10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

I think the 1 point goal is actually a better option than the 10 point goal this year. It might seem a little bit crazy, but hear me out.

The biggest reason is that if you miss the ten point goal, you lose a ton of time. I know this is really obvious, and everyone I've talked to knows this, but I feel like they don't truly appreciate the repercussions.

Also, the goal is actually one of the least important aspects of the scoring cycle. It's a difference of 9 points on a 30 to 40 point cycle, and it doesn't seem to be worth the time.

And yet teams seem to be 100% convinced that the only way to score points is through that 10 point goal. I've seen teams push their ball (already worth 30 assist points) against the one point goal so that they can pick it up to shoot. They usually miss.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

It's definitely a viable option, especially if it's a 31 point goal instead of a 1 point goal. I also saw teams shoot in the low goal to avoid defense.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

I suppose the question is how much time is lost and do the benefits outweigh the negatives?
You need to consider:

- The probability of making the shot
- Average total cycle time
- Average time to re-try a missed shot

In your case, 9 points equates to a 29% increase in points scored per cycle (31 vs 40)

If the odds of making the shot are high, or the re-try time on average is low compared to the average total cycle time, then it could well be worth not sacrificing a 29% point bonus. Someone want to generate an equation for this? :cool:

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

The way I would approach it would be to say if you have the ability and desire to shoot into the 10pt goal then go for it. The key is to know when to give up. If you miss the shot, recover quickly and put it into the 1pt goal (if the ball has some assist points on it. . . if not then it's not worth putting in the 1pt goal). I personally would not want the teams on my alliance taking 5 shots at the 10pt goal.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

Something I haven't seen much of, but might have missed...I was supposed to be teaching my students(I had one of the live feeds running in my robotics classroom...) I didn't see many teams going down to get the rebound...so...Cycle - team one inbounds passes to team 2...Team 2 passes to team 3, and then team 3 misses, Teams 1 and 2 aren't around to get the missed ball for the low goal...Also a lot of missed shots and truss shots going over the side of the arena... :-(

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

Well again this can be a matter of probability.
If I have a 80% rate of accuracy and miss, it's worth attempting a second shot rather than giving up 29% bonus points.
If I have a 20% rate of accuracy, I should never go for the high goal
If I have a 50% rate of accuracy, I should only re-try high goal if the time to reattempt is, say, less than 25% of total cycle time (need to setup the equations)

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

That makes perfect sense. The 29% bonus points that you mentioned is a variable as well. I guess one could make a spreadsheet with data like number of points on a ball, shooting percentage, estimated recovery time etc. and it could become a guideline for the optimal action for each situation. Looks like I have some homework to do :D

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

The 1 point goal is seriously underrated. Even considering a single robot. A truss pass to HP followed by 1 point goal can be done by a lot of robots in ten seconds, but people are wasting 20+ seconds trying to score in the ten point goal. Nothing to be afraid of. Is anyone really losing matches by being outscored yet? No, it's a battle of who makes the least mistakes and who's the most efficient. At least in Week 1.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

Looks like we need to factor in the odds of being *rejected* by the 10pt goal, too! Don't see the 1pt goal doing much in the way of rejecting...

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

My team immediately started this discussion after kickoff, and one of my mantras when we were struggling with getting our shooter to work was, "I don't care if we can shoot! Just get the intake to work for assists and low goals!"

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

With only one shooter and a slow ground-loading rookie (I think?) we scored 144 points in a qualification match with 1pt goals. Triple assists plus truss catches rack up the points super fast.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

One of the times I think the 1 point goal is important is getting rid of auto balls. NOT being able to cycle is killing some teams here in Cent Ill.

True, not making mistakes is very important. But yes, some matches are being won by purely being outscored. Not just those quirks of the schedule where 3 rookies are agai st one or two of the powerhouses (although we've seen that, too). Not many, but we'll see more of that this afternoon.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

Yes the 1pt goal is seriously underrated by many teams based on what I saw at the Auburn Mountainveiw District event. I saw way too many missed 10 pt shots that wasted a lot of time chasing the ball back down. I saw a couple of cases where there were multiple misses that wated a lot of time, easily enough to have got another 3 assist + low goal cycle.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

The simplest way to confirm the effectiveness of the one point goal, at this stage of competition was the Southfield district. 7th seed went for the 3-assist one point goal and made it all the way to the finals. Props to 862 1250 and 2474 for working together so well.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

I agree. It's all about points/second. If you are faster and much more accurate shooting for the low goal, then do it.