What's the best qualifying rounds strategy?

FIRST General Forum
1

After watching quite a few regionals, I realize a lot of important machines in the finals didn’t really do too well in qualifying rounds.

I remember team SPAM and MiM at KSC weren’t up at top 8, and happens to get paired up together by one of the top 8, and won the regional. I also remember yesterday when GRT got picked as the third partner, and ended up playing both matches in the championship finals, and won the regional because they were able to hold on two goals consistently.

Some times good robots got into top 8, some other times they didn’t. A lot of times robots that deserved to go in the finals do get in, but I remember a few who didn’t.

So, for all you strategy people out there, what do you think is the best strategy for playing the qualifying rounds?

Well, a lot of times we thought that playing the best we can is enough. Turns out the standings depended a lot on luck, and the way teams are paired up.

There are cases where really strong teams like HOT team and Baxter Bomb squad got to be #1 seed because their machines are excellent for this competition, and they played the best they could. So, I wonder, what’s their strategy for qualifying matches?

Other teams that tried really hard to do their best in qualifying rounds, didn’t got good seedings even though they have a really good machine for this competition… For those teams, I wonder what they did wrong in their strategy? What should they have done instead?

How do teams decide if they should play the best during matches to score highest for both alliance, or should they perform an operation consistently to prove to teams out there that they can be a great alliance partner?

Scouting is supposed to tell teams which robot is great for alliance partners… But how many teams actually did that?

So many variables, so little matches in qualifying rounds, and only 1.5 days to do all these…

2

Ken,
This is a great question and it also brings to light how important scouting could be when selecting a partner. Teams in seeding matches could just decide to show what they are good at, knowing or coming to the conclusion they will not make the top 8. Teams in seeding matches should also know that the qualifying rounds are not exactly the same game because the strategy to win “is” different. There are many, many variables that come into play during the selection process. Picking teams have to make an extremely important decision - What is the best features that are needed in combination with theirs to win a different game? Picking teams may have features that got them to be a picking team that may not be the best at winning the “new” game that is played in the elimination tourney.
This year, strategy must be considered at the same time as scouting for a great alliance partner. Especially with the rotational alliance rule, where the winning alliance must rotate out one of the teams.
Variables to consider:
Goal grabbers: Multiple vs. One (Can’t let the other team get 3, unless you can keep them in your scoring zone)
Speed: Very important feature when considering Multiple goal grabbers, or when trying to keep away from the opposing robot
Agility without a goal: Important if trapping a robot in your scoring zone, or keeping them away from their zone is part of your strategy
Agility with a goal: Only important if the plan is to try and the “keep away and outscore” technique
Power: Very important once the “tug o war” is underway -
“One on one” if the single goal grabber can’t keep the other team from latching on the more powerful team wins
“2 teams vs one” looks like 2 probably wins more often than not - given enough time
“2 vs 2” if both sets are evenly matched it boils down to “Time” and “Angles” - Given enough time obviously the stronger team wins, if they have the angle. You can beat a more powerful team if you can keep them from getting the angle needed - this depends on the orientation of their drive wheels, and yours.
CG - Robots tip or can be pulled over, yes even attached to goals
Robustness - its really aggressive in the elim’s - parts are falling off everywhere, and selecting a team that won’t fall apart under extremely violent conditions will be important.
Current draw - seems like a silly factor, but be careful not to overload the circuit breaker - once tripped, strategy doesn’t matter.

Lastly, this year the top 8 teams are also eligible to be picked as partners, but if you turn down the 1st team that selects you, you have to turn down everyone else - so if say you were ranked 7th and the 2nd seeded team picked you, you could say “No thanks”, but then none of the rest (3 thru 6) could pick you - You essentially decide at that moment “How important it is” to be in total control of the destiny of the alliance. I wonder how many people would think it would be Politically Incorrect, to turn down another team that is ranked higher than you? So you can be sure to be the one to “Call the shots”. I think you put the best combined alliance together whenever possible, and “accept” if asked and you believe you fit well together as a team. This is a very difficult decision, and its an additional issue for teams to think about.
Sorry, about the long post - thought I’d share what I learned in Cleveland, we’ll see if it holds true at the Great Lakes Regional next weekend.

3

I think play hard, do your best, don’t get fancy or tricky and be
a gracious proffesional is the way to go.

I think in one Lonestar match GRT 192 lost a match because they
scored 10 points for their opponent with the tether! not clear if this was intentional or not. (I saw this on the internet so I might be mistaken) Anyway I think trying to be too fancy in general is not good, but showing off all your special capabilities is probably O.K.

It looks like the ball handlers qualify and do really well !6, 47 —
(lead seeds)

----but -----

the finals come down to a scrum in the middle and being able to score 20 balls don’t mean a thing if there is no goal to put them in. It is too easy to disrupt most ball handlers (you just get in their way)

So If a ball handler qualifyies, they best get some goal control partners. and If a goal contoller qualifyies they do a vice a versa.

This is the stategy 255 used for the 2000 Nats. Strength through diversity.

Well - I like to run off at the mouth. We’ll all see if I am blowing
hot air when the San Jose regionals are completed.

4

I’m from Clarkson University team 229, and we were seeded 2nd in Cleveland. Our robot is NOT complex, it is in fact one of the simplest robots out there. We are a ball harverster, we clamp onto one goal and using our giant spinner (the announcer kept describing it as a buffer) we suck balls up into the goal. A simple mechanism, 1 moving part. Our drive was nothing amazing either. However, we seeded 2nd because every match we went into, we knew what we had to do to win. Even when our alliance partner died in 1 match we managed to pull off a win (106 points) alone. Our coach just analyzed the situation and our driver did what he had to do.
We spent a long time debating who to pick, and when it came down to it we chose Chief Delphi because they have an overall strong and versatile robot. Truthfully we expected them to decline, and are THRILLED that they accepted. I’m glad I got the chance to work with the Chiefs. Their bot complemented ours well, and we competed well together. I believe that if they weren’t having some electrical problems we could have pulled off another win. As Joe, and the CD drivers will attest, we had a solid strategy, and a strong alliance. We almost beat the 469 alliance at their own game. We also couldn’t have done it without the Cheesy Poofs. Their bot was almost perfectly suited for the rougher, more contact oriented finals.

I’m glad I got the chance to work with both of them.
Poofs - Good luck in SoCal
Chiefs - Good luck in Great Lakes (Stay calm Joe, it helps!:wink: )

John Vielkind-Neun
Strategy Head and Coach
Team 229 - Clarkson University

5

Question regarding drafting…

Why would any team intentionally decline a draft? Short of catastrophic robot failure (in which case, the drafting team shouldn’t have made that pick), I don’t see any reason why a team would decline a draft offer. I’ve only been around FIRST for one year, so if anyone with more experience could give some insight…

6

The best qualifying rounds strategy is two goals, two robots, and 1-4 balls beating one goal, one or two robots and 0-10 balls. This is 60 - 120 qual points, and will be near the top at any regional.

That said, Baxter did a great job with their ‘one goal, one robot, 25 ball’ strategy.

7

Adrian, an example would be if a #1 seed picked a #5 seed, but the #5 had a different team in mind that they thought would complement their abilities better. Just because a team did well in seeding doesn’t mean that they are the team that everyone wants to be paired up with.
Maybe a two goal grabber with bad traction gets picked by a team that has bad traction. If the higher seeded team used bad judgment in picking, the lower seeded team should decline.
Maybe the pick was right for the #1 team, but wrong for the #5 team. They could work with #1, but would work better with #10.
Lot’s of variations.

8

But don’t the rules state that if you decline, you become ineligible to be drafted under a different alliance? In that case, once you turned down your first draft choice, you couldn’t be drafted by your preferred alliance. Or am I reading the rules wrong? :slight_smile:

9

If your like us you get lucky and get a team like HOT BOT on your alliance, you get one goal, you put 26 balls in that goal, you get both robots in the end zone, and you get a score of 56 to 44 giving you a QP of 132!!!:smiley: :smiley: :cool:

There are a lot of different strategies, you have to find what works the best for your robot, and you have to rely on a little luck that you will get a partner that can help you.

10

*Originally posted by Adrian Wong *
**But don’t the rules state that if you decline, you become ineligible to be drafted under a different alliance? In that case, once you turned down your first draft choice, you couldn’t be drafted by your preferred alliance. Or am I reading the rules wrong? :slight_smile: **

The rulea say that if you are among the top 8 (or being an alliance captain) you can decline an offer to join a team and still be eligable to pick your own alliance. But if you are a team that is not among the top 8 or an alliance captain and you decline, then you are not eligible to be drafted on to any team.

11

Our team was on the winning alliance at the Buckeye regional, and we were seeded 21st, if I recall correctly, might of been 20th. We did very well our first 3 qualifying matches, but then got a few bad partners, and got into a few interesting places where our robot was basically pinned in one spot, and couldn’t get out :smiley: Our qualifying strat was basically to get two goals, take one back to fill it will balls via the human player, and then drop the filled goal back with the second robot, who had the other goal (one of us would each get a goal). Then whomever had 2 goal capability would take both goals, and the other team would go home we won 4 matches this way, with about 80-90 or so points each match. The big reason we got picked for the finals was this. Team #859 was the 4th? seed after qualifying, and we played their third pick in our second to last qualifying match. In the qualifying match we ended up dragging a goal with their third pick (Team 94, if I recall) still attached to it, and their arm snapped off their robot. So they ended up choosing us, because they liked the display of strength, and their third pick didn’t have a functioning arm for the finals. Qualifying is a lot like last year, with some of it being based on who you are paired with, and whom you are against, but most of the good teams can use the matches to get into the finals, either with a high seed, or just with a good showing.

