![]() |
High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Initially, our team reached the general consensus that scoring boulders in the high goals is advantageous. However, I don't see that much advantage aside from in auto. Is seems to me that it would be better to opt out of the 3 extra points per shot and increase cycle time than spend a lot of time and energy developing a high goal shooter that requires more time to line up shot (even with vision processing) and is even more susceptible/sensitive to defense. Thoughts?
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
shooting high goal can be hard, and low goal is a safe play. Having a mechanism that can shoot both high and low could be a good compromise if you're up to the challenge!
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
I believe that at the highest levels of play, shooting in the high goal is necessary. The breaching points are limited for the powerhouse teams that can consistently and quickly take down all the defenses. Also, an accurate high goal shot from farther away would make for a faster cycle time than rolling up to the batter and scoring in the low goal. High goal shots will be where games are won or lost, imo.
So, if your team's goal is to build a robot that wins regional, I think scoring in the low goal is not the way to go. Unlike 2014, you can't park in front of the low goal and score quickly and almost certainly by feeding from the human player's caught truss shot. However, if your team's goal is to build a robot that works, and you're not confident your team can make a good high goal shooter, it would make sense for your team to go for the low goal. In addition, if your team's goal is to challenge yourselves/the students, then of course your team should go for the high goal whether or not that would be wise in terms of winning the competition. It all depends on your team's goals. What do you want to do? |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
It comes down to a preference,whether you know speed or accuracy.I feel as though fast pushing robot is just as effective as an accurate high goal robot.Plus anyone can push a boulder using the front of their robot whereas only the team who making shooters can make high goals and those bots may be seen as more valuable during alliance selection.
|
Well don't forget a low goal bot does not have to be a pushing bot. We are primarily designing a low goal, breaching, and climbing bot with active intakes it will also have pitch control so there is a good chance we can make high goals.
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
In my opinion, a good high goal shooter could score more quickly than a low goal scorer. Why? There is a center high goal, so the shot could be made as soon as the robot clears the defense, whereas to score a low goal, the robot must maneuver around to the side of the tower and approach pretty close to the tower to score.
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
A low goal is 2 points. A high goal is 5 points. So, you would have to score 2.5 low goals for every high goal.
A high goal can be shot immediately upon crossing the defense. A low goal requires driving all the way to the castle. So, for an accurate shooter, there is not much time difference (time to line up the shot vs time to drive up to the castle). Note: This presumes that the Alliance can cross enough times (minimum of 8) to "Breach". Assuming that each bot crosses during Autonomous, that means each bot must complete at least 2 cycles during teleop to Breach. That does not sound too hard, so the Crossing points should not be a factor in the decision of high vs low goal. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
As I see it, this years game is all about fast cycle time while weakening the defenses and while weakening the tower. If your team can accomplish this with low goals you will be valuable to your alliance at regionals. The elites will have fast cycle times shooting high goal at championship.
I believe it's all about maximizing your points and capturing the tower is critical while totally weakening the defenses. The real elites will successfully scale the majority of the time. Strategy comes into play when you miss a goal. Do you lose cycle time trying to score a second time or repeat cycle to weaken defense? That's where having the ability to quickly score in low goal comes into play. Great robots will be able to score high and low fast. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Your percent accuracy on high goal shots will be very important. Missing one or two of those in eliminations could cause your alliance to run out of time before you're able to weaken the tower and move onto capturing, which equals big points. It's not just a matter of 2 points vs 5 points.
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Just wanted to pointed out that there are no protected areas to line up shots from, as well as the many obstacles which block line of sight.
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
You could potentially shoot from the corners of the field, sort of like box shooting from 2014.
