@Mystellianne Agreed, although I don't think we'll end up seeing them very often because most people will be drawn away from passive intakes due to their dependency on active partners. I'm not saying they couldn't hold their own, but they're guaranteed to lose the stationary goal and can't take full advantage of the driver loads.
I would disagree with you on both of these points (though I'm pretty biased).
First, I doubt the importance of the stationary goal. It is far slower to stack on than mobile goals (even with the method of transferring cones from mobile goals), and the stationary goal high stack bonus is negligible when compared to the time investment required.
Second, while it is true that the autoloader is far easier with an active intake, it is easy to defend against, and can still be used for higher cones by passive intakes. Further, we are already seeing "cone races" akin to the nothing but net gameplay in which teams focus on the shared (field) balls before focusing on exclusive balls (the driver loads) simply because there is plenty of time at the end to do those once the field is clear. In this case, on field cone speed is paramount, which is where passive intakes excel.
Finally, I doubt that any active intake will be able to make an autonomous that scores as many points as a passive intake is able to (please prove me wrong), and winning autonomous is a 20 point swing, which is ridiculous (think an extra 10 cone stack).
I would argue that the active robot in an active-passive alliance is dependent on the passive intake for its autonomous capabilities and on field superiority, and will become more so as the season processes. However, I'm convinced that some combination of the two designs will be the best design, if it is, in fact, possible, which is why that is what I'm working on now.
I'd love to hear any flaws in my reasoning (I'm sure there are many).