If your alliance’s minibots are better than the opposing alliances’s minbots, then it is advantageous for your alliance to have a lower scoring game that includes defense.
Orthogonally is not in play for that case.
…and that’s a big ‘if’. MINIBOTs are, like everything else, subjective to the vagaries of the alliances.
If your minibots are better than your opponents’ minibots, then depressing the score of the game only matters insofar as your opponents’ tube scoring is better than your tube scoring…
…so if you are concentrating on keeping their score down, you are not concentrating on increasing your own score.
Defense, thus, is a winning strategy only for alliances that are outclassed offensively but also have strong minibots…
…but I have a hard time believing that teams that focused on ‘defense + minibots’ will categorically have better minibots than teams that focused on ‘offense + minibots’.
One thing: If there’s a dragonfly ( :eek: ) then the pivoting arm would be able to get a tube over it, while an elevator would not.
I have not heard anyone that is arguing for* including defense* that is also advocating that the strategy should be * all defense plus minibots*. Those here advocating * including defense* are typically proposing two-thirds LOGO offensive strategy versus a three-thirds LOGO offensive strategy.
The definition of orthogonality is that it should not have any influence on the strategy independent of the cases or circumstances. I pointed to a realistic case, even if it were unlikely, it still disproves the claimed orthogonality.
Conversely, if an alliance knows they have a disadvantage in minibots, then they want higher LOGO scoring and may want a third robot focused on offense to try and maximize the score prior to END GAME.
The LOGO scoring will be highly variable: on the other hand, I suspect the full 75 minibot points will generally be scored in the finals and semifinals.
For LOGO scoring, the top row will likely be the only one that matters- Great offensive teams will go for 48-54 points based on 2 or 3 ubertubes and 2 complete logos. Getting that third and fourth complete logos are only 12 points each.
I don’t think that prognostication and proof have a place in the same discussion. I understand the point you are making, but I disagree with it.
Time will tell – of that we can both be certain.
That’s what our robot does!
Don’t assume that. A dragonfly robot would not be a problem for us (elevator robot) if we were to employ a runner strategy; our roller claw can “spit out” tubes four to six feet.
Just don’t complain when that defender engages your robot with your CG that high.
I think this strategy is going to be quite dominant at regionals. A lot of teams can score if they’re left alone, but surprisingly few will be able to pass tubes around defenders.
We’re looking for teams like that when scouting at WPI. Just saying. 
I think that everyone is forgetting that defense may not need to be employed until the ENDGAME. unless you are preventing a bot from scoring the last tube to a LOGO, you are wasting your time (assuming that you have all of your logos complete). I think that the dominant strategy will be running until the endgame and you prevent another team from putting their minibot onto the tower, thus denying them their potential thirty/twenty point bonus. And as for choosing alliances, we are looking for a good runner and a good, consistent scorer both with CONSISTENT minibots (both must be well versed in the rules).
I don’t usually comment on these but I had to say something. Defense will definitely be attempted. It will be most important in the open field. Once a robot gets to it’s tower or scoring zone, there’s really nothing you can do. I also think that, as cluttered as the field seems with 6 robots on it, it will be easy to confuse defensive robots or bait them, and then continue getting tubes and scoring. End game defense will be very important to block teams from deploying. Other than that, if you don’t have a strong offensive strategy, you’re done in this game. Plain and simple, just like Ed says, “to play defense, you have to catch up to us first”
How are your predictions looking after Week 1?
Minibots were the deciding factor in just about any match where only one was successful. Less when each alliance got one. Floor pickup was huge. Defense didn’t seem particularly effective. There were examples of good and bad rollers, grippers, and everything else. Scores improved over the course of the event. I expect average scores will continue to improve - particularly losing scores. I don’t expect to see a lot of improvement in high scores (135 max so far).
This was a challenging game to build for, and I expect to see a lot of very successful “continuous improvement” efforts going forward.
