Possible Lower Scores on Einstein?

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by Alpha Beta

Winning strategy. Score 48 in auto including co-op bridge, alliance shoots the 9 held balls with 35 seconds to spare for 27 more points, then spends last 30 seconds triple ballancing for 40 points.

I expect to see Titanium on Einstein play a 115+pt match.

[Mr. Lim]

Originally Posted by Alpha Beta

18 balls - (3 x 3 alliance robots) - (2 x 3 human players) - (2 left on alliance bridge) = 1 ball.

Winning strategy. Score 48 in auto including co-op bridge, alliance shoots the 9 held balls with 35 seconds to spare for 27 more points, then spends last 30 seconds triple ballancing for 40 points.

Teleop is nearly a wash unless their is some ball stealing involved. Holding those balls right before the time when teams need to concentrate on the bridges could work.

Better start tracking OPRs for human players!

If this plays out, those starved balls need to be turned into human thrown buzzer beaters.

What a way to decide Einstein... if both alliances decide to starve.

Both triple balance, and there's a wealth of balls in the hands of the human players with <30 seconds left...

P.S. I'll never get any work done... this thread has made me revise my pre-scouting pick list AGAIN... Alliances running this strategy only need to shoot twice the entire match: once in hybrid, and once near the end of the match before triple balancing. Strong hybrid, excellent ball-pickup, steady high-percentage shooters immune to heavy defense, fast triple balancing, and a human player who can make shots.

[Anupam Goli]

I would have to say, that would be an uneventful Einstein if it were to happen, but this is the top level. Starving is expected to happen, but I would imagine an inbounder that is good at the cross barrier pass will be high in demand.

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by Alpha Beta

18 balls - (3 x 3 alliance robots) - (2 x 3 human players) - (2 left on alliance bridge) = 1 ball.

Winning strategy. Score 48 in auto including co-op bridge, alliance shoots the 9 held balls with 35 seconds to spare for 27 more points, then spends last 30 seconds triple ballancing for 40 points.

Teleop is nearly a wash unless their is some ball stealing involved. Holding those balls right before the time when teams need to concentrate on the bridges could work.

Why can there be only one ball on the alliance bridge? I see no reason why robots can't "store" more balls on the alliance bridge... It may not be easy to do, but it is both legal and feasible.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

Why can there be only one ball on the alliance bridge? I see no reason why robots can't "store" more balls on the alliance bridge... It may not be easy to do, but it is both legal and feasible.

I've also seen robots guard balls in their own alley. If an opposing alliance robot tries to take one, boom! <G25>.

Especially since teleop scoring is the 4th order sort for seeding, I could see this being employed on A,C,G, and N - not just Einstein. A strategy-minded, quick-balancing rookie could make a lot of noise this way.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Taylor

I've also seen robots guard balls in their own alley. If an opposing alliance robot tries to take one, boom! <G25>.

Especially since teleop scoring is the 4th order sort for seeding, I could see this being employed on A,C,G, and N - not just Einstein. A strategy-minded, quick-balancing rookie could make a lot of noise this way.

It's an interesting concept, but only a very select few robots would be able to pull off a bridge-hoarding strategy. How many bots are even setup to be able to place balls onto a bridge? Even if the hoarding is a success, wouldn't it eventually necessitate even more time for a bridge balance in order to clear the balls off the bridge first?

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by JesseK

It's an interesting concept, but only a very select few robots would be able to pull off a bridge-hoarding strategy. How many bots are even setup to be able to place balls onto a bridge? Even if the hoarding is a success, wouldn't it eventually necessitate even more time for a bridge balance in order to clear the balls off the bridge first?

Not to mention it may be worth the 3 point penalty to tip an opponent's bridge just to get all of the hoarded balls off and to your own side.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Wing

Not to mention it may be worth the 3 point penalty to tip an opponent's bridge just to get all of the hoarded balls off and to your own side.

9 points. With the simple solution being to defend your own bridge and force G28s as well as G25s.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by JesseK

It's an interesting concept, but only a very select few robots would be able to pull off a bridge-hoarding strategy. How many bots are even setup to be able to place balls onto a bridge? Even if the hoarding is a success, wouldn't it eventually necessitate even more time for a bridge balance in order to clear the balls off the bridge first?

