I’ve been staring at that GIF for 5 minutes and I still don’t see what everyone is referring to. The fact that the red robots tip sideways and “out”?
“e.g.” is not all inclusive. 870 was red carded for the same thing at LI2 for far less of an extension. It was strategic in that it allowed for their partner to climb in a far easier manner.
They drove outside the platform zone while hooked onto the bar, thus extending more than the 16 inch allowance.
One of the robots is attached to the rung via a hook and spooled-out cable. Their drive chassis partially exits the platform zone. Thus they are extended more than 16" beyond the frame perimeter while not fully contained within the platform zone.
I see the actual foul now, I thought the other robot tipped over and crashed outside of the zone. But no, there was 870(?) parked about half-way out of the zone. That is considerably more flagrant than the violations that earned red cards at NEDCMP.
the gif posted was 7226. in li2, 870 was red carded for the same thing.
I couldn’t see it from the gif either, so I looked up the match.
It’s more obvious if you watch the whole endgame period.
This is for elimination rounds.
- Auto must get scale and switch. Can not start out behind.
- The 12 cubes between the switch become very important. Short cycle time.
- Play some defense, trap robots using their portal. Extend their cycle time.
- Not how fast you are with cubes, it is where you place them and when.
- Scale bots need to get into a rhythm.
- Must have the ability to climb with a partner.
- The alliance needs to determine what team works what zone. Own that zone!
- Scoring levitate with 100 seconds or 4 seconds count the same. Not timing sensitive.
- NO DROPPED CUBES- touch it own it.
- Trust your partners ( Not in Quals)
This I have seen to be some of the most frustrating losses. So much time is lost due to dropped cubes.
Thank you for your kind comments on my “bad rectal-cranial inversion.” I’m sure the students you mentor look upon that highly, great example!
I’d wager your comment is arguably more “ungracious, unprofessional.”
The metric I used was cubes scored by the loosing alliance in the first finals match at DCMP (if there are divisions, division vs. division playoffs’ first match was considered the "first finals match) For non-district regions (in “contention”) the number of cubes scored by the loosing alliance in the first finals match of all regional matches were considered.
DISTRICTS:
Ontario: ONCMP F1:
Cubes in scale by loosing alliance: 12
**New England: **NECMP F1
Cubes in scale by loosing alliance: 11
**Indiana: **INCMP F1
Cubes in scale by loosing alliance: 11
**Michigan: ***
MSC F1
Cubes in scale by loosing alliance: 3
MSC F2
Cubes in scale by loosing alliance: 8
**for Michigan I have included F1 and F2, a significantly lower number of cubes were scored in the scale by the loosing alliance in F1. *
REGIONALS:
Arizona North: AZFL F1
Cubes in scale by loosing alliance: 2
Central Valley Regional CAFR F1
Cubes in scale by loosing alliance: 6
Silicon Valley Regional CASJ F1
Cubes in scale by loosing alliance: 7
Colorado Regional CODE F1
Cubes in scale by loosing alliance: 10
Now, why do I consider this metric meaningful, and some limitations of it:
I find it useful because it shows competitiveness at the top level, (how many cubes do we need to score in the scale to win) it is a measure of the capabilities of the “second best alliance” in playoffs, and how capable it is.
This metric fails if teams abandon the scale for other objectives. It makes the assumption that the strategy for teams includes trying to out-scale the other alliance. This seemed like the plan to me in the matches listed here, however, if someone from behind the glass in these matches can comment on specific strategy, that would be great.
I’ve added McMaster (Week 6) data to address concerns related to week 7 vs. week 6 competition.
McMaster University Event ONHAM F1
Cubes in scale by loosing alliance: 12
Ontario does have the highest 3 Cube Scale auto concentration among teams for any given region, as commonly agreed - in fact double that of any other region… Now I agree that these “3 Cube Scale autos” are somewhat subjective, but I’m sure most people can agree with me here.
Ontario has grown so much in the past couple years. The combination of 4917 and 3683 taking down the perennial powerhouses of 2056 and 1241 at Waterloo shows that. The ONCMP finalist alliance of 5406 and 4917 are not your perennial powerhouses, and both of these teams are 5 years old, or younger.
JamesCH95, if you disagree with me here, you are more than welcome to count cubes with me at Championships, us folk with “bad rectal-cranial inversion” might be awful at such tasks.
A 1-cube difference is about 13 inches, not “miles.” 
My goal was to show that while Ontario is superior in the aforementioned metric, it also has the strongest concentration of 3 cube scale auto teams, (as in more than double other regions) all of which we can call “highly competitive,” reflecting the strength of our growing top tier.
Absolutely!
Once an Alliance gets in the lead for their Switch and the Scale, a defensive strategy can help avoid the “Pile Power Cubes on the Scale” race…
Gaining control of the opposing Alliance’s Switch adds to the aggravation and opposing force dilution. I think we will see some of the best and some of the worst shine in this aspect of the matches.
If teams go into the “Pile Power Cubes on the Scale” mode, orchestration between Alliance robots is definitely primordial…
I don’t think we will see very many 3 robot climbs at Champs. I think everyone has understood the importance of achieving the Levitate, climbing with 2 robots, leaving a robot to wreack havock in the opposing Alliance to the very end of the game.
Yes. Zone assignments will be critical, with good communications during the match to adapt to the situation (for example, moving the Switch/Vault robot to the opponent’s Switch/Vault zone to play interference of take/maintain ownership of the opposing Switch).
No, as long as Levitate is used in time for the endgame climb.
This will make or break an Alliance in all matches. Same thing with cube delivery. A cube that drops from the scale, or even worst, takes down another cube as it falls off the Scale will be a match killer.
