![]() |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
R43 is oddly specific about bumpers. I now agree that there is a band of protected space, the depth of a bumper, from the edge of the COURTYARD going over the ramp of the OUTERWORKS.
I hope it gets clarified by QA. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
A lot of people have made a lot of good points here... obviously a HG is worth more (and is the only way to accumulate 'infinite' points, making it a key factor at highest levels) and I agree it can often be done faster by elite shooters.
BUT, I think this could be the hardest game to have high shot accuracy (compared to 2006, 2012, 2013, and perhaps even 2014). The goal (HG or LG) is only 2.5 balls high and 1.5 balls wide, making it one of the tightest goals we've ever had... I suspect THE tightest. 2006 was quite large compared to the ball, 2012 probably had a comparable or larger "sweet spot" on the backboard for backspun balls, 2013 was far bigger, and 2014 was ~1.5 balls tall and wicked wide. One of the only "protected areas" is backed against the Defenses, which isn't bad, but it doesn't have the super-close fender option that 2012 had. To make the goal size even more significant, you only get 1 shot per cycle... so if you miss 25% or 33% of your shots or so, the cost is considerably higher (you have much fewer shots AND you can't use your first as a 'tracer' of sorts). Furthermore, and we have yet to see how the Boulders wear... and how that'll impact various shooter designs. Consider though, that a rare few teams in 2012 actually had a 'ball stiffness testers' on their robot to calibrate for each ball's wear/stiffness... At any rate, I think that elite HG shooters will be formiddable and will require excellent defense to stop and/or some serious offensive firepower on the other side... that said, I also think that strong HG shooters will be very rare and that many teams attempting HG shooters will (or should, but perhaps won't) end up prefering the LG. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Prediction: Regionals will be won with alliance captains who either can't shoot high goals or score almost exclusively low goals this year. Especially at early events, it will be a challenge to get 8 balls in the tower consistently during most qual matches.
After the disaster that was 2015 for the MCC robot, 2016 is looking more like other years, where the jack of all trades is the master of none. I'm a big fan of this game. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
We've made a different decision than I am seeing here... we've decided to not score high or low goals at all, but focus on speed and defeating all the defense obstacles. Our aim is to be able to deliver boulders to alliance members in the courtyard for goal scoring while breaching the outer works. If we can get the speed factor high enough, we can give our alliance members time to line up high goals and evade defense bots - or chase down missed shots and try again - while we bring them ammunition. If we can succeed, our alliance members will be able to spend more time in the courtyard attacking the tower's strength towards capture, while we focus on breaching the outer works. This strategy will play to our strengths, while presenting a challenge in getting the cycle time low enough to benefit the alliance. Thoughts?
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
Your team needs to be very honest about what it is capable of accomplishing then apply Karthik's two Golden Rules. Some of the features you then choose to implement may be a stretch but it should be a thoroughly calculated risk. Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
I am seeing the ability to score high goal as an unnecessary ability unless you have an alliance partner that will bring boulders to the courtyard to shorten time in between cycles. I think an optimal robot is one that is fast at getting over/under all defenses while picking up boulders for quick low goal scoring or just releasing for another team. In quals it can score them while doing the defenses and in elims release them for a team member that can shoot high goals accurately that might take more time but less since they would be in a relatively close position to the tower.
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
You have 18 game pieces potentially available to you in this game. The limited number of game pieces will make the high goal valuable at high levels. Low goal to win regionals/districts, but I think the World champs will be the alliance that can most effectively put balls in the high goal. So many teams will stuggle just to get across the defenses... at low levels of play I think the low goal rules. Open up that ability to capture the tower and you're in great shape.
On the other hand, if you can score in the high goal, you can score in the low goal. Don't start the year off by setting restrictions like that for your robot. I think a lot of teams will find out during prototyping the these boulders are easy to manipulate. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
I'm kind of curious: has anyone in this thread actually ran a Time Study of this game with your team, or is this all uncalculated opinion? Did your Time Study account for missed-shot probability and chase-down time? Did it account for defense played on the shooter?
You'd be quite surprised how similar the Expected Values are between low and high goal scoring. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
The low bar defense also brings a case for low scoring. That defense is always there, in a predictable place, ideal for teams to build low scoring solutions in auto. A bot that goes under that bar is going to have a harder time shooting a high shot then a bot that builds all the way to the height limit.
The winning alliance almost always has a team of vairos roles. It seems to me the low score bot is just as much a part of a winning aliance as the high one. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:00. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi