Strategy - The Most Important Aspect of the Competition

Having won five of the six tournaments (coming in as Finalist in the one not won) in my region this season and my four years of experience. I have come to believe that strategy is the dominate aspect of winning. I am a Senior, so this is my last year of VEX. However I maintain that the following is true.

EDIT PART 1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it’s important define strategy before going into detail of, I apologize I neglected to do this earlier.

I define the following terms as…

Strategy: The plan with each step meant to answer “How is this {action} going to affect the match?”

Execution: The means in which the plan {strategy} is accomplished.

  1. Scouting the competition is crucial to preparedness.

  2. Identifying strengths and weaknesses of your alliance’s robots and your opponents’ robots along with both sides strategies is vitally important.

  3. “Don’t fix what isn’t broke.” is not a bad saying, but remaining unchanged allows your competition to improve and counter your strategy.

  4. Good robots are VERY important along with driving, but autonomi can make or break a match. Use them effectively.

  5. Heterogeneous alliances (alliances made up of robots with different purposes/motor distribution/torque ratios) are stronger than homologous alliances (alliances made of up teams of the same design and purpose). I say this because while homologous alliances are more flexible in what they can do, skills runs show that a single efficient scoring robot can score enough to win a match.

  6. (Quoting one of the best members of my club) “Large balls are game changers, buckyballs are game winners.” If you take control of both towers, it is very hard to win a match. Autonomous + Hanging can get you quite a few points, but failing to have the towers can easily cost the match.

  7. (I am probably get some criticism for this) Skills runs do NOT indicate a good competition team. Skills runs indicate teams that…
    a. Are good scorers
    b. Are comfortable with their robot
    c. Practice a lot
    d. Understand how to get a lot of points faster

What they do NOT indicate is the following…
a. Understand how to drive defensibly
b. Understand how to defeat other teams
c. Can work well with partners
d. Can adapt to the situation

Too many times I have seen team’s skill scores used to determine who to pick. They can help, but picking all scoring robots does not win you the match, it means that you have the potential to score faster but not to score more. An excellent example of this is Green Egg who I have seen consistently make unique designs that change matches with what they do and what they force their opponents to do.

An example of what happens when none of this is taken into consideration was the entirety of the Sack Attack High School Worlds Finals. I was outright disappointed at the lack of autonomi and strategy. Both alliances went into the match looking to score the most points. When everything was scored, they traded off descoring and rescoring objects. Lo-and-behold when the matches were over, the team with the highest skills score won because they were better scorers. This isn’t to say that either side did anything wrong, but the alliance with a scoring disadvantage could have try pushing one trough and defending it, preventing their opponents from descoring it. Essentially I mean that you can rarely beat someone at their own game when they are the best at what they do. This leads me into my last point.

  1. There are two ways to effectively run a “successful” strategy. To do what you want to do, or to prevent your opponents from doing what they want to do. To succeed in both is essentially the best way to win a match. Therefore, as your competition develops in response to the winning strategy (in this case taking the towers and hanging in my opinion + autonomous if you can get it) you need to make it your mission to either become the best at the winning strategy (quite difficult) or you can make a strategy that beats the winning one. In Roundup from four years ago, picking up the pylons after scoring them became the winning strategy - something the VEX creators only speculated about. What you need to avoid here is “reinventing the wheel”, you don’t want to just make a worse version of what already exists, make something which counters what already exists with room for the unexpected.

EDIT PART 2-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I feel the need to address more on the in-match factors of strategy that I believe are important.

  1. Mindgaming your Opponent - Making your opponent nervous or at least uncomfortable is a good way of affecting their driving. Some people are better than others at handling stress, but at some level the drivers care about how well they are doing which is something that can be taken advantage of. There are many ways to accomplish this - aggressive driving and especially aggressive autonomi that “get in your opponent’s face” are quick ways to negatively affect their driving and what they want to do and when they want to do it.

  2. Remaining Calm - The flipside of mindgaming your opponent is that you need to control your emotions as well. I found that accepting whatever the outcome is before the match is an effective means of controlling your emotions and nerves. Obviously you can still get nervous, but avoiding things like shouting, lone wolfing, and abandoning the plan is the point.