Well 1557 had to be the first team to go with the madhouse defensive approach this year and got smacked with 16 penalties for it including a red card or two. Playing this kind of defense this year will simply cost you. It looks like defending game pieces (knocking them away from robots is a much better idea than chasing robots up and down the field and ramming into them where you could find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Just because 1 team couldn’t keep away from penalties does not make Defense a bad tactic. My team (1729) played defense at GSR all weekend long, ranked 11th, and had a total of 2 penalties for the weekend.
Smart defense is very effective. In order to play smart defense your driveteam has to completely understand the restrictions they are under, and the consequences of their actions.
With all these antidefense posts you make, one wonders if you are concerned that you cannot push through defense. :eek:
I don’t think the X-Cats are all that worried about their abilities in this game…
The x-cats are one of the best teams in FIRST. I’m just trying to figure out why Koko Ed keeps deriding Defensive teams.
I’ve seen a lot of offensive teams that are unable to score against mediocre defense, yet I wouldn’t deride their strategy (too much).
If a team believes they can prevent more points being scored than they could score, well then it just makes sense to do so.
The game not only requires a good robot, but also a good strategy going in and properly executing that strategy. Defense is just one of those strategies, and if properly executed can be very effective.
Implying that it is personal worries over 191’s robot that drives his opinion isn’t exactly good discourse.
If I have offended anyone, I apologize. That wasn’t my intention.
My intention was to provide discorse as to the capabilities and effectiveness of a defensive robot, with a team playing a smart defensive strategy.
Koko Ed’s posts seemed to point out that playing a defensive strategy was only going to garner you penalties and losses. This is not the case everytime. He points out a statistical anomaly (a single team garnering 16 penalties) as proof that ‘chasing other robots around’ (IE defense against other robots and not defense against tubes) is a bad choice. I would counter with My team where we kept our opponents to 12 points or less in 8 of out 10 seeding matches (against some of the highest scorers at BAE) and we only had 2 penalties (both were avoidable, too :eek: ). In the end, it’s more about smart execution of your strategy than whether you chose offense or defense.
The above is, as always, JM(NS)HO. 
It’s fairly obvious if you can’t score consistently on the top level and your opponents can, then you should be playing defense.
I saw teams with great minibots that failed to recognize that playing offense- trying to score logos on the bottom level while your opponents scored logos on the top level is just bad math.
(Unless your real goal is just to highlight what your team worked so hard on, instead of actually trying to win based on the best strategy available to you.)
The very best alliances can only complete 2 or 3 logos.
Disrupting them by half is a game changer.
Let’s start with your last statement. 1923, 25, and 1860 scored 4 and 2/3 logos in Trenton last week. They actually had the tube on to complete the 5th, but it got hung up and fell off. 25 then went for the minibot rather than re-placing it. There have been multiple other instances of 4+ logos being hung. And we haven’t even started the eliminations in week 2.
Secondly, if you can score on the bottom as quickly as your opponent can score on the top, and you have better minibots, I see no problem scoring on the bottom instead of defense. You’re going to have a 25-50 point advantage based on minibots. Assuming no uber-tubes, 50 race points + two bottom logos (12) is worth 62 points. 25 race points + two top logos (36) is worth 61 points. A 62-61 win is a whole lot better for your RS than a 50-30ish win.
Obviously there’s no guarantee that this will be exactly how it plays out, and uber-tubes and more scoring can obviously factor in. But it’s just a case study showing why scoring may be a valid alternative, even if it’s a lower value portion of the peg grid.
This is especially true when you consider that your scoring rate, even if lower than your opponents’, may not be the same as your defensive “anti-scoring” rate. Simply put, you might not be able to “subtract” as many points by playing defense as you would add by playing offense (or playing a “support” role). Often case this is by no fault of your own and not for a lack of defensive ability. There are strategies and robots that are difficult to defend against and require a significant commitment (often of more than one robot) in order to put a dent into their score.
Naturally the inverse is also true, where some alliances will be particularly easy to defend (or otherwise lower their score).
I’m not saying that defense is never a wise choice. But the automatic assumption that just because the opponent is a better scorer than you are means you should play defense is foolish. As is the assumption that defense and offense are mutually exclusive actions.