Scoring in the low goal could arguably be more reliable for the purpose of weakening the tower, especially if you have a robot that can fit under the low bar, which makes it much easier to cross the outer works. This would be better for racking up ranking points during qualification rounds. It wouldn't work that well later in the season when high goal robots are more refined but it would be a good strategy to advance in districts or to reach elims, etc. Basically, low goal would perform better in early season and high goal would be better late season. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
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:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
During Arial Assist, our bot had a pretty good accuracy shooting the high goal with a low robot. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
The high goal this year is by far (horizontally) the tightest goal we've ever had to shoot into, especially with no safe zones from defense. The goals in 2006/2012/2013/2014 were all multiple times wider then the game piece, this year your clearance is 6" total... I think teams are vastly underestimating how difficult it will be to score in the high goal this year and how long it will take to line up the shot, even from very close. In 2012 (the closest shooting game in difficulty), the top teams often took 10 seconds to properly lineup their shots (and they had a safe zone to shoot from).
I'll be very impressed when we see a single robot do 8 boulder high goal scores by themselves. In our best match in 2013 we were able to do 7 full court cycles with no defenses to get over, no defensive robots bothering us, a safe zone with a fast passive alignment mechanism, and one of the fastest shooters in the world (usually around a second to unload all 4 discs). |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
If they let this protected shooting zone stand, then scouting high scorers to put their weakest defense in slot 4 is going to be important. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
I think we are putting emphasis on different aspects of the same issue. You were emphasizing the difficulties of scoring in the high goal and the high probability of missing it. I was emphasizing the significant consequences of missing the high goal. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
Certainly if we can breach defenses we can drive and push boulders into low goals, but only if the alliance members are too busy or unable. Breaching is 40 game pts plus guaranteed RP. Capturing requires 8 boulders (ranging game point combos from 8-40 pts) and only a RP is all three 'bots at least challenge. Especially in early weeks and matches, that is NOT guaranteed! As for withholding allowance - oh, yes! Definitely! |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
The Low Bar doesn't move either and you either go under it or over it. There is another thread here discussing the robot geometry required to go under it. Perhaps your team can make cardboard mockups of the Defenses with moving parts and play with different concepts to see if you can reduce the number of mechanisms further. These would not even have to be full-sized. It would be a lot faster than building them following the drawings then finding that you might not have any ideas that are promising. The following video might give you some ideas too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJREahxuy4Q |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Are there any limitations on the number of wheels that we are able to use this year?
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
We pretty quickly settled on going under the low bar (someone said above that you can go under or over.... No, you can't.) This makes a device designed to pick up a ball and transport it, with another for scaling the tower, a sufficient design challenge for the time allotted.
What I mean by that is that for our engineering resources, a "do it all" robot that can play the whole game at the highest level is not realistic, and the hardest of those levels is the high goal. Points-wise, eight cycles leaves us in a -24 deficit doing low-to-high comparisons (assuming 100% accuracy and time to make eight cycles), but that swings +10 in our favor by being able to do the always-present low bar. 14 points off our theoretical maximum (call it 19 if we can get an autonomous score either way) in exchange for a drastic simplification of the design process? Yeah, we'll take that trade-off, and the only way we'll live to regret it is if we make it to Champs--at which point we'll happily compete to the best of our ability with our low-goal scoring robot. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
low goal shots damage the tower with exactly the same effect as a high goal shot. Any robot that can put in 2-3 low goals will really help an alliance gain the tower QP A quick low goal scorer that can hang.... VERY VALUABLE robot.... Even with unlimited resources.... low goal scoring is a perfectly viable option... especially if you factor in time... I will gladly put a low goal scorer than can do 8 goals in a match on my alliance..... This is a game of alliances... The GDC has made some really good choices here regarding how points can be scored... they have done their homework. As we look at the game, more and more things pop up... A High Goal Scorer that only does that will not win games.... they have to have help.... You cannot put in enough boulders by one robot to control the game. The other tasks are necessary too....for both quals and elims. Nice work GDC.... we have real alliances again.... with the necessity to work together to win.... game plans in this game are much more complex than anything I have ever seen before. Time is the enemy..... finding ways for alliances to work together can substantially reduce times it will take to accomplish game objectives thus yielding more total game points. This game will be a well orchestrated ballet by the time we get to St. Louis. Not just a bludgeoning.... |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
At first I thought high goal all the way. After testing and playing with our Ri3D robot I have changed my mind. Now obviously we don't have any autonomy including vision built into the robot, but we did have people right next to our robot telling us what direction to aim. A few degrees left or right and you're missing the high goal. Meanwhile the low goal takes some skill to miss when you're next to it. For 90+% of teams I think the low goal will be more efficient. The only way I think high goal is worth it is if you have an automatic aiming system, or a tall robot that puts the ball as close as possible to the goal.