  3. “Canceling” - What I mean by “canceling” is the idea of using the ‘lesser’ robot or the more ‘defensive’ robot on your alliance and using the to block their better scoring robot. If the remaining robot on your alliance can then outscore your opponent’s remaining robot, you have a much chance at winning. This is more commonly applied when your alliance is considered to be the weaker one, but can be quite effective. In this way, even a chassisbot with a decent partner can beat an alliance with superior drivers.

  4. Identifying the Best Places to Go on the Fly - During match, no matter what the circumstances may be, it is important to be able to quickly know where to go next. You need to be able to identify what scores you the most points/what gets rid of the most points of your opponents in the most time efficient way.

These are what I have decided is true after my four years of VEX, what are your thoughts?


I must applaud you this is great. Especially the skills fact (which I hate when people use) and the scouting factor. Scouting can win a tournament for you, truly. I literally just spent 7.5hours online scouting for my state competition. :cool:

Well said, you make some very good points.

I agree with you main points about strategy. You clearly have a good understanding of how this competition works. However, I disagree that the Sack Attack world finals lacked strategy. 2013 VEX World Championship Finals 1 - YouTube

There was plenty of blocking in this match (as well as the second). Each team tried to fill their respective end troughs and block them for the remainder of the match. Both the troughs stayed blocked, but blue won because they were able to fill the trough more before blocking it.

Red played a good move by blocking blue from scoring the high goal, but the final score was still 89 red, 185 blue. If red had scored their high goal it would have been a lot closer, or if they had managed to get more in their far trough it would have been also. If blue had neglected to block their far trough, red would have definitely won by descoring it all in several seconds.

The second score for blue was 325, but they were only able to achieve this score because one red robot disconnected for the majority of the match. Both teams used effective strategy. The would not have gotten that far by simply treating matches as skills routines.

1 Like

Considering this is directly commented at me, let me give my point of view.

Sack Attack by definition didn’t involve much strategy as it did decision making. People who won won due to the fact they could score faster then the other team and made the correct decision to when to descore vs defend their trough. In the world finals, I believe 2941A and 2915A were evenly matched, as was I and 2625 evenly matched, so you HAVE to go into the match assuming you need to get ahead faster then the other team then defend. Also, given Jack’s all time best score was 400 and Lucas’s was 395 (if I’m correct), it’s fair to say they were both the best at their game.

IMO, autonomous in sack attack really didn’t matter too much, and it looked like 2915 entered a wrong autonomous and went the wrong way. After 2 minute of game play, the sacks get moved around enough that I don’t think it made a real difference in the long run (Stats to back this up would be cool, don’t know if the NZ guys have anything discussing that)

Now for the actual match. You say :

This is true and as an alliance we used this in several matches, here is an example. However, going against an alliance with Jack and Jason, who can both pick up wall sacks ridiculously fast, this really wouldn’t work too well. My robot never got developed to the point where we could pick up wall sacks reliably, so in general, if we were to go this route, I would have to sit and protect the sacks while both members of the other alliance would go and score more. Making Lucas 1v2 wouldn’t make sense at such a high level match.

So why did we lose? Well I believe the answer is pretty simple (Lucas might disagree). 2915 was placed on my side of the field, when 2625 was on 2941. Jason (2625) forced Lucas(2941) to defend his trough while Jack(2915) was easily able to outscore/descore me, something that was pretty obvious that we missed when setting up the field. This allowed them to turn around the game very quickly and shut down our alliance, which we never were able to recover from. They executed a good strategy, throwing us off our game, and led to them winning.

I think you have a really good understanding of strategy as a whole, however often times at high level games, there are things you don’t quite see that happen in the background. I remember there being a gateway finals match where a team intentionally tipped their robot and everybody freaked out about it, while they were just trying to figure out a new strategy.
I’m kinda rushing as I’m typing as I need to be somewhere, but I hope everything I said makes sense. I’m sure Lucas will have his own opinion on the situation and strategy as a whole :wink:

I agree with most of the assertions you make (scouting, for example, has saved our butts in numerous tournaments). But for the past couple seasons your comment about homogeneous and hetorogeneous alliances has become less and less true. It applied better in Round Up and Gateway, when different, alternate strategies like goal-dumping, wallbots, etc. existed. However, in Sack Attack and Toss Up, the game designs have become more offense-based and I think this has contributed to design convergence.

I have found that 2 similar robots that are widely capable are more effective in these recent games because they can switch roles instantly, and because there are very few practical alternate strategies. Could you site some examples from Toss Up and Sack Attack of specialized heterogeneous alliances that have been successful?

