Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   High Goal Vs. Low Goal (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141414)

Gamma + 11-01-2016 01:30

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?

MaGiC_PiKaChU 11-01-2016 01:40

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!

Chak 11-01-2016 01:43

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?

NicholasPherson 11-01-2016 01:44

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.

Sperkowsky 11-01-2016 01:56

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.

martin417 11-01-2016 05:21

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.

rich2202 11-01-2016 05:55

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.

Sunshine 11-01-2016 06:07

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.

JoshWilson 11-01-2016 06:38

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky (Post 1520846)
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.

Actually, it kinda does, because shooting the ball in will cause it to bounce back out most of the time. The goal is also smaller, and harder to hit, so the times you do hit into it, you need to make sure you didn't put to much force into your shot so it doesn't hit the ball director thing inside the tower, and bounce back out.

Nemo 11-01-2016 08:12

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.

natejo99 11-01-2016 08:21

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemo (Post 1520921)
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.

This is the mindset that Team 74 has. The high goal is pretty small, and missing 1 or more shots in a match is pretty realistic. At least in the first few weeks of competition, I think the low goals will be more consistent, and allow teams to score more points in the long run.

Procolsaurus 11-01-2016 09:04

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.

adam the great 11-01-2016 09:36

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Procolsaurus (Post 1520947)
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.

Actually the current wording of the rules does allow you to safely shoot and score from the outworks if you drive past the outer works and back up so your bumper is overhanging that area and wheels are on the courtyard carpet. I believe you could even backup against a outer works defense and as long as you are touching the courtyard carpet (and only carpet in that zone) you could shoot the ball and not be touched.

Grayspecter 11-01-2016 09:43

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.

AndyBare 11-01-2016 09:44

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by adam the great (Post 1520962)
Actually the current wording of the rules does allow you to safely shoot and score from the outworks if you drive past the outer works and back up so your bumper is overhanging that area and wheels are on the courtyard carpet. I believe you could even backup against a outer works defense and as long as you are touching the courtyard carpet (and only carpet in that zone) you could shoot the ball and not be touched.

Yep. G43, for those of you interested. There are other threads discussing that matter, but the proof is in the pudding. The rule is solid (in that aspect) as of now. [Rule G43 does have other problems that may lead to revision] - mostly with the phrase "attempting to traverse"

Procolsaurus 11-01-2016 10:00

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.

Nathan Streeter 11-01-2016 10:08

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.

Chris is me 11-01-2016 10:52

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.

coachm 11-01-2016 11:33

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?

philso 11-01-2016 11:36

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter (Post 1520987)
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.

How much time will your robot spend chasing the same boulder around if you miss the high goal? Keep in mind that there are two sets of Defenses that may be obscuring your view of the courtyard your robot is in and that a defending robot will be doing its best to interfere with your robot. It was heartbreaking in 2012 to watch our drivers waste many, many precious seconds where he could not see that the ball he was trying to pick up was really about 2 feet further down the field than the robot was.

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:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1521030)
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.

^ Yes!

philso 11-01-2016 11:37

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by coachm (Post 1521066)
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?

If your robot can bring boulders to the courtyard, it is likely that it will be capable of scoring in the low goal. If not, it would likely not take much more effort.

audietron 11-01-2016 11:44

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.

Kevin Sevcik 11-01-2016 11:51

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1521030)
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.

At the very least, I'll predict that at least 95% of regional winning alliances will have at least one robot that can't shoot high goals. The important thing is to consider how to contribute to an alliance if you're not the superstar high-goal robot.

Ginger Power 11-01-2016 13:35

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.

philso 11-01-2016 13:58

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ginger Power (Post 1521155)
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.

A mistake that many teams are likely to make is to aim to have the functionality to play at the Championship level at an early Tournament. At each tournament you compete at, including Championship, all of the teams there have had the same number of days to work on their robot. You are not competing with teams that have had more time to work on their robots.

Zebra_Fact_Man 11-01-2016 14:31

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.

Nathan Streeter 11-01-2016 14:42

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by philso (Post 1521067)
How much time will your robot spend chasing the same boulder around if you miss the high goal? Keep in mind that there are two sets of Defenses that may be obscuring your view of the courtyard your robot is in and that a defending robot will be doing its best to interfere with your robot. It was heartbreaking in 2012 to watch our drivers waste many, many precious seconds where he could not see that the ball he was trying to pick up was really about 2 feet further down the field than the robot was.

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments... but it seems like you thought they were in contrast to my post you quoted. I'd say my post was saying: shooting in the HG well enough to make it worthwhile will be very challenging... harder than HG shooting in previous games; but the rewards are big for those who can do it very, very well. The shooting mechanism itself must be very accurate and repeatable (depending on range to target), and it probably will need to be paired with auto-targeting, skilled and practiced drivers, and/or a consistent shooting location... but the teams that can have excellent shot accuracy and get into and out of position quickly will be very valuable (in some ways because I expect it to be a smaller group).

Quote:

Originally Posted by philso (Post 1521067)
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.

I concur. a lot. :-)

Kevin Sevcik 11-01-2016 14:44

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ginger Power (Post 1521155)
On the other hand, if you can score in the high goal, you can score in the low goal.

This is not a true statement. Brattice-load only high shooters can't hit low without adding a layer of complexity and inaccuracy to a shooter. Similarly if you have an irreversible ball collection mechanism. A high shooter that can also score low is a more specific and constrained design than just a high shooter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man (Post 1521215)
I'm kind of curious: has anyone in fthis 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.

Our team was, in fact, slightly flummoxed when we started estimating scoring potentials of high-goals specialists, breach and low goals, breach and scale bots, etc. They all came out rather surprisingly close together.

mitchklong 11-01-2016 14:56

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.

coachm 11-01-2016 14:58

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by philso (Post 1521068)
If your robot can bring boulders to the courtyard, it is likely that it will be capable of scoring in the low goal. If not, it would likely not take much more effort.

That might be true, but for securing purposes, we might choose to house the boulder inside the robot to cross the bumpy obstacles. Plus, low goal is an add on once we achieve our primary goal of crossing ALL the defenses. High goal is "right out", so to speak for us, though. Reality: 7 student members, 43 days, and 9 different obstacles is enough! LOL

Kevin Sevcik 11-01-2016 15:04

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by coachm (Post 1521254)
That might be true, but for securing purposes, we might choose to house the boulder inside the robot to cross the bumpy obstacles. Plus, low goal is an add on once we achieve our primary goal of crossing ALL the defenses. High goal is "right out", so to speak for us, though. Reality: 7 student members, 43 days, and 9 different obstacles is enough! LOL

The drawbridge specifically seems more complicated for a low bot to breach from the front, being 3' high, while everything else is 2' or lower. We've been figuring the drawbridge is so easy from the back, and so much more complicated from the front, that we wouldn't expend much effort on it.

markmcgary 11-01-2016 15:07

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ginger Power (Post 1521155)
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.

Is it not true that there will always be at least 6 boulders available on the field at all times? I would think that G34 would virtually guarantee that there will always be at least 6 boulders available.

Quote:

G34 No more than six (6) BOULDERS may remain in a CASTLE at any time. If the BOULDER count ever
exceeds six (6), excess BOULDERS must be introduced to the FIELD immediately.
Violation: FOUL per excess BOULDER

A_Reed 11-01-2016 15:13

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by markmcgary (Post 1521267)
Is it not true that there will always be at least 6 boulders available on the field at all times? I would think that G34 would virtually guarantee that there will always be at least 6 boulders available.

With 5 other robots potentially all possessing boulders by that rule there should always be one free boulder for your team. You may have very well have to trek all the way across the field to get it, thus slowing down the game even more. A 'gopher' bot may have its benefits to shuttle balls to the other side.

rich2202 11-01-2016 15:19

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mitchklong (Post 1521248)
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.

And a bot built to the height limit will have more problems traversing the defenses (remember crossing the bridge on rebound rumble).

During Arial Assist, our bot had a pretty good accuracy shooting the high goal with a low robot.

Jonathan Norris 11-01-2016 15:35

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).

Ginger Power 11-01-2016 15:39

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by markmcgary (Post 1521267)
Is it not true that there will always be at least 6 boulders available on the field at all times? I would think that G34 would virtually guarantee that there will always be at least 6 boulders available.

Thanks for clarifying this for me! The lack of sleep is catching up apparently.

Kevin Sevcik 11-01-2016 16:11

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Norris (Post 1521308)
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.