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
I predict 8 high shots made by 2 robots in 25 seconds. The great teams. The teams I know and the teams I've seen. This to me is very doable. Both of these robots will be low bar speedster. God Bless Mentor Mac.
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
High goal gets you more than double the points, so the low goal will be better IF it cuts your cycle time in half, or more. Personally I don't think that is likely. A robot should be designed to be able to do both. We are planning to only do low goals if it will mean the difference in getting that 8th ball scored to weaken the tower.
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
So, if even if missed shots increase cycle time 50%, high goal still gets you more points. Missed shots would need to more than double your cycle time in order for low goal to be better. That judgement is hard to make at this point.
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
For me, these are the pros and cons of low goal:
Pros: -Easy to build for -Pretty much guaranteed points if you can get past the defensive robot -Most mechanisms won't take up too much space on the robot(more room for lifter) -Weakens the Tower at same pace as high goal -Much less stressful design if you have limited resources Cons: -Have to get past the defensive robot -Not as cool as having something that shoots -3 points less per MADE shot |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
(In my experience, extrapolated to this season. I'll be delighted to be wrong.) |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
G39 G40 ROBOTS are prohibited from launching BOULDERS unless they are in contact with the opponent’s TOWER or carpet in the opponent’s COURTYARD, and not in contact with any other carpet. Violation: TECH FOUL per BOULDER |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Low goal shooting gets you to the eliminations but you lose when you get there.
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
Your quote is exactly why it is legal, and protected space, all you have to do is contact courtyard carpet to launch a ball. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
Legal |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
More realistically, very great cycle times will exist around 15-20 seconds. Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
I think that most people forget that there are 6 balls on the field at beginning of play and that there are always 6 balls on the field.
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
To continue my thought process........ ::rtm::
I believe that FIRST has designed a game with the potential for high scoring. And they heard people say they wanted robot interaction along with defense. But they developed a game with limited defense with harsh penalties associated with where you play defense. The updates continue to make defense even more difficult. In years past they had games where a rookie team with limited resources would end up being a defensive bot (that potential is still there obviously) but those same bots can be very active helping to weaken the defenses. And those same bots can be involved in the end game this year. So, theoretically a team with limited resources can be very involved with power ranking points. (RP points) The low hanging fruit is very inviting and everyone can be a major contributor on scoring. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Its fairly simple:
High Goal can if done right INCREASE POINTS and DECREASE CYCLE TIMES and DEFENSIVE ISSUES. Low goal is POTENTIALLY EASIER and MORE RELIABLE but INCREASES CYCLE TIMES and INVITES DEFENSIVE ISSUES Now in Weeks 1 and 2 I feel a good low goal bot could make the Elims and even be on winning alliance.... however in Worlds they will not have much impact. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
If I have two high-goalers I will look for a scaler that can deliver boulders and weaken defenses. I will assume this bot can play defense if needed.