I think the easiest heterogenous alliance in toss up is pretty clear, a robot that hangs quickly and effectively partnered with a robot with a six motor drive and sped up lift that doesn’t focus on hanging but instead on pushing the other teams out of the way to dominate the stashes and is able to clear the big balls quickly, with the hanging robot adding “ammunition” and rescoring any descored big balls.

Were you red or blue in the finals, unforeseen?

Sack Attack strategy in a nutshell (in my opinion) was gain the points lead early (aided by auton if possible) and then block these points to prevent descoring. This forced the opponents to leave their scored sacks to gather more, thus leaving them vulnerable to being descored. Hence, initial speed of scoring gained the upper hand, so was vital. Toss Up is a different kettle of fish - the winning strategy(s) will emerge at Worlds.

I believe that the robots scoring the highest robot skills scores in Sack Attack were not specifically designed to win skills (at least 2941A was not), but the attribute of gathering and scoring sacks ASAP was an extremely important requirement to win matches. From what I observed, these robots not only posted high skills scores, but they also had amongst the fastest descoring, the highest sack carrying capacity and some of the best drivers. Any specialised descoring robots I observed were at best on par at descoring to these robots and inferior in most other aspects.

Fair enough if you were disappointed in the finals - that is your opinion, but the teams competing in the finals got there, not by trying to come up with an “outside the square” design, but by trying to execute the very best design they could.

A very interesting discussion - thanks for posting.

Cheers, Paul :slight_smile:

First of all I thank you UnforeseenGamer for replying, I honestly did not think that this post would get your attention. Second I would like to say that this is what I personally believe.

I must clarify what I meant by “lack of autonomi and strategy.” I did not mean there were no autonomi or strategy in place, only that they were the same strategies that had been used all year. Now for the autonomi, I believe that the Red Alliance did a good job. However, as you stated in a one vs one fight you were at the disadvantage against Jack (2915) while the other robots Jason (2625) and Lucas (2941) were even in strength.

Now before I continue, I must agree that Sack Attack was a bit odd in the VEX game pool, but perhaps its uniqueness could have involved more innovation, not less.

Now back to my point - In this matchup is where you need an “ace in the pocket” or at least something they won’t see coming. I must admit that most of my understand of strategy comes primarily from an external force. A book that is in fact suggested for military cadets to read - Sun Tzu (Sunzi)'s the Art of War. In the first Match, Red had a good opening, first objects in the trough and they were ahead. But suffering from a slightly weaker matchup, Red lost. I have a several of the previous 8 points I can apply here.

  • UnforeseenGamer, you said that Jack was better than your team at scoring. Therefore why try and beat him at his own game?
  • I don’t know how far you (UnforeseenGamer) expected to get, but won’t having a robot that could cap a trough and prevent it from being descored be useful in these matches?
  • It sounds like Blue won because they did what they wanted to do and stopped you at the same time. They did what I said they needed to do have “successful strategy.” What I imply here is that maybe you should have done something different, such as specifically ram into them to try and slow them down.

To the point, I (from my view up in the crowd that day combined with your account) feel that you lost the first match before it ever started. Random things happen, but if you didn’t plan on countering your specific opponent then your chances are bad to begin with.

I say that I speak with authority on this because not even 30 hours ago from when I wrote this, my alliance beat the strategy/autonomous that hadn’t lost a match in my region yet. Now there were unforeseen issues with our opponent’s robots, but we mapped out an autonomous with our partner to counteract their entire strategy in the first ten seconds of the match.

The moral of the story is that I believe that Strategy - and therefore Autonomous will always have the most crucial impact on the competition/matches.

Just out of curiosity, what other strategies in sack attack would you find effective that didn’t involve attempting to outscore the other team? mass descoring? super stacking the high goal?

While I do not want to get stuck on only one game, will say that several designs/strategies did intrigue me (some of these are not my own creations.)

Green Egg - As I stated before, they know what they are doing and while not picking up from the ground was questionable, have a super powerful drive meant no one can stop you from where you are going or staying. Green Egg could have pried opponents off their troughs and descored them and could have indefinately defended their own trough. (I don’t want to seem like I am idoling Green Egg, I just consider them to be a very well-known and successful example.)

Mass Dumpers/Cappers - While wall-bots were not very effective, a smaller mobile robot that could collect many objects, dump all at once, and cap the trough (legally) could have been useful. My own robot was one of these from Sack Attack (although it was not my best year as most of my team were inexperienced Freshmen after being used to having 4 to 5 people working together).