12

the best strategy for the QR’s would be to grab to goals and fill them with balls and let the other team get a goal(maybe help them with balls)

However, that won tbe the best strategy for the elimination rounds. it all depends. e decided to come up with a strategy that would win in the elimination rounds. We are no even in the top 40 at VCU but were still the first pick. Now, we didnt win the regional but i believe that there were two kinds of robots that you could build: one that would do well in Qualification matches and place or gt on that would be good for elimination rounds.

Dont get me wrong; there are some that can do both

13

like people said before it is really two different games in regards to the qual. rounds and the finals. i think that in the finals ball grabbers are really not necessary. my team did a ball grabbing robot but then we had to find goal grabbers instead of other ball robots. again like it was said before the whole goal in the finals is to get goals and whats the point of having a ball grabber if you dont have a goal to put it in.

jessi amt
team 234

14

This was illustrated perfectly at Buckeye and LoneStar where Teams 47 and 16 were top seeded super ball grabbers but in the end lost to goal controllers. It is possible for a ball machine o win the elimination if they have a partner hat can control at leas one goal. They then could score balls and a goal or maybe just balls and robots. But they have to control or neutralize at least one goal - the advantage goes to the team that can control two goals with one robot, because they have
a second robot to either work one goal, or harry the ball handler. A tether machine might be able to
beat a 2 goal handler alliance without tethers.

So the best machine might not win but the alliance that plays the best will win.

15

“Illustrated perfectly” may be a weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee bit too strong. Baxter was the number one seed and picked the number four seed that had put two goals into the scoring zone 9 out of 9 times in the qualifying rounds. By the time Baxter got to the finals, team 118 was 11 of 11 in two goal domination. In the finals, team 118 blew a drive train and let the Bombers down. More specifically, team 118 made a 1/2" steel axle look like overcooked spaghetti (pic) … not very straight, huh. We bent the axle hours before we shipped and since we could not make spare parts after 5:00 on ship day, we did not have time to make a spare one. We did the best we could to bend it back but Murphy caught up with us in the finals.

Since the Lone Star Regional, we have new axles with all KNOWN problems solved.

Sorry Baxter & see y’all in Mickey-land,
Team 118

P.S. Any one-legged robot is going to have a tough time in the finals. :rolleyes:

1 Like
16

Hello All,

Well there are many strategies out there but the one that I, and my team, found effective was a one goal and 15-25 balls with 1-2 robots in your or the other teams zone. The second part to our strategy is to let the other aliance get two goals and go home. This gives them a 30-35 point round and we usually scored 35-55 points with balls, ONE goal, and robots at home. Our team, #16 - Baxter Bomb Squad, did this and we won most of our matches and seeded first with an average QP score of 80.something. The games we lost were due to first a loose wire on our right high speed drive system and second when we lost a potentiometer that operates from the algorithms in a feedback loop to steer our machine. Other than those two matches we won the rest.

ALSO

Team 118 in no way let the Baxter Bomb Squad down. Things happen (Losing drive motors and axles) and in no way did this let us down. Darn, we only recieved SECOND place. LOL. I loved the 118 machine and our two bots made an awesome aliance.

Hope to see all in St. Louis or Nationals!

17

Wen ur in real need take the balls out if the opponenet has the goal. HHEHE:D

18

If I was playing Baxter or Delphi in a qualifier -
I’d let them score most of the balls they wanted, but at the last minute pull their goal to our side
Result 38 to 35 ( I’d mess with the goal a little
so they could score only about 15 balls.) If I were a two goal grabber playing with a Baxter or Delphi,
I’d still grab two goals and then let the ball handler gather up balls - towards the end of the match - the ball handler could either score for us
or for the opponent.

Again - in qualifiers it is better to lose half your high scoring games then win a lot by shutting down your opponnent. Winning all your games
60 to 20 gives you 60 QP average. Winning 1/2 of
all your games by a 40/40 tie will give you an 80
QP average.

19

Other teams also thought about taking our goal of balls. But we know that that one goal holds most of our points, and not one bot could take them away from us. We were against Team #624 (A one goal POWERHOUSE) and they tried to take it away from us but little did they know, we have a beast of a high torque crabbing (swerve) drive system ALONG with our high speed drive.

Although I wouldn’t doubt a match or two where we might possibly lose a goal but we also have a strategy of when coming home, we remove a goal from the other team by pushing it into our home zone.

It’ll be interesting to see more robots and I can’t wait for St. Louis! Hope to see some of you there!

Tommy Cline

20

My opinion(if it matters) is “screw points, blow them away”. If you’re robot can come out every time and win 60-10, than i think any smart team will pick you for the finals in a heart beat. Smart teams will also do their scouting and know what youre robot can do and can’t do, and not just by asking you what it does. We were doin real crappy in qualifying and teams realized we could kick %%%. and we did

We almost declined 353 if they picked us, we might have declined because we don’t belive in anything they do. To us they built a battlebot and thats not right, build a batllebot for battlebots, and use the strategy in battlebots. this(FIRST) clearly isn’t battlebots