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
Captain can do it all probably the best HG shooter of the Alliance and can at will destroy any Defense and Scale (That's how they got captain) ..however they need help as time is a factor and cycle times are longer (One Boulder, multiple crosses slow cycles down) has every time cross+HG auto 2nd Pick will likely be a Scaler and can cross Defenses (Defense destroy Specialist very fast at doing so) as the cycle time to destroy a defense is slightly > the cycle time for acquiring boulder then cross in HG. Both the castle and the defenses require 8 Hit points EACH to get the RP or high value points. This bot may also play defense when done destroying. Has cross auto. Third pick will likely be a Scaler* and not be as good at HG shot/defense destroy but is unique somehow (*perhaps a cheesecaked scaler) and very fast and can deliver boulders to enemy courtyard fairly quickly (maybe limbo bot) to Captain to help decrease avg HG cycle time and provide some defense harassing if needed. Has cross auto. You almost have to divide and conquer this game three ways.... winning alliances will BREACH (8HP), CAPTURE(8HP) and SCALE(x3) in 150 seconds and dividing this task will be necessary as there are only 135 seconds in teleop.... to accomplish 12ish hit point tasks + Driving to batter AND climbing in last 20 seconds So lets scenario this out: Best case scenario IMO: Auto 3 HP on defense + 3 HP on castle (Not likely...so lets go 4 Hit points...three crosses + 1 HG average ) Teleop: That leaves 12 HP left for Teleop typically at high levels of play 135 seconds / 12 = 11.25 avg seconds to either acquire and score a boulder + typically a defense cross or cross a defense in essence four times. Impossible with one bot and unlikely with two, possible with three all contributing. With average cycle times to either (ACQUIRE BOULDER+CROSS+HG) or (CROSS+CROSS+CROSS) being in the average of 20-30 seconds there is not much room for missed shots or a harassing defensive bot to accomplish 12ish separate scoring plays. So unless you specialize and divide and conquer there is no way to win the worlds. Simply not enough time in the game its going to take ALL THREE robots to allow for imperfect game play wasted time and potential defense issues from other alliance. Just like last year... 2 GREAT and 1 Decent < 3 ALMOST GREAT Low goal ? Nah... better to cross and dump off to automatic HG shooter (2.5 times better per cycle) + play some good defense (- 5 pts for opponent) |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
At the highest levels of play methinks the calculus is quite simple--if you can build a robot that can consistently defeat at least one class of defense and then consistently and quickly shoot high goal shots from 4'6" up and with its bumpers over the Outer Works, then that's what you build and you go on to win most of the events you participate in.
If you can't, then you scale back your expectations and build the best robot you can that *can* score consistently and quickly, somehow, from somewhere. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
OK then. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
That is faster slightly than crossing different defenses on average. TO destroy a defense and be on right side (opponents courtyard) at 20 second endgame it FOUR crossings per defense. TO shoot a HG its One acquire action, One cross and One shot and if delivered Two actions OR worst case ...Cross back + acquire + cross + shoot = 4 actions Time wise (each action)... Cross=Cross HG Shot << Cross Acquire <= Cross Time wise self contained scoring (HG versus Defense destroy) .... THREE actions < Four Actions |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
I feel like most people in this thread are overvaluing the low goal, when really, the high goal is where the points are. But really, what it comes down to is what your team wants to accomplish. If I'm a captain at the World Championship, and I'm a high goal scorer, you better believe I want three more high goal capable robots in case one of the shooters goes down for any reason. In the 2nd/3rd round pick, I would look more for robots that can quickly feed while still having the high goal capability, but I don't want to be restricted to the low goal while [powerhouse team] is draining high goal after high goal, and 2 high goals from them in less than 30 seconds is equivalent to 5 low goals in 1:00-1:15. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but in 2012, every robot on Einstein missed shots on the high goal, from a protected zone much closer than the protected zone available this year. They also didn't line up the shot instantly. 1114 took like 3 seconds to line up their shots. I don't think perfection and instant aiming is something it's reasonable to expect from high goal shooters this year. I especially don't think it's something to expect when you get down to 3rd pick. So again, do you want a mediocre or worse high-goaler, or an above average low-goaler?
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
When you still need to damage defenses, minimizing cycle time is important, so shooting low goal minimizes the variance (if you miss the high goal, your cycle time goes way up).
