Re: 2014: the year of the underdog
 

I think that this closes the gap quite a bit. Although as stated, the tradoff for defense is that your alliance won't be able to get the third assist (20 points). Unless you can escape the robot you are defending, gain possession, then pass it off and return before the opposing alliance can pass to the defended, defense might just be removing two robots from the game.
Although because of the difficulty of shooting, defense on high shooters can be easily accomplished with a good drivetrain and a 4-5' tall robot.

Re: 2014: the year of the underdog
 

I disagree with your first point, because of your second point. Good strategy would be to always have the robot not involved in assists doing defending. Which means either the two most capable robots assisting each other and the third always defending, or any combination where the defender never breaks off until a replacement is almost there.
The only way to counter is two robots that can pass and receive faster than can be defended. I think this is unlikely unless its very top tier against a fairly slow defender.

Of course, all that said, you know some teams will find ways to score. They always do :)

Re: 2014: the year of the underdog
 

Our team finished working through our analysis of the game yesterday. When I came back to CD this morning I was struck by the irony of the title of the "not so secret endgame" thread. It's ironic because the end game this year is not so secret. This year, the end game is cycling. This becomes more apparent when you do cycle time analysis, adding up the time required to perform the actions in a fully scoring cycle. The overwhelming time killer is chasing uncontrolled balls around the field.

This year's game has been fiendishly designed to tempt teams to shoot for the high goals during autonomous. But at the same time, the field is designed to make successful high goal shots in auto fiendishly difficult. The robots must start in the white zone. The white line is a long way from the goal. If you've tried it, you know that a successful goal from the starting position is difficult even for a person. Most robots will need to drive forward and get closer to the goal to make that shot, stopping in just the right spot. This isn't easy. I don't expect many will be able to do so. Let's say, one in three. And if there is only one robot which can do it, putting a goalie in front of them reduces their chances further. The net result is that high goal attempts in autonomous will result in many balls that rebound, often all the way to the far side of the field.

Let's say one of the three high goal attempts in auto goes in. That leaves two balls that must be retrieved and brought back for shooting. But, where do you shoot from? There are no easy references, like a pyramid, or a key. Plus, defenders are allowed to hit you while you are shooting. So let's say 1 of the two remaining auto balls makes it. That means you get to play "go fetch" AGAIN. Alliances which are enticed into the trap of only going for high goals will be lucky to have time to complete even one "cycle", let alone multiples. They will spend all their time chasing rebounds from missed high goal attempts.

Contrast this with an alliance of low goal scorers in auto. They might come out of the first 10 seconds with a lower score, but even the balls which aren't scored are still under the robots control, and can be quickly disposed of. Then, these three robots are ready to begin cycling IMMEDIATELY. And it's the triple assist scoring cycles that really run the score up.

Re: 2014: the year of the underdog
 

The logical inferences from this is never losing control of balls; either by never transferring (low assist scores), or direct robot-to-robot hand offs that are difficult to defend without being penalized. But that means having other robots that are designed suitably in sufficient quantities. If one (or more) of the Ri3D efforts do this then maybe it could happen, otherwise...

(BTW, thank you for these comprehensive analyses and your very understandable write-ups)

Re: 2014: the year of the underdog
 

I would actually disagree that the low goal is a viable option. The low goal is small. To actually score, you need to get right up next to the goal. Chances of shooting the ball in from any sort of distance is incredibly low. A good defensive robot could easily block one of the goals off from your alliance and then probably delay a score in the other goal. It will take much more effort to actually get to the low goals.

The high goals on the other hand are so wide that if you have a shooter that is decent you should be able to get to a spot to shoot within a short matter of seconds if you have anything comparable to a kitbot drive. Additionally, if you pick your shooting position correctly, a goalie should be a non-factor in blocking the shots.

