Thank you 368 for putting the scores up! Thank you judges for waiakea’s “excellence” award. Our three teams were 1,9 and 11 in HECO and could have made it out if not for a wire shorting in our last match against poofs where only one bot kept it pretty close for over a minute by itself. We feel cursed as it happened in the Big Island tourney too, different wire…hoping to send the top two to Orlando but need $$$$. I think Hawaii teams will do real well at Worlds if they can make it there. Don’t forget the pre-load easy scorer we came up with in Japan and look at the static low goal de-scorer developed by our alumni. We didn’t get to use it much until eliminations but it allows you to drive over goals and descore them. Good luck at Worlds…hope to see you all there!
@lavapicker: You guys really deserved the excellence award. Your robots were so awesome. 
atm I’m uploading the second match from the finals which had 2575A and 2454A from ROC against 2438B and 254A from HECO.
So, this is my impression of the last bit of the tournament:
I was on the Iobotics drive team (2438B) in the HECO division, so I didn’t get to see any of this crazy tipping/spontaneous robot failures/etc. stuff. There were a lot of great, close matches; especially the one where 1056C (Waiakea) really demonstrated its crazy descoring mechanism. (the one lavapicker is talking about, I think). It made descoring the low movable goals really easy and we marveled at its efficiency.
Another kind of funny thing that happened was in the first match with the two Poofs. They and the other two teams managed to dump almost all of the donuts under the ladder. It was pretty magnificent. A lot of iPhones were out taking photos.
All in all the tournament was great. Everyone was friendly and it was really fun for me
@lavapicker: You guys really deserved the excellence award. Your robots were so awesome.
atm I’m uploading the second match from the finals which had 2575A and 2454A from ROC against 2438B and 254A from HECO.
So, this is my impression of the last bit of the tournament:
I was on the Iobotics drive team (2438B) in the HECO division, so I didn’t get to see any of this crazy tipping/spontaneous robot failures/etc. stuff. There were a lot of great, close matches; especially the one where 1056C (Waiakea) really demonstrated its crazy descoring mechanism. (the one lavapicker is talking about, I think). It made descoring the low movable goals really easy and we marveled at its efficiency.
Another kind of funny thing that happened was in the first match with the two Poofs. They and the other two teams managed to dump almost all of the donuts under the ladder. It was pretty magnificent. A lot of iPhones were out taking photos.
All in all the tournament was great. Everyone was friendly and it was really fun for me
Here’s one of the finals matches - - YouTube
I’m not entirely sure what I was thinking when I closed the claw on the other guy. It almost was entanglement :<
This tournament was absolutely the best I have seen this year in terms of competition. A big congratulations to 2438 for such an awesome robot skills score and a massive thank you to 2438B for coming through in a pinch 
I look forward to seeing all these great teams in Orlando for worlds!
wow, very nice speed an efficiency to the 254’s
pretty solid robot for this far into the season
My apologies on the video front. I had a look at what I had, and the lighting on the field makes it nigh impossible to see the robots, so I figured it wasn’t worth posting.
Still, I can recant the tale of a match where all but 6 tubes were under the ladder by the one minute mark. That was quite a spectacle. You know, I think that it may ultimately become impossible to retrieve tubes from situations like that–there are just so many that are stacked in such weird ways that even center rollers might have trouble with them.
Thats a very nice complement when you consider that 254A rebuilt their robot 4 times during the competition. In fact neither 254A nor 254B were fully working until their final match of the qualification rounds.
Wow, that’s spectacular, rebuilding a robot four times must be very stressful :).
I saw on 254’s website that there were two drivers for your robot. I understand that two drivers have the ability to multi-task a lot better and for a complex robot, it is completely necessary. But there also comes a point where one driver is more efficient and coordinated than two, which begs the question: Why did you choose two drivers over one?
Just curious.
I cannot speak for the 254A drive team; however, our arm had preset heights but we never used them simply because the D-pad buttons on the VEXnet Joystick cannot be pressed while simultaneously controlling the joysticks. While this wasn’t a significant hindrance, it may be beneficial for some drive teams to install a second driver to utilize similar shortcuts based on the D-pad buttons.
254A predominantly has one driver for, as you stated, efficiency. We have found it a lot easier to score if one person is controlling the arm and drive base. However, our second driver controls the intake rollers along with certain auto-functions during the user controlled period because it becomes too hard for one driver to use all 12 buttons plus the joysticks. Not to mention that it doesn’t seem like a good idea for the driver to have to take his fingers off the joysticks.
It is possible to hold the joysticks and be able to hit the D-Pad buttons at the same time; I’ve tried it on an Xbox controller. Hold the shoulder buttons with your ring finger and pinky, and hit the d-pad with your index and middle fingers. It can get a little uncomfortable, but once you get used to it it’s nice to have the extra accessibility.
There was a match in the quarterfinals where all but four tubes were under the ladder in HECO division. When it comes down to that it becomes really a “who can get donuts under the ladder first” kinda thing.
We saw this in one match at West Salem, too. Let’s hear it for the pizzabots.
i can totally see a “take off EVERYTHING expect your drive, and then well pick you” 
I did some number crunching. See the attachment.
Conclusions and justification:
-
Teams that lose get SLAMMED by descoring robots. The average losing alliance gets less than two goals owned, as seen in the average losing score of 13.049 (two owned goals is 14 points). The average match does not have every goal owned, when most robots at this level should be able to do so within 2 minutes.
-
The data in the gold fields are less accurate than the data in the Division Finals green fields when it comes to close matches against top tier robots. Ideally, the division finals are when the difference in alliance levels are minimal.
-
The score difference of an average match is lower than suggested by the mean data. The outliers (ROC QF3-2, QF4-2, HECO QF1-1, QF1-2, QF4-1, SF2-1, Grand Finals 2 and 3) inflate the mean score. As discussed in Conclusion 2, there are fewer outlier scores as the competition narrows down to division finals.
-
One competition is not enough data (duh). The number of 3-game qualification matches implies the ease at which matches can be swung. Only 4 matches of 15 did not go to a 3rd round.
Any other trends you guys notice?
PPC Elimination Rounds Analysis.pdf (203 KB)
Keep in mind the following: Both ROC QF 4-1 and 4-2 were two robots against one due to technical issues, and QF 3-2 had one team’s score reduced to 0 for intentional tipping. That explains some of your outliers.
I think the average median scores shows us all just how important the autonomous bonus is, and with most teams’ habit of ramming the goals near the starting squares you’d better have something reliable and fast if you want to win.
I couldn’t agree more. In five of our seven matches we were having drive base issues, but we were still able to win three of those five matches because we won the autonomous period. I would go so far to say that we got out of our division because our opponent’s autonomous was off my millimeters.
Agreed. It can take just ONE tube scored in autonomous to basically win the bonus and the match
Thanks! Updated version attached. Ignored matches have losing alliance in brown.
PPC Elimination Rounds Analysis_No DQs.pdf (203 KB)