More Strategy in 2007

[Flanamana]

This years game seems to be more strategic than last years
Also, this years game seems more like you won't have a clue of who will win until the end, since putting up Ringers aren't definite points.

[Pavan Dave]

I would have to agree with you here. This game requires you to think at where you need to score to get more points and the placement of a spoiler can horribly break your chances of winning in a close match.

Pavan.

And it's really going to depend on what the opposing alliance is capable of doing, not to mention the other two teams on your alliance. We're really going to need to be able to think on the spot. One word: scouting.

[Tetraman]

This game is more 'In the moment' than stragety really. Any group of robots that can funtion at a minimal level can win this year, it all depends on what is happening during the match and if the alliance can do something about it.

[Ian S.]

I thought it was interesting how FIRST implied the "Strategist", telling the driver what to do in the kickoff in NH when one of the "robot" referees placed a spoiler in the middle of a row. Aim High was much more straightforward than this year's competition. I'm sure at many regionals that the high scoring matches won't be much higher than 70 or so.

I think the teams with simple ringer designs will compete better, while the complex ramp/crane/lifter bots for the bonus end game points will fall behind. A strategist may be a good idea for teams, even if it sounds corny.

[John Gutmann]

Well, I think that even a robot that only scores on the bottom row will do significantly good if that robot is efficient and quick. Last year I forgot what team it was. I believe 322, who was a dumper and they mad it very far in nationals. I don't remember exactly how far they go but I know they were in the division playoffs. So even a simple efficient robot can go far. Just KISS.

[Scott Perry]

I love this game because it really is so strategic. Aim High mostly lacked real tactics; too many of the matches were decided in the workshops or in the pits. Either you had a strong bot that could do its job, or you had a major challenge ahead.

R'N'R has huge amounts of strategy, reguardless if you're on the field, talking beforehand with partners, or even before you get to the regional. Not counting the bonus, there are 24 places to score. Triple Play gave you the problem of going to score on the other side of the field for points vs. guarding pocession of the goals near you. This year, that fundamental balance comes in the form of disrupting their rows vs. building your own. And that is awesome.

[burkey_turkey]

the way i see it, there will be 4 distinct types of robots:

1) the platform bot - no real tubing strategy. during most of the game some defence is played, possibly a tube or two is placed. it shines at the end, when it unfolds into a giant 12 foot high platform with ramps that its alliance partners climb onto. this or it has two massice platofrms it pulls up. basically a 60 point bot if the alliance works with it

2) the confused bot - some of everything. this bot cna place some tubes, probably on the first and secnd rows only. it does okay with that. at the end of the match it can elevate one bot. 30 points+tubes. thats respectable

3) the manipulator - arm of god. this bot can place tubes quickly and efeciently. it can place them anywhere, and probably has a good camera system. when the match is almost done it has to choose between placing a spoiler or running back for 30 points by getting lifted by someone on their alliance

4) everything bot - perfection. this is the regional winning bot. it cna place tubes efficiently, has a working camera. it can lift one or two bots. very manuverable, yet can push well. here will be very few of these bots.


obviously the best bo to be is bot number 4, but which of the others is better to focus for? they all have their unique pros and cons, and i know my team has been fiercely debating over this. the big money is in the lifting, but if everyone just lifts the few who place can get away with a big 256. thoughts?

[hallk]

Originally Posted by Ian S.

I thought it was interesting how FIRST implied the "Strategist", telling the driver what to do in the kickoff in NH when one of the "robot" referees placed a spoiler in the middle of a row. Aim High was much more straightforward than this year's competition. I'm sure at many regionals that the high scoring matches won't be much higher than 70 or so.

I think the teams with simple ringer designs will compete better, while the complex ramp/crane/lifter bots for the bonus end game points will fall behind. A strategist may be a good idea for teams, even if it sounds corny.

When we heard this, we thought it was another person you oculd have on the field. Like a coach, human player, drivers and a strategist. Unfortnately not.

[Tetraman]

Originally Posted by Ian S.

I think the teams with simple ringer designs will compete better, while the complex ramp/crane/lifter bots for the bonus end game points will fall behind.

I'm going to strongly disagree with the second part of your statement. My reason is that one robot lifted a foot gives the alliance the same amount of points a row of 5 does, or 3-4 rows of three rigs give you. It is much easier to get 30 points by lifting a robot rather than placing rings. 30 points is a big deal. It can bring you from 20 to 50, and in this game thats huge. Than just think about 60 for two robots up.

I can easily see all regional winning teams to have two robots that worked well in rings and a defense bot that lifted robots.

[zander_108]

honestly I think that people are aproaching the whole "lifting" thing wrong... what if someone was to be able to lift BOTH bots 12" from the ground up, and not just from above? If there was a team that could do this, and score donuts moderatly well, they would be SET.

[Guy Davidson]

As our Team 8's Strategy and Inteligence captain, I agree with the notion that this year could be the year of the strategist. There will be so much more to this game compared to Aim High, in terms of strategy, that we've already began working. We really like it a lot.

Guy

[Donut]

This game reminded me so much of Triple Play it's not even funny. All strategy in my opinion for the ringer portion of the game. I actually just finished developing a Rack 'N' Roll Board Game yesterday with my brother; we did the same thing for '05, and it helped for looking at strategy considerably.

[ThomasP]

Originally Posted by Ian S.

I think the teams with simple ringer designs will compete better, while the complex ramp/crane/lifter bots for the bonus end game points will fall behind. A strategist may be a good idea for teams, even if it sounds corny.

What about a lifter bot that can also jump 12" vertically to get a 90 point bonus at the end? I'd love to see a team get a 30 point bonus by jumping at the end of the match...

[Imajie]

Originally Posted by ThomasP

What about a lifter bot that can also jump 12" vertically to get a 90 point bonus at the end? I'd love to see a team get a 30 point bonus by jumping at the end of the match...

The only problem is you need to say up long enough for the refs to measure your height.