That said, there are only 2 low goals, so if they are occupied, then to take a shot instead of waiting around. Once you have breached the defenses, a high goal is worth 2.5 times a low goal. If you can make 50% of your shots, it makes sense to shoot high to maximize the average number of points for a given amount of time. If your cycle time goes up by 30% (to account for missed shots), that is still a net benefit for 2.5 times more points. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
Even with 2 amazing high goals scorers, there was certainly a need for 180's Defensive, Ball-Control, End-Game Specialist robot on the winning alliance. The big advantage Stronghold has for a HighGoal shooter is the orientation of the goal (vertical v horizontal). But even on Einstein in 2006's Aim High, you still see missed shots on a humongous goal. (Is Team 25 destined for Einstein again in another year of the foam ball?;) ) I'm very interested to see how the optimal strategy for playing Stronghold changes from week to week. Factoring in the 3 point bonus for a high goal shot AND the 25 point playoff bonus for capturing the tower, what percentage of HG shots do you need to make in order to make it worth your while? How will that question be answered differently in week 1 vs. week 8? |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
I know in 2014, we won SMR without our alliance shooting a single high goal in elims, even though our opponents were shooting high goals. Never underestimate the value of the low goal!
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Man I can't find enough evidence for either goal to make one more valuable then the other. Looks like its back to flipping coins for strategy choices.
My two cents are that you want to take high shots from spy box side/outer works and low goals secret passage side opponents secret passage. That way the it just turns into fish/kite city. |
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
I don't know if this was brought up earlier in the thread, but IMO the best strategy for the high goal would be to only go under the low bar, maybe have the capability to go over some of the other drive train stuff, but end up in one of the the corners on the same plane as the stronghold. Then using the corner to line up your robot, shoot the boulder in. Go back under the low bar straight to the secret passage way and pick up another ball. Rinse and repeat.
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
This is quite the discussion... Really, it's all going to come down to
1) What your team is capable of doing? 2) For what strategy are you optimizing your robot? High Goal Advantages: * With three available goals, it is possible to score from anywhere in the courtyard. * Each shot is worth more than double the points (not including capturing the tower). Low Goal Advantages: * It is more likely that you can use your acquiring mechanism to make the shot - instead of needing an additional manipulator. * A driver can basically drive up and put the boulder in the goals for easy high accuracy A team capable of hitting long distance shots into the high goals 50% of the time is better off shooting into the high goal if the plan is to cycle and other the flow of the match allows for a constant cycle of boulders.... However, in a slower paced game (especially if your allies and opponents both struggle with making shots) as, in order to create a capture, a robot will not be able to afford to miss and it might make sense to focus on the low goal... In higher level games, it is almost certain that boulders will almost exclusively be aimed at the high goal... For design plans, if you are planning to make scoring boulders a primary of your robot's role in the game, high goal scoring seems like a must so long as your team is able to make an effective high goal shooter - most likely this would have to include strong vision tracking and a consistent shooter that has enough pop to hit the mark from several locations on in the courtyard.... A team not able to create an accurate high-goal shooter would be far better off putting boulders in the low goal. |
Because we have our vision code up and running using the high goal is the plan. However, our ball intake can be reversed if we get into a jam and have to make low goals
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
I'm currently thinking that focusing on high goals is going to be important at the higher levels of play. I think that many regionals will see very competitive low goal scoring robots, but the tipping point will be robots that can score high goals nearly as fast as they can score low goals. I think those robots are going to be pretty rare, but that there is a real potential to decrease cycle time by not having to drive up to the tower to score each time.
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
I have put quite a bit of time since kick off contemplating this question. Obviously it depends on each teams resources and the evolution of game play. One thing that I have not yet heard people talk about is what happens to missed shots. The defending robot not being able to launch them really effects game state. That paired with the final 20 seconds being defense free is interesting. So I think that High goal is better for autonomous and endgame reasons. I am going to make a prediction and say that no alliance will win a regional or district championship without scoring at least 1 high goal shot.
|
| 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