Highest ranked team not picked?

[JamesBrown]

Originally Posted by wjordan

4/8 (686, 1137, 1262, 5279) are CHS teams... that's a bit odd.

1137, 1262, and 5279 are all effective low goal bots. 836, another CHS Low goal bot was a 4th pick. In Chesapeake low goals were enough to seed high and win. At Champs, at least in our Case, we were able to capture because we could put 6 balls in the low goal, this lead to more ranking points. However in eliminations teams could capture with only high goal shooters, diminishing the value of the low goalers.

Basically we were very valuable as a qualifying bot since when partnered with a single bot that could score 4 balls we would capture regardless of who the third bot was. However in elims teams were able to select two high goal bots who could score 10 balls between the two of them or 3 high goalers who could score 10+ combined. It is something we were aware would happen eventually.

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

Rank =/ robot abilities

Good teams scout and rank doesn't factor in picking teams.

Originally Posted by AquaMorph

Rankings are not a good indicator for skill. Sometimes, good teams have a lower ranking because they had a tough schedule. Other times, the reverse happens and a team gets a higher ranking than they deserve.

This is certainly true, however there is another factor that plays into it, and it is the way the game changes between qualifications and eliminations. 5279 is a good example, I suspect if you replayed the weekend with other random schedules over and over again I suspect we would seed in the same area as we did on average. In this game, low bar bots that could score 6+ balls did well in qualifications, but were less valuable in eliminations because their were enough high goal shooters that could combine for 10+ balls to capture. I suspect that if they had not raised the tower strength to 10 then these low goal bots would have seeded lower, as more high goal bots would have been able to capture in qualifying with out them. On the other hand if they raised it to 12 then the low goal bots would have seeded higher and would have been more valuable to elimination alliances.

It is entirely possible for a robot to both deserve to seed where they did, and not get picked. In our case, while we were very valuable to the average alliance, we were less valuable as a complimentary part of a designed alliance. On the other hand a robot like 1662 could not contribute as much to an average alliance in qualifying as they were a defensive robot designed to beat very good shooters so they were not able to contribute to damaging the tower, however once an alliance had two robots that could capture without contribution from a third partners, a robot like 1662 jumped in value. Us ranking 19th, and 1662 ranking 65th both reflected (to at least some degree) our value to random alliances, also, 1662 being picked in the second round, and us missing eliminations also reflects our value to the alliances as designed by the alliance captains.

[Steven Smith]

“Reliability and consistency are paramount. If you do ONE thing, every single match, without fail, you will beat the guy who does many different things poorly. Every time.“

As a follow up note, this year 3005 went from never having made championships before, and the only regional finalist achievement made as a 2nd pick in 2011, to a 2nd seed in Alamo (regional finalist AC), 2nd seed in Dallas (SF), and AC of the Curie Finalist division... by designing a low goal capable robot with no hang. We could cycle 6-8 low balls per match. When picking our amazing alliance partners, we knew we were weaker than our 1st and 2nd pick, but had a strategy we knew should work.

On the flip side, this was the first year we ever made a practice bot, had our first robot done and functional before week 5, got 8-10 weeks of practice before champs, and never had a single thing break in our robot that took us out of a match (or lost comms).

Strategy + reliability is a winning combination in many years even with a simple robot, and the GDCs decision on how to structure quals this year made it an exceptionally attractive option for many mid-tier teams.

[CVR]

Originally Posted by Steve Compton

We were part of that cohort, I think, and my kids will want to take a look at why were were passed over as they plan for next year.

I would consider what your goals were in the beginning of the season and how you achieved them.

If your goal this year was to win a regional/district and make it to worlds, a low goal bot could easily do that. A good example is Team Dave 3683 at Greater Toronto Central Regional. They were 9-1-0, ranked 1st and pretty easily won all their elimination matches.

If your goal this year was to be extremely competitive (win a DCMP, CMP division, or compete on Einstein), a low goal bot was not really feasible. Of all the robots that touched Einstein's carpet, I don't remember any low-goalers. I might be missing one or two, but I'm fairly certain almost every bot was high goal or defense.