Nope. The hoarded balls don't have to be on a balanced bridge.
Consider a robot, probably wide-body, facing its own bridge and tipping the bridge toward it while remaining on the playing floor. Its alliance can pretty much fill this "funnel" full of balls, and especially if the robot is in its own alley, the balls are untouchable without a flood of fouls.

When it comes time to balance, the robot simply backs away, and the other two alliance partners can balance unobstructed from the other side. The first bot can either traverse the bump or climb the coop bridge to the other side.

Even if the opposing alliance get those balls, they'll have to score enough to counter the 40-pt triple balance.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Taylor

Nope. The hoarded balls don't have to be on a balanced bridge.
Consider a robot, probably wide-body, facing its own bridge and tipping the bridge toward it while remaining on the playing floor. Its alliance can pretty much fill this "funnel" full of balls, and especially if the robot is in its own alley, the balls are untouchable without a flood of fouls.

When it comes time to balance, the robot simply backs away, and the other two alliance partners can balance unobstructed from the other side. The first bot can either traverse the bump or climb the coop bridge to the other side.

Even if the opposing alliance get those balls, they'll have to score enough to counter the 40-pt triple balance.

I believe this would be considered controlling more than three basketballs at a time.

[G22]

Robots may only actively control three Basketballs at any time.
Violation: Foul per extra Basketball

[blue box]
Moving or positioning a Basketball to gain advantage is considered actively controlling. Examples are “carrying” (holding Basketballs in the Robot), “herding” (intentionally pushing or impelling Basketballs to a desired location or direction) and “trapping” (pressing one or more Basketballs against a Court element in an attempt to shield them).

[JesseK]

This whole ball starvation strategy is a red herring.

Human players are GOOD and getting balls back across the field under the assumption they're not under a time crunch. Yet bots on Einstein will be GOOD at making rapid shots (think about the 2056-1114 pair with their back-and-forth shots).

Here's a partial strategy from my playbook, codenamed "Bunker Buster Bomb":
Scenario: Ball starvation strategy, 5-6 balls behind each player station, other balls are scarce.
1.) Our human players slam our balls across the field in rapid succession
2.) Our alliance rapidly scores 6 balls from 2 bots, concurrent with step 1
3.) The 2 bots that scored split up: 1 bot goes for the balls that crossed the field, 1 bot blocks the opponent's throwing lane
4.) 3rd bot scores 3 balls, concurrent with step 4

Probable points in 20 seconds from a MSC/MAR-esque finals alliance: 24, plus penalties because the opponents didn't get balls out in time or had more than 2 balls/player.

I seriously doubt the bots will be hungry for long. The alliance that starts this sequence first has the upper hand.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim

I'd be very surprised of an alliance doesn't try a pure ball starvation strategy on Einstein... and is successful.

Particularly if it's the alliance with the stronger hybrid, and the faster triple-balance.

Kind of hard to score a lot of points when there's only 3 balls on the field...

Im looking forward to seeing how a match would turn out like that. I'll admit I'm skeptical to the success of the alliance that deploys this strategy.

[bduddy]

I just thought of something... the bridges on Einstein, unlike those everywhere else for the last couple weeks, will be completely new, and I've heard that new bridges can be quite slick. Is that true?

[Vikingtech2054]

Another variable i just thought of that may affect shooting accuracy, this may not affect it as much because of all the stadium lights are the same but do you think different lighting could affect robots, and do you think they may compensate for this by letting teams calibrate cameras for 15 mins?

[Kristian Calhoun]

Originally Posted by Vikingtech2054

Another variable i just thought of that may affect shooting accuracy, this may not affect it as much because of all the stadium lights are the same but do you think different lighting could affect robots, and do you think they may compensate for this by letting teams calibrate cameras for 15 mins?

In the past, teams who made it to Einstein have been given time to calibrate their cameras on the field before the elimination rounds/award ceremony started. (Or at least they were in 2006 and 2007. Did any team on Einstein between 2008 and 2011 even use a camera? I know there were several teams in 2009 that had it mounted, but I'm not sure if they ever actually made use of it during game play that year--we didn't.)