Crossing the Auto Run goal line will be critical to gain the Auto points, and the RP in quals. This should not be an issue in Quals, even with Rookie teams which should have their Auto Run code figured out for Champs.
Second, everyone must stick to the strategy and not try to “steal the show” from other Alliance members. But, no one will not be surprised if some teams pull that stunt off strategically in Quals.
Similarly, each robot has to execute flawessly during endgame.
The “miles” difference is in the quality of the mid and bottom tier. Over 50% of teams in Ontario are at DCMP. Roughly 30% of Ontario teams make eliminations at DCMP. Compare that to just over 10% of teams making elims at DCMP in NE and 20% making elims at MSC. By all means Ontario DCMP elims should be the most watered down DCMP ever but it’s not. Seriously just watch it, we have rookie teams with consistent multi cube autos who don’t even make elims.
If you consider the size of our district it’s obvious that the** average** team in Ontario is better than the average team anywhere else.
I’m really looking forward to the “Battle of the Scale Auto Run” at Champs!!!
If an Alliance can’t reliably place 3 cubes on the Scale during Auto Run, they will be severely handicaped, IMHO.
It doens’t only depend on the amount of cubes placed. Where the cubes are placed, position, and time also matter.
I remember when we were this cocky in Michigan… Mostly because it was Saturday…
In all seriousness, you guys have a lot to be proud of. Ontario has a rich history of teams that have been very strong for many many years.
What I learned:
Its important to try to have at least 1 more cube on the scale than your opponent for most of the match, but I think that is the same lesson as most events I have been to. What was interesting is the multitudes of ways that objective was achieved.
Ontario people need to chill! We have a lot to be proud of, but let’s see how Detroit goes before we make any comparisons against other regions. Then we can have some real, head-to-head data.
On topic, we learned that defence is almost required out of the third bot. I don’t think you will see an Einstein alliance with a third bot that is scoring > 50% of the time.
Woo! Data! Clearly there was no significant rectal-cranial inversion. Consider my comment a virtual whack upside the head. Not gracious or professional by intent, but something designed to get your attention (you didn’t respond to anyone else’s criticisms of your post).
I would encourage you to lead with your data and assumptions in the future, this will help promote good discussion. What you did instead was to make a derogatory and inflammatory statement that appears aimed at putting others down while elevating yourself. It really felt like a slap in the face to those working to better their own regions and all of FRC.
Your conclusion of being ‘miles more competitive’ (based on one metric with extremely limited sample size) seems flimsy at best. More to the point: by your own metric there are at least two other regions and at least one other event that are just one cube behind Ontario. As lil’lavery notes, that’s 13in, not miles. If we’re talking percentages, that’s a 92% to Ontario’s 100%. A solid A- comparison.
More 3-cube auto capable teams is an interesting metric to consider. It shows a larger group of power-house teams, but it does not indicate a deep field in a particular area.
Using OPR (of arguable validity this year, but it’s an easy metric to collect) to look at the spread of the top 15 teams might give a better insight into the depth of field in each area.
Ontario Sci: 215-116, spread of 99
Ontario Tech: 223-131, spread of 92
NECMP: 205-141, spread of 64
Israel: 185-124, spread of 61
MAR: 225-132, spread of 93
PNW: 213-130, spread of 83
Consider that a strong depth of field takes away OPR points from the best teams and spreads them out among the rest of the teams. By this measure Ontario has some great top-tier teams with dominant OPRs, but that the performance level drops more sharply from the top compared to other regions. By this measure the top teams in regions like NE and Israel are not as dramatically better than their peers as the top teams in Ontario, indicating a more competitive region (internally, at least).
As for determining which top-tier-teams are better in an absolute sense, well, let’s see what happens in Detroit! I’m sure the play will be great no matter who wins.
In finals match 1 our alliance (blue) realized early on in the match that we were not going to be taking back the scale. At 100 seconds left red had a 5-2 advantage with 3 robots attacking the scale. Our strategy at that point shifted to trying to kill their switch while protecting ours and filling portal. Why waste cubes on a battle you aren’t going to win?
In match 2 the losing alliance (red) actually had more cubes on the scale at the end than the winners. You can see at 70 seconds the blue strategy changed from scale to killing the switch and loading the vault as we already had all the scale points we would need and their switch was vulnerable.
While I understand that looking at the # of cubes on the losers’ scale could make you think that those teams are better, it’s not always the case. The Ontario match you linked sees almost no portal or platform zone defense being played against blue, while that was very much a strategy for our alliance in Michigan.
of cubes doesn’t win a match, time of ownership does. Play smart.
I think any discussion about which district is better can be moved to a different thread.
From a strategic perspective, I learned a ton about the different ways to play Power-Up from watching these past few weekends.
There are things we already knew, like neat placement being really important, autonomous being really important, and the importance of the center 12 cubes.
But also this weekend saw alliances use the third robot in a multitude of different ways, where previously they had mostly been used in very limited capacities (see: filling the vault).
- Lane defense on portal cyclers was huge
, and so was getting between robots and their platform zone cubes. Forcing opponents to take longer, slower paths, or to dig into their vault cubes to keep the scale is a pretty important tactic if you’re the weaker scale scoring alliance. - Third robot scale scorers, either as a backup scale scorer or as a way to rapidly close the gap at the beginning of a match
- Everybot cycles were already common, but there were a lot of them happening this weekend
- Feeding alliance scale robots was an interesting one, which tried to get around the switch chokeholds by feeding the good placement scale robots with cubes. Sometimes these were fed from the vault cubes, which seemed odd to me, but anything to cut down mid-match cycle times is a big win