robot at the competition. Again, they were eliminated when an alliance partner broke (note that I did NOT say because an alliance partner broke). This is the way FIRST is set up. Coopertition has been part of the FIRST way of life since before anybody on the team ever heard of FIRST. No one team can win by themselves, it takes an alliance. Does this model represent real life? absolutely! I have seen many cases where the best idea, product etc. didn't win. For a good example, look up the Tucker automobile. However, real life lessons can be very tough on high school students that have spent 10 weeks sacrificing grades, social life, and sleep, only to find out that they don't really have control over the outcome of events. I hope that disappointment does not discourage anyone from participating in this, or any endeavor in the future.

As Dean and Woodie are fond of saying, it's not about the robots, or winning and losing, it's about doing your best, learning, and having fun. I know the whole team had a blast, learned a lot, and did their best. We are all excited that we get another chance this week at Palmetto, and I hope that everyone has a fun, safe, and successful event.

[Enigma's puzzle]

I believe in the serpentine era the reason that the low seeds are failing to win, even though they have a better chance to have a more well rounded teams, is that they are looking to have three scoring bots, instead of setting up a strategy like the higher seeds, this often leads to two of the best scorers against 3 average scorers, and if well picked by the first alliance a defensive robot.

Essentially it makes the two top teams from the higher rated alliance, against the two lesser scoring teams on the lower alliance, assuming they cancel.

After Being at the Lansing district the top 4 teams tried for a balanced two scorer, and one defensive bot. Whereas the lower 4 seeds went for 3 scoring robots. There were no "upsets" in the elimination rounds, because of this strategy because there were plenty of defensive robots to go around for the top 4 seeds, We being one of the defensive ones.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by BenX02

I guess I might be wrong. I was just pointing out that we didn't win because of luck.

I hope to see you guys at the Championships.

There's nothing to be ashamed about winning if you're opponents break. It's part of the game. The alliance with the fewest mechanical problems is often the one that emerges victorious. It takes a lot more than just execution on the field to win a Championship at any level.
Even the greatest of coaches and teams will agree with me on this one.