You pick, which would you rather have

[c.aldridge]

Scenario A for sure. At the Alamo regional, 148, 922, and 2756? (Gatorzillas, I apologize if that is the wrong number) kept going for the triple balance, and once the other alliance realized they needed those 40pts to win, they spent the remaining minute or so of every match to attempt to defend them. It was still hard to defend (the robots could go to the blue ally and make it easier then to not get defended) but they were still able to be blocked.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by c.aldridge

Scenario A for sure. At the Alamo regional, 148, 922, and 2756? (Gatorzillas, I apologize if that is the wrong number) kept going for the triple balance, and once the other alliance realized they needed those 40pts to win, they spent the remaining minute or so of every match to attempt to defend them. It was still hard to defend (the robots could go to the blue ally and make it easier then to not get defended) but they were still able to be blocked.

2936 is Gatorzillas and yes it's very important not to be defensed getting on to the bridge. Getting a small robot to 120lbs and still have it maneuverable is not as easy as people are making it out to be, especially since it's most likely going to be made cheaply with kit parts.

[ThirteenOfTwo]

I'd take A.

OK. New question. With multiple scenarios.

1) You are a wide-base robot that can score fairly well (let's say you're the fifth best scorer at the regional). You are first seed. There are only a certain number of widebots at your competition, and none of the rest of them can score. If, however, you take a longbot, all of the other widebots will be gone by the time your third pick comes around.

Do you pick the widebot that can't score but enables you to triple balance or the longbot that is the best scorer at the competition but locks you out of the triple?

2) Same scenario but your robot cannot score effectively.

3) Same scenario but your robot is a longbot.

4) Same scenario but you are the best scoring robot at the competition.

5) Same scenario but you are fourth seed and all of the scorers better than you were taken first.

[Kpchem]

If I had an alliance that I knew could effectively score the balls that option A is feeding over from the opponents side, then I would definitely choose option A.

However, if I am presented with a situation where my alliance cannot shoot very well, but a small (maybe not quite as small as 15x15) robot would make the triple balance possible (or at least easier), then I would have to choose option B.

And to be honest, I wouldn't even be considering the second scenario as a chance for success, except just yesterday I witnessed my old team pull off the upset in Oregon, coming from the 8th seed to win the regional using exactly that strategy.

[Chris is me]

[A] does not preclude the triple balance, so I don't see why we wouldn't pick A. The ball manipulation is handy too, this is a very similar role to that which 2791 played at BAE.

I think [b] could potentially be a very good robot, but you'd have to stretch it a bit farther than the terms you have laid out. If it's at weight and a solid pusher, then that's a great second rounder for many regionals. If it had a ball mechanism (not necessarily a scorer, but something to move balls around with), then it's also a great assist robot. But if all it could do was get on the bridge and sit there... I don't think you'd be as reliable as you might wish with your triples.

A transparent strategy is a disadvantage, but not a very big one. I don't think you would need to worry so much about that. I also think a 15x15 robot could play limited defense, with enough weight and traction.

Based on what I've seen so far I'd have to go with the first one. A good autonomous and a good teleop are more than enough to offset the 20 points gained by getting the third robot on the bridge.

I disagree. Say they are 60% accurate. That means six points (one of two balls) in auton, leaving 12 in teleop. If they were 100% accurate, they would need to score 4 balls to be as good as a "pure triple balancer" robot. Since they are 60% accurate, that number gets closer to 7 balls. That is a tall order for most robots and teams.

[NickTosta]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I disagree. Say they are 60% accurate. That means six points (one of two balls) in auton, leaving 12 in teleop. If they were 100% accurate, they would need to score 4 balls to be as good as a "pure triple balancer" robot. Since they are 60% accurate, that number gets closer to 7 balls. That is a tall order for most robots and teams.

Well, what is important to remember is that not only can two robots on a bridge balance significantly faster than three robots, but it also frees up one robot to score for the entire match.

So, to use your example from above, let's say this robot gets 6 points in autonomous and scores 2 baskets, or 6 points, in teleop. That's pretty reasonable for a lot of teams. So, they score 12 points total.

But now, what you have to consider is the powerhouse team that picked the alliance - because you aren't going for a triple balance anymore, they have probably 30 seconds of extra scoring that they otherwise would not have had. The best scoring bot on the alliance scoring 9 points in 30 seconds is pretty reasonable I think. That brings that robot's total contribution to 21 points, and that is assuming that they bring relatively little to the table in teleop and autonomous.

And, of course, the triple balance is still on the table with Bot A.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by NickTosta

Well, what is important to remember is that not only can two robots on a bridge balance significantly faster than three robots, but it also frees up one robot to score for the entire match.

I'm not so sure its significantly faster to balance two.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KRBjByMpZI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=509eQSLcm90