Re: Shooting Vs. Time hanging 30
 

This is the way our team saw it.

Last year, we were pretty lacking on strategy and baiscally went right into design.

Are we shooting? Yes. Are we cooperating? Yes. 3 pt hoop? Yes. Play defense? Yes. Play offence? Yes.

Anyway, we took the more specialized approach this year. We didnt have much success as a shooter in 2012. Yes, we could shoot the threes and twos, but not on a level that made us competitive. Shooting is a variable thing. Lots of things change while you're shooting. Your surrounding change. Your position will change (Even if we think we're at the same spot, its easy to be off). The discs themselves will change. To what extent is unknown, but game pieces will change match to match.

What wont change? The pyramid. Our robot. There's a lot less variables in climbing.

From another angle, how may actions of shooting does it take to get 30 points? Well, you have to get discs, grab them, shoot them, and do that at least 10 times.

Climbing the pyramid is a repeatable, reliable, one time action. It works or it doesn't. We go to the pyramid and do our climbing. Not having to worry about all these factors (some of them we may not even fully understand) made us go for the pyramid.

Re: Shooting Vs. Time hanging 30
 

I like your thought process (it's how we did it too, to an extent) and think you have a great strategy. Yet consider that 5 scored autonomous discs are just as repeatable, reliable and quick as pyramid climbing. The only variable is disc warping, but we have a design that accounts for that. Food for thought next year (the GDC has become very good at designing tradeoffs into their games).

Re: Shooting Vs. Time hanging 30
 

We saw this as well, but our lack of success with shooting projectiles last year made us wary of going off and trying to score the big points with that again.

PS Im intrigued on this "accounting for warp" you sneaked in there.

Re: Shooting Vs. Time hanging 30
 

On the pyramid climb: The top zone of the pyramid gets pretty space restrictive, making it seemingly difficult for multiple inside climbers. Three 20 point inside climbers will be tight.

Re: Shooting Vs. Time hanging 30
 

I'd argue that a 10 point hang plus shooting is a faster way to score than just shooting given how achievable the 10 point hang is. I'd compare 30 vs 10 + score 7, not 30 vs score 10.

Re: Shooting Vs. Time hanging 30
 

Our analysis on kickoff was:

A 30-second climb with 20 point dump is acceptable.
A 20-second climb with 20 point dump is good.
A 10-second climb with 20 point dump is great.

A 30-second climb with no dump is okay-ish.
A 20-second climb with no dump is acceptable.
A 10-second climb with no dump is good.

As a great hanger in 2010, it didn't occur to us until reading CD later that other people wouldn't be clambering for a climb. Our specific capabilities lend themselves more to climbing than autonomous programming -- something we're working on, of course, because we always want to be better than we are -- so as far as priorities we are tending in that direction even though skill-independent strategy leans us the other way.

Re: Shooting Vs. Time hanging 30
 

I would be surprised if there is reliable 30 point climber all season long that is not at least a regional semifinalist. At most regionals such a robot is probably at least a finalist. Sames goes for a reliable 30 second climb with a frisbee dump, except you shift it up to regional finalist and winner. In my opinion that puts them far above "okay-ish" and "acceptable".

Consider how big of a swing a minibot was in 2011, and then realize that it takes 2 teleop scores in 2013 to equal 1 in 2011. (I realize shooting discs & placing tubes are not equally as hard, but the average alliance shot 2 balls in the middle goal in 2012...)

As always, I would love to be wrong. :o

Re: Shooting Vs. Time hanging 30
 

You may be right. We climbed with no issues (beyond a slipping set screw, from which we've learned our lesson) in 2010--indeed our 2013 lift isn't a whole lot different than our 2010 lifter... So in that sense I look at it and say, "gee, that's hard, but not *so* hard--and once you've got it, you're nails."

Part of me thinks that every regional will have a dozen or more robots that 30+20 climb, and part of me feels that one or two robots at most will do so, and despite our confidence we're not going to be one of them...

I'm having a hard time picking apart this game. I know how it should be played, but how it will be played still eludes me.

Re: Shooting Vs. Time hanging 30
 

Woah, hold on there! How do you climb without any moving parts? Lifting yourself off the ground requires doing work, which necessitates moving parts... (unless you use straight kinetic energy, but then you have to stay above the ground for 5 seconds before it is scored)

EDIT: I stand corrected: http://youtu.be/MFRCiEeyjDU

Re: Shooting Vs. Time hanging 30
 

Re: Shooting Vs. Time hanging 30
 

that's fantastic!

Re: Shooting Vs. Time hanging 30
 

If teams are concerned about disc warping, I quickly learned this year that it will be almost a non-issue.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...66&postcount=9
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...7&postcount=13
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...3&postcount=15

I made this assumption on another thread and was quickly corrected. After receiving several replies, I do not believe that this will be an issue.....

I think that a 30 pt hang is completely worth it if it can be accomplished. Teams just need to consider what they can do. The bottom line in all robot designs is that the best designs are the ones that work. I'm guessing, based off of Rebound Fumble, that if a team just developed a dumper and 10 point hanger that works reliably every time, they could win a fair amount of qualifying matches and be picked for elims at most regionals.

Re: Shooting Vs. Time hanging 30
 

Don't take anyone's word for it. Take some of your own discs, put them through your prototype shooter at max speed with the exit pointed straight at a wall that's only a few feet away. Take some of of your other discs and drive last year's robot over them, bot right-side-up and up-side-down. Then make your own decision as to whether or not the dsics can warp. Then perhaps listen to CD about probabilities of occurance (or run the simulation to figure out how often things happen -- either way).

Many CDenizens have a bad habit of conjectures that are only based in thought. Don't change your mind solely on account of them.