Extended Parking - I am surprised so few came up with this, but one of the issues was that when teams backed off to park, their trough would get descored. My clubmates solved this by creating a tail to touch the starting tile from the trough and it could double as a wall - innovation and adaption.

Autonomous : Cross and Load - While we were never able to get our teams together in time to use it, another team from my club and I came up with an autonomous to load up the trough on the wall. The closer robot would grab objects from the wall and then proceed to drive underneath and wait. The second robot would grab the objects from the middle and then score in the trough. After that the robot (with a little bit of good timing) would then raise and dump backwards. If my memory is correct, It was roughly 20 or so sacks scored in autonomous in the trough least accessable to the opponents. - Just a reminder too, you don’t need to use the autonomous to win the extra points, you can also use it for getting good positions.

These are just some of the ideas that I saw and liked. While you can make your arguements how these won’t work, keep in mind that you have to test test test to find out something that works. The lightbulb was not invented in a day. Also I would say that the VEX Compeition is very much comparable to vast evolution. Teams that don’t change fall behind and as with evolution, its a very trial-and-error process but the most obvious method is not always the best (otherwise things like strategy and design would not be factors).

1 Like

I think we have different assumptions

Now nothing against Jason, he had a fantastic bot, but I believe it’s more fair to compare Lucas to Jack. As I said, Lucas’s top DSC was 395 and Jack’s was 400, while at worlds, Jason had a 245 and I had a 235. In my opinion, that’s a VERY close alliance in term of scoring ability, hence why I said you had to get ahead early.

Example 1(Me top of screen)
Example 2(Lucas and Jason)(however this was the problem I addressed early, Lucas vs Jack would have been a close match, however since Jason stopped Lucas, it ended up with me vs Jack)
Example 3(Lucas blocking Jason)

You’re right, they stopped us from doing what we were doing, but it’s not like we just let them do that. Just because one team overpowers another doesn’t automatically mean there was a “huge lack of strategy” like I feel you’re implying.

This is arguable, but remember we had beat Jack in the round robin.

As for autonomous, I haven’t looked into Toss Up too much, but I bet you that autonomous of all things will make or break most matches, especially at a high level. Comparatively, for Sack Attack, autonomous seemed to have very little impact on the matches.

It’s refreshing to really see people think critically about strategy, thank you for doing so.


All the robots in the finals could do this very well :stuck_out_tongue:

The game toss up needs some strategy in order to win, like blocking the stash, pushing battles or outscore the other opponent! :stuck_out_tongue:

I don’t actually have too much to add because I actually agree with Justin 100%. Clearly he’s thought this through at least as much as I have :).

I’m 100% with this. I believe this is the main reason why we managed to win the round robin match against the same alliance (and hence we were red alliance in the final). I was able to only slightly lose to 2915A on my side of the field (which is a lot harder than I just made it sound…) while Justin won on his side of the field resulting in a narrow victory. Considering we had the right to place last in the finals matches, maybe I should have tried to start opposite to 2915A. It didn’t really occur to me at the time.

Most of your additional “strategies” you wanted us to employ involve nuclear robots. If no nuclear robots made it to the world finals, then perhaps the way we played the game was simply the best way to play it (but probably not, worlds involves an awful lot of luck too of course).

I also agree with this. An excellent example is this game from the round robin:

I had been competing with and against the robots on the other alliance all season long (in fact, I was allianced with both of them at NZ Nationals). If you watch 2941A and 2915A closely for the first 30 seconds or so of driver control, you can see that both Jack and I knew what each other were going to do before we even did it. It was 10 seconds before my match against 1492X that I realised I had been discussing strategy with Kevin all year long, and accordingly he probably knew every single strategy I had ever thought of… Consider this yet another spanner in the works.

Another thing I want to point out is that hindsight is always 20/20. Watching those matches I can spot every single bad decision I made, maybe more bad decisions than anyone else can spot. I’m still almost certain that Sack Attack was a game of trades. Against a good team, you will always lose something every time you take something. Is descoring their trough worth losing your trough for? Is securing the high goal worth giving away your trough, or giving them space to score more? If you made good trades, you won. If you made bad trades, like I did in the first final match, you lost. If you make it to the world final this year Unit332, I will have fun calling out every wrong decision you make ;).

