Taking risks @ Nat's: Will your team do it?

FIRST General Forum
1

Posted by colleen - T190 at 03/26/2001 10:44 AM EST

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Massachusetts Academy of Math and Science and WPI.

Situation as it stands… there are 4 shots of 80 teams for everyone to seed at nationals… and with the average QP that quite a few teams have posted in regionals… i venture to say we’ll see those again at nationals…

So- what’s your team going to do? In regionals, we met up with some conservative teams… the mindset was “try not to do TOO much in a match”… a safe 150 or so was enough to get you noticed at least…

But I have a feeling 150 or so won’t be anywhere near enough to seed you at nationals… maybe it won’t get you noticed either… So how many teams are going to be willing to take the risk towards big scores…

In my opinion: you have to try to balance 2 every match… T190 cannot really balance 2 alone… but anyone who can simply tow one or two goals we can make into a 2 goal balancer…

what teams would be willing to help w/ strategies like this to score big??

Or will some teams stick to the conservative still…?

Will people be more ready to admit “ok, will go sit in the endzone if that’s what’s needed” (as we saw most teams in the final matches picked a robot just to do that…)?

And given that-- practice rounds-- will people be more willing to play them (at least right off the buzzer) as a two-minute round to see what can be done… we’d like to practice a lot of our moves… but outside of loading the big ball, many of them involve assisting in balancing by wedging, lifting the ramp to level, or pushing low-traction robots up and then lifting the ramp to level for them… but it’s usually hard to get practice on this…

Done talking too much :slight_smile: Let’s hear what you think…

2

Posted by Andy Baker at 03/26/2001 11:03 AM EST

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

In Reply to: Taking risks @ Nat’s: Will your team do it?
Posted by colleen - T190 on 03/26/2001 10:44 AM EST:

Colleen,

We will definitely be planning to balance two goals each match.

This past weekend, we played 16 total matches (13 in qualifications and 3 in the semi-finals).

During the qualification matches, we balalanced two goals 7 times. Once, 71 balanced for the alliance, 4 times the bridge came off it’s pivot, and once there was a pile-up on the bridge.

In the finals, we balanced all 3 matches.

During all of our matches, the alliance we were in (quals. or finals), we were either going for a 500 or 600 point match… but we did not make it over 400, while still averaging 200.

So, essentially, we will still be balancing 2 goals, and we’ll still be going for 500 and 600 points during the Q matches at Nationals. Also, we have a risky plan that could get 700, if needed. It’s just very difficult to pull off.

We have no plans of balancing one goal. I think that in both regionals that we have attended, we did it only once.

Andy B.

3

Posted by Joel G at 03/26/2001 11:19 AM EST

Student on team #442, Knight Riders, from Lee High School and NASA/ BOEING/ MEVATEC.

In Reply to: We will be balancing two
Posted by Andy Baker on 03/26/2001 11:03 AM EST:

: Colleen,

: We will definitely be planning to balance two goals each match.

: This past weekend, we played 16 total matches (13 in qualifications and 3 in the semi-finals).

: During the qualification matches, we balalanced two goals 7 times. Once, 71 balanced for the alliance, 4 times the bridge came off it’s pivot, and once there was a pile-up on the bridge.

: In the finals, we balanced all 3 matches.

: During all of our matches, the alliance we were in (quals. or finals), we were either going for a 500 or 600 point match… but we did not make it over 400, while still averaging 200.

: So, essentially, we will still be balancing 2 goals, and we’ll still be going for 500 and 600 points during the Q matches at Nationals. Also, we have a risky plan that could get 700, if needed. It’s just very difficult to pull off.

: We have no plans of balancing one goal. I think that in both regionals that we have attended, we did it only once.

: Andy B.
I agree with ya, Our team is going for the high pts. and go for the big scores like 500 and 600 if we can, we are a double goal balancer that has an arm that extends to help us to balance and it’s pretty reliable when we use it. Were about 80%-85% accurate when we deploy it. I think anyteam that wants to make it to the top 16 has to take some risks and show what there bot can do what’s nessesary to make it. I also think you have to be flexible and cooperate when your allied with teams that may be better than you and let them take the lead if they do the same function you can. We will back off if we think someone else is a better balancer. I think the 1 seed in any division will be part bot and part how good a drivers you have.

4

Posted by Karl at 03/26/2001 12:36 PM EST

Student on team #442, Knight Riders, from Lee High and NASA Marshall SpaceFlight Center.