That in mind, most alliance captain's goals in St. Louis is to first make it to Einstein, then be competitive there. I think most captains rightly concluded that you needed at minimum 2 powerful high goal robots, and a defensive bot.

Since you guys were primarily low goal scorers, you most likely didn't meet the criteria of what alliance captains were looking for.

----

If your goal for next year is to be competitive on Einstein, you'll have to identify what robot role will be most desired on Einstein. This year it was high goal scorers. Last year it was robots that could make stacks 6 high and cap it themselves (minimum 2).

I would forwarn you that having an Einstein competitive robot does not guarantee you a trip to worlds. There are many teams this year that could have been competitive on Einstein but never qualified.

A good example is team 120. We were ranked 1st at Buckeye and passed over them because 781 could put more boulders in the tower. Even though 781 was a low goal bot and would get less points, we knew that we would be the only alliance that would be able to reliably capture and the 25 point bonus would almost assure us wins. So we didn't need a high goaler.

I can't speak to 120's other events, but I suspect something similar happened. Their robot wasn't quite what was needed to win regionals. Had they not been a HoF team, they would not have been in St. Louis. But luckily for 330 and 2481 they had an automatic invite, and their fantastic machine was available for selection.

If you look at the finals matches on Einstein, I suspect 2056's defense bot, 1405, was primarily told to shut down 120. This makes the battle between 120 and 1405 the most crucial part of the finals matches and where World champs was won and lost.

However, remember when I said we (4039) passed them up at Buckeye? We thought they weren't what we needed to win the regional, although they were what was needed to win World's.

There is a risk that if you want to be competitive at World's next year that you'll never qualify. So it's not as simple as finding the right robot role and building that robot, you really have to identify what your goals should be.

Usually Einstein-capable robots are highly complex and take a whole season to tune to perfection. The power-house teams (2056, 254, 971) are the exceptions.

----

My advice for if you decide that your goal next year is to compete on Einstein, is to identify how to score the most points per second in next year's game. This year the low goal and high goal took approximately the same amount of time, but one was worth 150% more points. A reliable high goaler was also way, way, way harder to build. But if you did it well, you had a good shot at Einstein.

But please remember Karthik's advice, which is applicable to 95% of teams:

“Reliability and consistency are paramount. If you do ONE thing, every single match, without fail, you will beat the guy who does many different things poorly. Every time.“

You just need to identify what that one thing is, and it likely won't be the same for winning regionals and winning worlds.

[Jscout11]

This reminds me of a similar thread Akash posted a few years ago before my time in FRC

I just wanted to say, as someone familiar with 1391, that from what I observed, you guys really took the next step this year in a lot of ways. Best thing you can do now is learn from both the good and the bad and start working now for next year.

[Akash Rastogi]

A note in reference to Corsetto: he's been on other teams before 1678. At the time he was either 114 or 1662 I think?

Originally Posted by Mastonevich

I went to the thread and found the following from Michael Corsetto on 1678. It is very fitting for this thread as they went from the below comments from Mike to 4 times in a row Einstein appearances with one world championship. Hard work and determination pay off.

Haha I actually just went back to read my old thread as well. Funny how things change in a few years.

1391 is a great team and was arguably one of the best in MAR. Luck and who you know is a huge factor in getting picked at champs in the later rounds. For example, 228 is a decent robot with very capable drivers, but as the very last pick on Carver, we know our friends on 359 had to do a bit of persuasion for us to get picked.

Keep working and getting better, 1391 is more than capable

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

A note in reference to Corsetto: he's been on other teams before 1678. At the time he was either 114 or 1662 I think?

I was actually with 1678 at the time, but took a brief hiatus from mentoring 1678 full-time when I moved to Lodi and mentored 1662 in 2012 and 2013.

This post is a crazy reminder to me of how fortunate I have been to work with 1678 over the last 9 years.

-Mike

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

I was actually with 1678 at the time, but took a brief hiatus from mentoring 1678 full-time when I moved to Lodi and mentored 1662 in 2012 and 2013.

This post is a crazy reminder to me of how fortunate I have been to work with 1678 over the last 9 years.

-Mike

Thanks for clarifying!