A lot of interesting points being mentioned here. High level games like world finals have a lot of little things behind the main strategies, firstly I am going to do a brief overview for those who don’t know about the 3 main Sack Attack strategies I used this season.

Open Trough

Open trough is basically no strategy at all, score, descore as fast as you can, literally a blank strategy. I don’t even know why I call it a strategy. I only used this in qualification where my alliance was unable to effectively block a trough, as sometimes people get in your way as you try to score and accidentally let opponents in ect which renders safe and dangerous trough useless.

Safe Trough

Pile all of your objects into your end trough, and forget about your middle trough. Have one robot block the trough from being descored while one robot descores opponents troughs/picks up off the ground.

Dangerous Trough

Pile all of your objects into your middle trough, and forget about your end trough. Have one robot block the trough from being descored while one robot descores opponents troughs/picks up off the ground.

The difference between safe and dangerous trough being risk and reward. Safe trough is safer because you can only be attacked from one side of the trough, there is a wall on the other. Dangerous trough is dangerous because you can be attacked from both sides and hence have 4 directions to defend from rather than 2. That being said… although much higher risk with dangerous trough the benefits are also much higher, tag team descoring is easier as you are closer to both of their troughs and you have choice as to which trough you can descore from and have to drive less. On top of the trough advantage it is easier to defend your high goal sacks and block your opponents from scoring high.

Now onto world finals. In final 1, my alliance (blue) plays safe trough (I run the wrong side autonomous ;( ) , we decided to do so because of the high level teams we were playing it would be almost impossible to defend a middle trough from the likes of 2941A, 2587Z and 1615A who are all high level teams, so safe trough it was just to be… safe, theres nothing worse than spending all game filling a trough to have it descored straight away. The placing robots on the field so that 2625 was against 2941 wasn’t intentional as far as I can remember, however I wish I could claim it was… it worked out pretty well :stuck_out_tongue: You can see the difference in risk in final 1, 2941A leaves to stop 2625 from scoring the high goal (60 points if done right) but leaves the trough open for 2915A to descore - the reward being high for Lucas, but the risk also being very high, it could have gone either way (especially if he didnt get stuck on sacks :frowning: ) With about 35 seconds to go, there was plenty more 2915A could have done to have a more promising score, but the risk was very high with Lucas (2941A) being able to swoop in any moment and take the whole trough, hence we chose to just sit. Boring? Yes. Strategically right? I would say so.

In finals 2 we decide to play safe trough again (it worked last time… why not), but went for autonomous that scored both troughs as to not give away what we were going to do before we needed to. At the start of driver I actually descore my own trough, this isnt a mistake as you might think but strategy. With high end robots, sacks are easier found in troughs than on the floor, so my solution was to get rid of them from the trough they can access to make it harder for them and easier for me. Unfortunately with the GLOD of Lucas’s robot strategy kinda goes out the window from then on.

Almost any of the round robin with strategy robots could have beaten 2915A and 2941A if they were allianced together with no strategy in my opinion.

Hopefully this has brought to light some of the simpler and underlying strategies of Sack Attack, I think what Unit332 means by “no strategy” is that robots aren’t diverse and are similar, there weren’t any real standout different robots this year in round robin, but there was in division eliminations.

Technology division quarters for example: - YouTube

Green Egg once again put on a good show with the transmission and powerful drive but I can’t seem to find any video.

ANYWAY, I have gone a bit off topic, I was just popping in to explain what we did and why we did it. With moving forward, I hope to be seeing some interesting stuff this year Unit332, you have me excited now :slight_smile:

1 Like

Early in a season getting complementary alliances is important because not every one can do everything. For example, if team A can only stash, and team B can only lift big balls, they would work well together at the beginning of the season. Now that we are farther into the season and teams are more diverse, owning the stash at the beginning of the match, and blocking your opponents is something both teams need to be able to do. However having both teams be able to hang isn’t as important because two teams hanging takes a long time. So at this point, with the exception of hanging, I believe homologous alliances would be most effective.

Again I must thank you guys for posting your POVs of the Sack Attack Finals matches. I must admit that I messed up in that I compared the wrong robots with each in that it should have been Lucas and Jack were roughly even in skills and the same with the other two robots.

In regards to what you said Jack, I saw your strategy in play, its the same one I had used throughout the year. My point is that while both alliances had plans (and don’t get me wrong, they weren’t bad ones either), they were the same ones that had been consistently used all year or more to the point - they were VERY predictable. In the Finals in total, every alliance except one were essentially of the same general design with varying efficiency and extra little functions. - I will get back to this other alliance in a second.