In Reply to: Re: We will be balancing two
Posted by Joel G on 03/26/2001 11:19 AM EST:

: We will back off if we think someone else is a better balancer.

Luckily for us nobody else is a better balancer.

5

Posted by Chris Hibner at 03/26/2001 4:27 PM EST

Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

In Reply to: Re: We will be balancing two
Posted by Karl on 03/26/2001 12:36 PM EST:

: : We will back off if we think someone else is a better balancer.

: Luckily for us nobody else is a better balancer.

Be careful what you say when you haven’t seen each and every robot.

6

Posted by P.J. Baker at 03/26/2001 11:29 AM EST

Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

In Reply to: We will be balancing two
Posted by Andy Baker on 03/26/2001 11:03 AM EST:

Andy,

I assume that your “risky” plan involves you guys bringing the far goal back to the HP station for filling. I was wondering if you got to try this at all at Mid-West.

Good Luck,

P.J. Baker
Team #177

p.s. - Your 700 point plan might be greatly aided by one or two limboing big ball machines (actually, I think most plans are enhanced by limboing big ball machines). I just happen to know where you can find a pretty good one :-).

7

Posted by Andy Baker at 03/26/2001 1:41 PM EST

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

In Reply to: Re: We will be balancing two
Posted by P.J. Baker on 03/26/2001 11:29 AM EST:

P.J.

You are absolutely right. A way for an “on-ramp balancer” alliance to get 70 base points is to get all 20 HP balls into the goals. We can do that, as long as we don’t have to wait on anyone crossing over the bridge. That is the important thing. This means that two or three of the other three teams gotta limbo, like 177’s design.

A design like yours is a GREAT partner for us… perfect, in fact. There are a few other designs that can limbo and place a big ball (47, 56, 60, 67, 85, 301, 469, along with others that I’m not sure of).

Also, there is a secong plan that could score a 700, and it would involved a stretcher, and it is even less likely. We will be practicing multiple stretcher pulls today before we ship, that’s for sure.

Andy B.

8

Posted by Stephen at 03/26/2001 2:31 PM EST

Student on team #122, NASA Knights, from Grafton High School (Robotics team is at NHGS) and NASA.

In Reply to: 2 ways… you’re right on one
Posted by Andy Baker on 03/26/2001 1:41 PM EST:

You missed 122. We can limbo, place a big ball on the goal, balance a goal off the bridge, and hopefully balance two goals on the bridge.

9

Posted by Ken Leung at 03/26/2001 3:56 PM EST

Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M. Gunn Senior High School.

In Reply to: Re: 2 ways… you’re right on one
Posted by Stephen on 03/26/2001 2:31 PM EST:

Well, I am sure Andy didn’t miss you intentionally… It’s just that there are many machines out there that can limbo AND pick up a big ball using an arm. And usually that arm can be used to grab a goal and balance off the bridge.

As for the two Strategies Andy talked about, I’ve already posted a message earlier explaining them… Even though it might not be identical to Andy’s plan, it should be pretty close.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/wwwboard/messages/.2001/8641.html

10

Posted by Mike Soukup at 03/26/2001 11:40 AM EST

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling and Motorola.

In Reply to: We will be balancing two
Posted by Andy Baker on 03/26/2001 11:03 AM EST:

That’s what I like to hear Andy, someone who isn’t afraid of going for big scores in qualification matches. As I posted in my Chicago update, once the Technokats grab both goals and start climbing up the bridge, you can put it in the book as balanced. Truly amazing.

I agree that the safe (and boring) strategy of just running all 4 bots to the endzone and hitting the button won’t get you far. You won’t have enough points to be in the top 4, and you won’t impress anyone with that strategy, so you probably won’t get picked. You’ll probably need an average in the high 200s or low 300s to be in the top 4. You’ll need to go for the 400-600 point strategy every time, knowing that you’ll fail almost half the time, either to your failures or you partners’.

People don’t understand how easy a 400 point match is. All it takes is a goal full of SB, the other goal with a BB, both goals balanced, 3 endzone bots, and all done in

11

Posted by Dennis Jenks at 03/26/2001 1:48 PM EST

Other on team #254, Cheesy Poofs, from Bellermine College Prep.

In Reply to: We will be balancing two
Posted by Andy Baker on 03/26/2001 11:03 AM EST:

The Cheesy Poofs (Team 254) also plan to be ballancing both goals, however we are willing to adapt to the needs of our alliance.

We can consistantly grab and fill the near goal, reset the bridge for ourselves, grab the far goal and ballance, all in under 1:00. We can also pick up and add a large ball in under 1:30 if we need to.

