Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

Simply put, it seems that low cycle times, and thus more cycles, are better than high cycle scores.

900 had a hard time convincing other teams of this on Thursday and Friday at Palmetto but they seemed to figure it out on Saturday morning. It's definitely really hard for a team that spent 6 weeks working on a 10 point shooter to give up on it and instead just push the ball into the 1 point goal.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

Along the same lines is if the truss shot is better than a high goal. When we played with 2 non or questionable shooters we would opt for the truss with 3 assists and a low goal. Much better odds of success.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

I thought this could help support this Thread. Good Luck. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXKXpt-eq-s
:)

Oh gosh. That's terrible. I think the blue team scored close to zero points because of their stubbornness of wanting to get in the high goal with the auto ball.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

Yeah, I suspect just about every single drive team got chewed out by the scouts and folks in the stands on Friday night. Saturday morning, the teams started to realize that they needed to get the ball off the field as quickly as possible.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

Those of you who watched the GTRW Webcast today, most alliances switched to low goal scoring when D was on them. I really found it cleaned up the game and made it flow a lot better when teams were not trying and failing to score in the high goal through D. In the finals most cycles were completed with a low goal score, this is really going to level the playing-field going forward. Teams that focused on high goal scoring are going to have to adjust their strategy, getting shots off in elims is really hard, the most efficient way to score is cycling into the low goal when you can't get a high goal shot off.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

They still scored 66 because of a 50 point penalty. (15 in auto + 1 low goal + 50 penalty)

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

Agreed that teams aren't using the one point goal with assists strategically. Occasionally three assists were wasted by ten point attempts that failed. The #4 (or 5, I forget) Alamo alliance lost in quarter finals because of this. 31 points would have easily sealed a win.

What drove me crazy was watching teams try to push the ball into the one point goal with their affector over and over and over again rather than spin around and back in using their big flat sign or polycarb sheet as a nice bulldozer. Where are their coaches? This should be an easily practiced move.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

The value of the 1 point goal increases as the game progresses. You can afford spending a (small) amount of time at the beginning of the game getting that extra 9 points, but towards the end of the match it's more important to "bank" your assist points.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

Not in the elimination matches. It's just not worth it unless your 10 point shooter can make it in every single time. If the ball bounces back then you have wasted at least another 5-10 seconds getting the ball back under your control and into the goal. That's 5-10 seconds you are taking away from a 18-20 second cycle time if you have someone like us or 148 performing a full court assist over the truss.

I suspect that you will see full court assisting going from one robot on one side of the field in front of the oppositions 1 pt goal to another robot sitting on the other side of the field in front of their own 1 pt goal by the time Einstein matches are being played out. Those robots will likely be putting it in the 10 pt goal but the cycle times will be under 20 seconds and to shoot and miss will be devastating to an alliance.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

I too can also confirm this. We just got done with our regional (Palmetto), and when we got to finals we made a strategy with our alliance that if our robot misses the 10 point goal the first try just push it into the 1 point goal.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

I had a hard time explaining to many other drive teams that a "pass-> truss+catch -> 1pt goal" (51pts) cycle was a far better option than "pass->pass -> high goal" (40pts) cycle. It can even be superior to a "pass->truss->high goal" cycle (50pts) and halves the opportunity to lose possession of the ball (only 1 shot vs 2). Heck, a 2-robot cycle of truss->catch->low goal is worth the same 31pts of a 3-assist low goal cycle with the potential to be much faster.

I hope many more teams recognize the utility of both trussing AND catching the truss shot (10pts each, awarded instantly) and then scoring in the low goal.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

I 100% agree. This strategy will take over games with the right robots doing it. If done properly it is as close to being indefensible as you can get in this game. The best part about it is that the ball (if done properly) will never touch the ground so there is no time lost chasing the ball around. I don't think it will be a very common strategy at all because it takes a very powerful shot to complete. For those that can shoot it that far, it will be deadly.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

We're counting on it. :)

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

I really hope you guys can make it to champs and then to Einstein. I have a bet with my team stating that a Full court assisting robot will be on Einstein. Good luck at your next regional!