But my issue isn’t with your strategy, you won, so you did what you needed to. My question to the members of the Red Alliance is - What did you do to make Blue feel uncomfortable or to throw them off what they were doing?

Now in regards to this other alliance, the alliance in fact that came out of my division - the same division Green Egg was in. A group of shovel-design robots. While it is arguable that they weren’t as good as the alliances present in the very last matches of the Finals, they were different.

However, I don’t want to get caught up on a minute point in my overall message which seems to have been missed among all of this discussion of the Worlds Finals. The fact remains that among all of the ‘blocking’ and supposedly aggressive playing is that there was rarely if ever a moment that one alliance team crossed under the trough. Hindsight is 20-20 but I was there in person to witness this. I came to this conclusion during the actual matches.

I do enjoy this discussion greatly, but try not to get too tied up on one example instead of the idea behind it.

In talking about Green Egg I assume you mean the Science Division and the 3 Robots (177Z, 1575D, and 169C) if I remember correctly. I have a connection with two of the three teams on that alliance as they’re from my same state and I’ve competed against them many times.

I do think they were different with their shovel design robots, but I don’t think they weren’t as good as the other teams. Green Eggs and their partners caught a bad break in the finals. I sat and watched each match.

About the Science champions, I think this shows us that random, and sometimes questionable, strategic choices can create unexpected outcomes in the long run.

The shovel-bots were simple, quick, and probably didn’t take too long to perfect. As a result of this, they probably had a lot of time to practice driving and this made them more efficient than top-notch robots that had less driving time (however in the Round Robin we saw that teams who had better robots AND good drivers prevailed over them). This made them aggressive and effective in the Science elims.

169A was, in my opinion, what made that alliance. The robot was a conventional score/descore robot, albiet slightly slower than the other round-robin efficiency robots. But, for whatever reason (probably to add defensive capability, which was something most teams thought wasn’t worth the effort), they had a pneumatic brake. In the Science final, this brake allowed them to stall 44 and stop them from descoring their troughs.

44 had been designed against the conventional efficiency robots, and had beaten such robots in the QFs and SFs by pushing them all off of their troughs and descoring everything. But, when matched against aggressive quick-scorers and an unforseen robot with a brake (which was an uncommon feature) their strategies were no longer so effective. So, while 44 probably would have done better in the Round Robin, 177 and 169A accidentally had the right set of abilities to counter and beat the Green Eggs before they got there.

My point here is that strategy can void any kind of preconcieved ranking of teams. The teams that are generally considered the best can be beaten by strategies designed specifically to counter them. But the counter strategies might also be beaten by teams that the “best” teams normally don’t consider a threat. Standardizing a set of strategies, like Jack’s “open trough, safe trough, and dangerous trough” for all matches doesn’t always work because they rely on the opponent playing the same game as you.

1 Like

Thank you Raptor, what you said reflects my own opinion on the shovel robots. Its about controlling how a match is going to be played that the goal of strategy, not about how you do something but how it affects the match as a whole. 44 may have done better against the other alliances in the Finals but the shovel bots had the right makeup to beat them. In the Finals part of the reason why the shovel robots lost was because they did not take control of the match. When facing more multi-purpose designs, the shovel robots should have (in my opinion) driven more aggressively. Additionally they were knocked out when their third pick actual tipped themselves over.

By the way, I am not sure how you guys define design, but it seems like some of you feel that there is a ‘dominate’ design. Designs are essentially meant to achieve some of advantage mechanically. The most common theme in VEX designs seems to be six-bars with rollers which are essentially speed-efficiency robots, they are fast and are meant to score and pickup fast. However this is not to say that they are wholly ‘better’ than other designs. It would hard to say that a high torque drive robot would be pushed around by a speed-efficiency, making a high torque drive robot better at defending and breaking a block. Chances a high torque drive robot also could have more motors available if the speed-efficiency robot has a six motor speed drive, therefore allowing for more strength elsewhere or even more functions.

In regards to the homologous and heterogeneous alliances, a key point is that the general designs may be the same on the heterogeneous alliance, but the robots themselves could have different torque ratios/motor distribution. For instance a high torque six-bar would be much better at defensive play than a speed-drive would, therefore similar designs but much different in usage.