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.

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!

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

Thanks! I expected the 1-pt goal would make be a viable scoring option this season, but I was a bit surprised how well it worked. Our robot is capable of scoring the high goal, but under heavy defense it simply wasn't viable to do so unless you could fire on the run; and with 2/3 of the opposing alliance on defense, I think we'll see a lot more teams favoring the 1pt goal in elims.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

We ran the math on this, and the math comes to the same conclusion.

Variables:

• BallBase - Value of the ball. A fresh ball is 0pts, single-assist is 10pt, double-assist is 30pt, etc.
• ShooterP - High goal probability. Probability of getting a shot into the high goal. Value between 0 (never) and 1 (always)
• HighWaste - How many seconds you waste recovering a missed high goal shot
• LowWaste - How many seconds you waste repositioning after a failed low goal shot
• LowGoalP - Low goal probability. How probable each attempt at the low goal will go in.
• LowGoalTime - Time it takes to do a low goal attempt.
• HighGoalTime - Time it takes to do a high goal attempt.
• PointsPerSecond - How many points a wasted second is worth. I usually use 1pt/second, assuming 140pt alliance scores.

Concept: Expected value. The expected value of some event is the probability of the event occurring multiplied by the value of that event. So if you have ShooterP=0.5 and a 0pt ball, then E(highgoal) = 0.5*(0pt + 10pt) = 5pts.

Now, the expected value of a high-goal attempt:
E(highgoal) = (BallBase+10 - HighGoalTime*PointsPerSecond)*ShooterP - (HighWaste*PointsPerSecond)*(1-ShooterP)

Let's go through that:
"BallBase+10": Adding the 10pt high goal bonus
"- HighGoalTime*PointsPerSecond" - Subtracting the point value of the time it takes to make a high goal attempt
"*ShooterP" - Finds the expected value of a successful high goal attempt by multiplying the big term in brackets by high likely that it will occur
"- (HighWaste*PointsPerSecond)" - subtracts the cost of missing multiplied by the probability of missing (1-ShooterP)

Likewise, we have the low goal equation:
E(LowGoal) = (BallBase+1 - LowGoalTime*PointsPerSecond)*LowGoalP - (LowWaste*PointsPerSecond)*(1-LowGoalP)

Ideally, you'd want your expected value of a high goal shot to be positive. However, for many teams with unreliable shooters, it won't be.

But having a positive high goal expected value isn't sufficient. What you need is for the expected value of a high goal shot to EXCEED the expected value of a low goal shot.

Thus, you need:
E(HighGoal) > E(LowGoal)

Let's solve for how good your shooter needs to be (ShooterP) to be worth going for the high goal...

• (BallBase+10 - HighGoalTime*PointsPerSecond)*ShooterP - (HighWaste*PointsPerSecond)*(1-ShooterP) > (BallBase+1 - LowGoalTime*PointsPerSecond)*LowGoalP - (LowWaste*PointsPerSecond)*(1-LowGoalP)
• multiply shooterPs (and call ShooterP SP for shortening)
• SP*BallBase + 10SP - SP*HighGoalTime*PointsPerSecond - HighWaste*PointsPerSecond + SP*HighWaste*PointsPerSecond > ...
• SP(BallBase + 10 - HighGoalTime*PointsPerSecond + HighWaste*PointsperSecond) - HighWaste*PointsPerSecond > ...
• SP(BallBase + 10 - HighGoalTime*PointsPerSecond + HighWaste*PointsperSecond) > (BallBase+1 - LowGoalTime*PointsPerSecond)*LowGoalP - (LowWaste*PointsPerSecond)*(1-LowGoalP) + HighWaste*PointsPerSecond
• SP > ((BallBase+1 - LowGoalTime*PointsPerSecond)*LowGoalP - (LowWaste*PointsPerSecond)*(1-LowGoalP) + HighWaste*PointsPerSecond) / (BallBase + 10 - HighGoalTime*PointsPerSecond + HighWaste*PointsperSecond)

So if you plug in your BallBase, LowGoalTime, PointsPerSecond, LowGoalP, LowWaste, HighWaste, HighGoalTime assumptions into that equation, it'll tell you how good your shooter needs to be in order to make it worth taking a high shot over a low shot.

For example, let's say:
BallBase = 30 (double-assist ball)
HighWaste = 20 (20 seconds to recover a bounced ball)
PointsPerSecond = 1 (assuming a 140pt match)
LowGoalP = 0.85 (low goal is easy)
LowWaste = 5 (repositioning after a low goal miss is quick)
HighGoalTime = 2 (quick shooter)
LowGoalTime = 5 (positioning again)

Then:
SP > ((30+1 - 5*1)*0.85 - (5*1)*(1-0.85) + 20*1) / (30 + 10 - 2*1 + 20*1)
SP > (26*0.85 - 0.75 + 20) / (40 - 2 + 20)
SP > 41.35 / 58
SP > 0.71

So in that scenario (and given this equation), you should be sure you have a shooter accuracy of more than 71% before trying for the high goal, as the expected value of a low goal attempt is greater.

I feel the teams that can acurately score in the 10 pt goal are going to to be the teams that we see winning later in the season. Now it seems like the one point goal is a good option but once 10 point shooters are fine tuned and drivers get experience i feel they will dominate over 1 pointers

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

One problem with that though is that as drivers improve the defense will also get much better, and from what I've seen it's a whole lot harder to do the high goal under defense than the low goal.

Re: 10 point goal versus 1 point goal
 

We played in GTR-W in week 1. During qualifications, we typically go for high goal because defence is not as intense.

In elimination, it's very difficult to get a shot off, unless a reliable running shot is an option (e.g. the shot after the block attempt here. http://www.justin.tv/watchfirstnow2/b/507662405?t=2231) We find it hard to do this reliably though.

Low goal is our friend and we primarily rely on 2 assists, truss and low goal (31pt cycles.)