I think there is value in the elims data to see what a good team can really do when put with other good teams, but not for the round 2 picks if that is possible. There was inflation, but also compression of the spread. That shows that the separation of the better teams might not be so much when playing at higher levels and team play is key.
Unfortunately, for me there’s no easy way to do this. As a twitter post comes in, I update a running sum for a given team. Unfortunately the alliance selection is not posted to twitter. Maybe something they could add to the twitter feed next year. I’m still trying to get autonomous added to it too.
If they ordered the teams on the twitter feed based on alliance selections, then I could do this, however that is not the case this year.
There are two other teams that pulled of a double autonomous… 326 and 148… and I wouldn’t be surpised to see 1114, 111, 330 or 254 having one either…
Awesome! Yeah I don’t think the limit factor on a double autonomous is programming, its actually fairly simple to code it up given the right sensors.
The limiting factor is having a very well designed robot. This is why I’ve always shot for the design requirement “Design for autonomous”… because if it can meet the goals of autonomous, its probably simple enough for the drivers to use quite well.
It’s awesome to hear that so many of top 25 teams are getting there based on focusing on building great tube hangers, rather than great minibots. Also it seems teams who chose not to pick up from the field (my team included) made a huge mistake. Is anyone aware of a top 25 team that can’t pick up off the floor?
From the week one regionals, if you couldn’t pick up from the floor you were probably a runner and a late third pick during selection… Plus with so many tubes on the ground, I don’t see you wouldn’t… If I was on your team, I would consider changing to one if possible…
From what I saw, HYPER 69 was unable to pick up from the floor or preferred to obtain tubes from the feeder station.
Buzz Robotics 175 is able to pick up from the floor but prefers to be fed as well. We did not use the “flipper” at all during the competition.
We found it more effective to keep the floor clear of tubes in order to negate the opposing alliance from stealing the tubes we threw out.
Yeah, our seasons over. Honestly one of our many poor design decisions. We live and learn. For me it was a great year to test my autonomous structure and made a lot of forward progress. I also now have a long list of requirements for my code structure.
Now its time for me to work on my ranking algorithm, its okay but could be a lot better 
yeah I’m thinking this was a big difference between BAE and the other competitions. Unfortunately i think the teams were weaker at BAE this year than some of the other regionals. Also the BAE strategy seemed a lot different from the other locations too.
Just for example, the best BAE teams averaged around 60, where as 217 averaged 85 points per qualifying match and 2056 almost 80. Come the championship, if you want to play with the big boys, you’ll have to be able to pick up off the floor, and have autonomous too.
Your season is never over… I would continue to improve that robot and teach those on your team… Learning is what comes of a regional, plus it doesnt hurt to have something working for an offseason event… Use that robot as a great tool for the 2012 season…
The average may have differed greatly but there are different ways this data may be perceived. It could mean that the teams were “weaker” or that they were better balanced with respect to one another.
Like you stated, the strategies at the regionals varied and the presence of tubes from both alliances in a central location compared to that of playing conservatively will result in different results.
There is a thread about the highest score that refers to 148 and their partners scoring 135, but the opposing alliance with only a mere 8. Compare that to the first finals match at GSR with 117 over 82 and you see more of a balance. What were some of the finals scores at FLR,Alamo, NJ, and Kettering? I’d like to see some of the results.
Quarter Final 1, Match 1 (1 vs 8) at kettering… ended 114-79
probably the best two alliances in that elims…
the top NJ score:
red score:124 blue score:22 red :1860 25 1923 blue: 1089 1647 102 red mini:50 blue mini: 0
top alamo:
red score:135 bluescore: 37 red: 3481 16 148 blue: 57 2848 245 red mini:50 blue mini:25
kettering
red score:114 blue score:79 red: 2137 33 1 blue: 326 67 3322 red mini:50 blue mini:15
Top teams, or top robots? You mention both in the opening post.
The other top NJ score
red score:124 blue score:36 red :2016 1676 303 blue: 1302 2180 816
Since everyone is talking about avg qualification score, I figured I would post Top 30 OPR. I made this using version 13 on each regional and compiling it using Excel (while Bongle is working on a new version for this year).
Rank Team OPR Event
1 33 56.7075 GG
2 148 56.5229 STX
3 217 54.4144 ROC
4 2056 52.7503 ROC
5 1676 46.3775 NJ
6 2016 45.5644 NJ
7 1218 45.5229 NJ
8 1126 43.2325 ROC
9 1519 40.1307 NH
10 131 38.6893 NH
11 16 38.4332 STX
12 40 34.7814 NH
13 836 34.2788 NH
14 118 33.748 STX
15 1918 32.5715 GT
16 25 32.5498 NJ
17 229 32.3928 ROC
18 191 31.3583 ROC
19 1429 30.0761 STX
20 2848 29.419 STX
21 1089 28.689 NJ
22 2587 28.6853 STX
23 2137 28.6095 GG
24 1923 28.4289 NJ
25 245 28.249 STX
26 340 27.9883 ROC
27 69 27.961 NH
28 138 25.7975 NH
29 3074 25.7734 NH
30 2590 25.4736 NJ
OPR seems to be a good stat this year. Even though it only looks at qualification data, the team with the highest OPR won every event. Even this even applies to NH, where 1519 had the highest OPR, was picked 3rd overall and won. Keep in mind that OPR doesn’t have any way to connect between regionals, since no inter-regional matches are played.