I'm sure that there will be at least one team that proves me wrong but for the vast majority of teams I feel that the high goal is a much easier scoring option when facing defense in eliminations. The easiest comparison would be fender shooters vs. key shooters in 2012. Fender shooters were effective in qualification matches but they were neutralized in eliminations when defense stepped up.

Re: 2014: the year of the underdog
 

Yep. So our top two priorities are
1) A drive train that moves in auto.
2) A reversible floor pickup that picks up balls from the floor, or another robot (delivered at ~floor height) and spits them back out either into the low goal or to another robot with a floor pickup.
(Note that these are only the top two priorities. The list continues from there. )

With just these two systems, and good driving, you are a very valuable member of an alliance.

If I had the choice of picking this robot with a drive team who has practiced retrieving loose balls for two weeks, or one which had a high goal shooter but no practice time, I'd go for the first one.

Re: 2014: the year of the underdog
 

There is a lot of truth to this, especially given that protrusions into the low goals seem to be allowed (GDC, please change this in Q&A/Team Updates!!!). However, the counter point is pretty simple, you only need one robot on an alliance to shoot into the high goal. Could there be benefits to having multiple? Absolutely. But for many of the "underdog" teams, focusing on being an incredible ball handler is going to be a better focus than shooting, imo.

Re: 2014: the year of the underdog
 

What's REALLY promising about the low goal for underdogs is that the lip on the bottom of the low goal is 7" - which is the lowest height allowed for the top of bumpers. Thus getting it into the low goal is literally as easy as 'just run into the thing' - so long as a team can acquire the ball and then get to a goal.

If the GDC doesn't change the 'protrusions into the goal' issue, then I suspect there will be a LOT of broken protrusions...

Re: 2014: the year of the underdog
 

In regards to the small bump while receiving a ball over the truss stripping the team of a chance to get the points:

If the team is able to just herd the ball in a desired direction they will receive points for a catch. (I remember reading this in the manual once, but I am having trouble finding that part of the manual again.)

Re: 2014: the year of the underdog
 

However, that herd has to happen before the ball touches the ground, which seems like it would be pretty hard to do.

Re: 2014: the year of the underdog
 

One could argue that any large change in kinetic energy and direction while the robot is moving could be considered carrying or herding. So a 'high-quality pillow' on an inclined plane which nearly stops the ball and lets it fall to the floor could be considered a catch if the robot moves at all while in contact with the ball.

Re: 2014: the year of the underdog
 

While I agree Aerial Assist seems to be built to prevent elites from leaving everyone else in the dust, I think it will still happen, and I think it will happen in a way that ultimately is pretty discouraging to the weaker teams.

In recent posts, I've listed why I think an elite playing by themselves, with their two alliance partners clearing a road for them, will be able to score in the 150 territory.

In the predict week 1 scores thread, I outlined why I believe the average week 1 score will be about 73.5.

This means that unless paired with other significantly above average teams, the elites will likely tend to want their alliance to allow them to be the sole offensive machine, because the weaker teams will slow them down so much it reduces their total effective scoring ability, EVEN with the big bonuses for assists. 6 1-assist runs with a truss toss (20pts) and 4 2-assist runs with a truss toss (30pts) have the same total score.

Re: 2014: the year of the underdog
 

I'm not saying you should go for the low goal because you're right it's much easier to defend the low goal than the high goal. What I'm trying to say is that if the high goal is blocked it's easy for you to just drive into the corner and quickly dump the ball into the low goal. It's viable to go for the low goal if the high goal is being defended because you lose very few points. Only 15% of your points on a perfect cycle compared to 67% the previous two years.

Re: 2014: the year of the underdog
 

For a single bot, I don't think it will be so efficient to run down the ball after it flies over the TRUSS.

Re: 2014: the year of the underdog
 

Given how few goals (average 1-1.5 per robot per match) were scored in Breakaway with a lot more balls, and how few hurdles were made in 2008 (at my regional the average hurdler could get 1 per match) I think "literally as easy as" are very dangerous words.