And thanks for the advice all those years ago

[GDB]

It's a shame that scouting is not looked at as much at championships because the basis of most teams is to have fun. I realize that for the most part is all about the FIRST experience but it's a shame some didn't realize the potential of other teams for their high level skill due to their ranks. Some teams were troubled due to bad matches with rookie teams and teams could not know that had happened if they actually did scout.

Next time Plasma Robotics will try harder to carry our whole team farther. Though it's very hard to carry through championships and regionals itself. We ranked 29th out of 76 teams and we were planning to get picked but our last two matches brought us down from the top 15 to the lower third of teams.

[sdcantrell56]

Originally Posted by GDB

It's a shame that scouting is not looked at as much at championships because the basis of most teams is to have fun. I realize that for the most part is all about the FIRST experience but it's a shame some didn't realize the potential of other teams for their high level skill due to their ranks. Some teams were troubled due to bad matches with rookie teams and teams could not know that had happened if they actually did scout.

Next time Plasma Robotics will try harder to carry our whole team farther. Though it's very hard to carry through championships and regionals itself. We ranked 29th out of 76 teams and we were planning to get picked but our last two matches brought us down from the top 15 to the lower third of teams.

Not sure why you think scouting isn't as big of a deal at Championship as at the lower levels. All of the top teams (ie teams playing in elims) are very much intensely scouting. You don't end up on Einstein without it.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by CVR

I would consider what your goals were in the beginning of the season and how you achieved them....

There is a risk that if you want to be competitive at World's next year that you'll never qualify. So it's not as simple as finding the right robot role and building that robot, you really have to identify what your goals should be.

Yes, we took that risk last year. We had a bot that could only stack 5. 1671, 701 and 971 easily could have pushed us out of qualifying at each regional if our can grabber strategy had not been successful.

Originally Posted by CVR

Usually Einstein-capable robots are highly complex and take a whole season to tune to perfection. The power-house teams (2056, 254, 971) are the exceptions.

Exceptions to what? I know that 254, 971 and us all had very different robots at Champs than what we started with. Tuning through the competition season is critical.

[CVR]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

Exceptions to what? I know that 254, 971 and us all had very different robots at Champs than what we started with. Tuning through the competition season is critical.

I didn't mean to imply that powerhouse teams do not improve over the season, or show up to week 1 with perfect bots. I just meant that they generally go to their first event better equipped to handle the game than the average robot.

I can't speak much to the California bots not having seen them firsthand, but I did see 2056 draining shots at GTR-E when most robots were still adjusting their shooters to hit the target.

Similarly, last year 1114 was putting up 3 capped 6 stacks at GTR-E when most teams were just figuring out that they needed a ramp to be a HP bot.

Both of these robots made improvements over the season, but when you're at 95% capability, 100% is not as far away as when you start at 50%.

I just want to be clear, I'm not trying to belittle teams that come out of the gate with near-perfect robots. On the contrary they should be praised. But it is unreasonable for the majority of teams to expect this experience without prior planning. It is important to note that this experience is not out of reach for any team, they just need to set the proper goals for their individual situation. Karthik's strategy seminars are a great place to start, as are the Minimum Competitive Concept threads.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by CVR

I didn't mean to imply that powerhouse teams do not improve over the season, or show up to week 1 with perfect bots. I just meant that they generally go to their first event better equipped to handle the game than the average robot.

I can't speak much to the California bots not having seen them firsthand, but I did see 2056 draining shots at GTR-E when most robots were still adjusting their shooters to hit the target.

Similarly, last year 1114 was putting up 3 capped 6 stacks at GTR-E when most teams were just figuring out that they needed a ramp to be a HP bot.

Both of these robots made improvements over the season, but when you're at 95% capability, 100% is not as far away as when you start at 50%.

I just want to be clear, I'm not trying to belittle teams that come out of the gate with near-perfect robots. On the contrary they should be praised. But it is unreasonable for the majority of teams to expect this experience without prior planning. It is important to note that this experience is not out of reach for any team, they just need to set the proper goals for their individual situation. Karthik's strategy seminars are a great place to start, as are the Minimum Competitive Concept threads.

I fully agree with this characterization. But it's $@#$@#$@#$@# hard to get that last 5% (and it's rarely achieved.)