While this stratagy has proven successful in the past (two regionals/two #1 seeds with averages of 258 and 298 in the quallifying rounds) we also have no problem becoming an arm team if one of our partners is confident in there ability to ballance the bridge. In which case we shown both speed and consistancy loading the large balls.

However, we also realize that there are teams out there who have been quite successful ballancing from off the bridge. In wich case we have the ability to fill the near goal with small balls and drop it on the far side of the bridge for our ally to ballance in about 30 seconds.

Finaly, I have to agree with Andy on the subject of ballancing one goal. If you see us atempting to ballance a single goal something definatly went wrong durring the match.

-Dennis Jenks

12

Posted by Chris Hibner at 03/26/2001 11:23 AM EST

Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

In Reply to: Taking risks @ Nat’s: Will your team do it?
Posted by colleen - T190 on 03/26/2001 10:44 AM EST:

We balance two goals - that’s what we do. In fact, that’s all we do. Two or none. We do it reliably and we do it fast. If teams don’t get in our way, we can guarantee 2 goals and us in the end zone in under 1:30. We’ve done it in 0:57 in practice (us doing everything), but our average is 1:07.

So to summarize, of course we’re going to balance two at nationals. That’s what we do!

Regards,

Chris

13

Posted by nick237 at 03/26/2001 9:05 PM EST

Engineer on team #237, sie h2o bots, from Watertown high school ct and sieman co.

In Reply to: We balance two goals - that’s what we do
Posted by Chris Hibner on 03/26/2001 11:23 AM EST:

We too can balance two goals, a real amazement when you consider we were a ramp bot that was 19.6" long.
We now are a wedge bot that can manipulate the ramp up and or down, and a two goal balancing machine. we also will guarantee that any robot crossing the ramp behind us as we cross will “never” fall over, our arm will stop you from tiping over as the ramp falls forward.
Check us out in Florida, were mean and lean…
GO… SIE-H20-BOTS TRIBE.

: We balance two goals - that’s what we do. In fact, that’s all we do. Two or none. We do it reliably and we do it fast. If teams don’t get in our way, we can guarantee 2 goals and us in the end zone in under 1:30. We’ve done it in 0:57 in practice (us doing everything), but our average is 1:07.

: So to summarize, of course we’re going to balance two at nationals. That’s what we do!

: Regards,

: Chris

14

Posted by Matt Berube at 03/26/2001 11:31 AM EST

Engineer on team #49, Delphi Knights, from Buena Vista High School and Delphi Automotive.

In Reply to: Taking risks @ Nat’s: Will your team do it?
Posted by colleen - T190 on 03/26/2001 10:44 AM EST:

I am very glad that someone else brought this up. It gives me an oppertunity to rant.

I have attended two regionals (West Michigan and Great Lakes). My team and I, like everyone else, has put a lot of effort into scouting the all the teams and watching the game play. I find it absolutely un-believable that so many matchs end with 50 points or less.

Please! Never ever ever go into a match with a plan unless you are sure that you can pull it off in less than a minute!!

Obviously 2 goals need to be balanced to win the elimination matches, but with a random combination of robot teams and almost no time to plan, the qualification matchs should not involve such an aggresive plan.

I know that there are exceptions. If we are in an aliance with anyone who has demonstrated that they are capable of balancing 2 goals in less than a minute I won’t say a thing and the Knights will do whatever this team wants, but if not please hear me out.

Assume 3 robots in the endzone
1 big ball on the far goal
12 small balls in the near goal
= 52

With the aggresive plan the up side is a 2X2X1.5 = 6 multiplier for a total of 312

The downside is only 52 points!!

By balancing the close goal only the upside is 2X2.5 = 5 multiplier for 260 points with a much higher likely hood of sucess.

The down side is 2X2 = 4 multiplier. Almost any tow bot can balance 1 goal in less than a 1’ 30". This just about garunties (sp) 208 points!!

I know this is a LONG post, thank you for your patience.

Matt B.
T49
“The Plastic Knights”

15

Posted by Kevin Sevcik at 03/26/2001 2:15 PM EST

Other on team #57, Leopards, from BT Washington and the High School for Engineering Professions and Exxon, Kellog Brown & Root, Powell Electrical.

In Reply to: Couldn’t disagree more!!
Posted by Matt Berube on 03/26/2001 11:31 AM EST:

While going for a more modest score with a single goal balanced may seem a better strategy because it’s easier to do, I think that in the long run, it will hurt a team’s QP average.

Look at it this way. Chances are, there’s gonna be a couple of rounds where you get teamed with a bunch of bots that just can’t do anything, or a bot falls over in front of the bridge, or something bad happens that nets you a two digit score. No matter what you do, it’s bound to happen eventually. That being the case, if you go for more conservative scores, and always get them, these bad rounds will knock you down till you’re averaging about 170-180 or so.

If you go for big scores, you’ll probably end up with the bad rounds, plus some slightly worse than conservative rounds, plus some really spectacular matches. So on the whole, you’ll probably average about the same. But, if you have just one or two more spectacular matches, you’ll be doing much better than the more conservative teams.

So what it really comes down to is if you want to be sure you’re in the middle of the pack, or if you want to give yourself a shot at being a really high seed. Personally, my strategy is to develop a good scouting database that will suggest a good strategy for the teams that are in your alliance. That way, you’ll know if you should go for a high score or not.

16

Posted by Brian Cholerton at 03/26/2001 2:15 PM EST

Engineer on team #311, Red Jammers, from East Islip High School and KeySpan Energy, Multiline Corp., Computer Assoc…

In Reply to: Taking risks @ Nat’s: Will your team do it?
Posted by colleen - T190 on 03/26/2001 10:44 AM EST:

At Nationals you’re gonna have to push the envelope as much as possible in the qualifiers. With the small amount of seeds available relative to each of the divisions a conservative approach may provide what would be a good QP average for a regional but you will probably be left out in the cold in Florida.

I still see practice rounds being used as a way to show off your individual robotic abilities but you bring up a good point in that if you REALLY want to show off you almost need to treat practice as a match and see what you can accomplish as a team.

Team 311 Do whatever it takes. Adapt and overcome…

17

Posted by Matt Berube at 03/26/2001 2:35 PM EST

Engineer on team #49, Delphi Knights, from Buena Vista High School and Delphi Automotive.

In Reply to: Taking risks @ Nat’s: Will your team do it?
Posted by colleen - T190 on 03/26/2001 10:44 AM EST:

I have absolutely no problem with teams like the Tecnocats, the CheesyPoofs, the KnightRiders and many of the other teams who have posted here going for a 2 goal balance in the qualifing matchs. You have all proven you cn do this sucessfully.

But why is it that 60% of the Great Lakes qualifing matches were less than 100 points? I think it is because the wrong teams tried too much. Almost all of these could have been over 200 point matches with a more conservative strategy.

(OK, I’ll shut up now)

Matt B.
T49
“Daydreaming in left field”

18

Posted by Kevin at 03/26/2001 4:13 PM EST

Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monsters, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

In Reply to: 60% of matches at GL were
Posted by Matt Berube on 03/26/2001 2:35 PM EST:

: I have absolutely no problem with teams like the Tecnocats, the CheesyPoofs, the KnightRiders and many of the other teams who have posted here going for a 2 goal balance in the qualifing matchs. You have all proven you cn do this sucessfully.

: But why is it that 60% of the Great Lakes qualifing matches were less than 100 points? I think it is because the wrong teams tried too much. Almost all of these could have been over 200 point matches with a more conservative strategy.

: (OK, I’ll shut up now)

: Matt B.
: T49
: “Daydreaming in left field”

60% of matches at GL were

19

Posted by Anne Bergeron at 03/26/2001 3:51 PM EST

Coach on team #608, Prowling Panthers, from Georgia Institute of Technology and Georgia Tech/NASA/UTC/Ford/Ike Murray.

In Reply to: Taking risks @ Nat’s: Will your team do it?
Posted by colleen - T190 on 03/26/2001 10:44 AM EST:

I think what you said about practice rounds is a very good point. We are planning to try to do this. We tried at VCU but other teams tended to hog the practice round. I think practicing a round much better. That way teams will know exactly what they can do in two minutes. It also helps to practice the mechanics of getting a specific plan to work during the two minutes.

20

Posted by Jason Flanagan at 03/27/2001 5:14 PM EST

Student on team #250, Dynamos, from Shenendehowa HSE and General Electric, Verizon, .

In Reply to: Taking risks @ Nat’s: Will your team do it?
Posted by colleen - T190 on 03/26/2001 10:44 AM EST:

Well, thats how we won LI regional, so we’llave to try it again at nats. Maybe we’ll be in the same alliance again eh? We’ll take it all! Hopefully it won’t be as tense as it was at regionals. I’m not sure if I can take that again. Go two goals!