See earlier in this thread, there's some argument that G43 makes the entire OUTER WORKS a safe zone, since opponents can't interfere with a robot attempting a traverse, and a traverse is defined as any part of your bumper over the OUTER WORKS. So if you mostly cross a defense and stop on the courtyard side with your bumper still over the defense, then you've got yourself a protected zone for lining up your shot. Take your shot and finish crossing the defense by completely clearing it, and your opponent never has a chance to touch you, while you're still perfectly legal on boulder rules.

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.

philso 11-01-2016 16:32

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter (Post 1521227)
I agree wholeheartedly with your comments... but it seems like you thought they were in contrast to my post you quoted. I'd say my post was saying: shooting in the HG well enough to make it worthwhile will be very challenging... harder than HG shooting in previous games; but the rewards are big for those who can do it very, very well. The shooting mechanism itself must be very accurate and repeatable (depending on range to target), and it probably will need to be paired with auto-targeting, skilled and practiced drivers, and/or a consistent shooting location... but the teams that can have excellent shot accuracy and get into and out of position quickly will be very valuable (in some ways because I expect it to be a smaller group).

Hey Nathan

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.

philso 11-01-2016 16:48

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by coachm (Post 1521254)
That might be true, but for securing purposes, we might choose to house the boulder inside the robot to cross the bumpy obstacles. Plus, low goal is an add on once we achieve our primary goal of crossing ALL the defenses. High goal is "right out", so to speak for us, though. Reality: 7 student members, 43 days, and 9 different obstacles is enough! LOL

I would encourage your team to spend a bit of time thinking of how the number of mechanisms you are using to overcome the Defenses can be reduced. Since you have a small number of students, the extra time invested in thinking about reducing the number of mechanisms you will have to build (and buy materials for) will give greater returns to your team. It is also possible that in this exercise, your team might find a way to acquire and securely house a boulder using this mechanism :) With the limited resources you have available, it may be advantageous for you to plan on making use of the withholding allowance to buy you time.

coachm 11-01-2016 17:42

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by philso (Post 1521376)
I would encourage your team to spend a bit of time thinking of how the number of mechanisms you are using to overcome the Defenses can be reduced. Since you have a small number of students, the extra time invested in thinking about reducing the number of mechanisms you will have to build (and buy materials for) will give greater returns to your team. It is also possible that in this exercise, your team might find a way to acquire and securely house a boulder using this mechanism :) With the limited resources you have available, it may be advantageous for you to plan on making use of the withholding allowance to buy you time.

Indeed! Right now, we've narrowed it down to 3 motions/appendages and... what the heck with the low bar!... uh... any suggestions?

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!

philso 11-01-2016 20:14

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by coachm (Post 1521436)
Indeed! Right now, we've narrowed it down to 3 motions/appendages and... what the heck with the low bar!... uh... any suggestions?

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!

I think that the feeling of many here on CD is that several of the Defenses (the ones with no moving parts) might be defeated with proper drivetrain design so that might get rid of at least one of your mechanisms.

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

abigailthefox 11-01-2016 21:09

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chak (Post 1520839)
I believe that at the highest levels of play, shooting in the high goal is necessary.

Always a good idea to keep in mind that the game WILL evolve to high levels of play...so that while a low goal seems quick and easy now, ultimately, reliable high goal scoring will likely become a major force later on. However, if you don't have the time/resources to put into a reliable high goal mechanism, a quick low goal scorer won't win anything alone, but it's better than nothing.

messer5740 11-01-2016 21:12

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Are there any limitations on the number of wheels that we are able to use this year?

coachm 11-01-2016 21:32

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by philso (Post 1521568)
I think that the feeling of many here on CD is that several of the Defenses (the ones with no moving parts) might be defeated with proper drivetrain design so that might get rid of at least one of your mechanisms.

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

Thanks! I agree that a properly researched drivetrain, and ruggedly constructed 'bot will readily knock out 4 of the obstacles. We're kind of thinking 10" wheels - help get up over the wall in particular. Team Indiana on ri3d used the tank treads and they're bouncing all over the place. I am worried about securing the ball. A third row of wheels (not powered necessarily) might help with the cheval de frise, preventing the middle plank from swinging back up to catch the undercarriage and trap the 'bot - just something to be in contact with the ramp and hold it down while we drive over it. That one will take a model, we're building it tomorrow evening, I think. Unfortunately, it's final exams this week so our kids are a little split in their focus. Stupid school schedule, really. Finals AFTER winter hols? What a dumb idea.

Kevin Sevcik 11-01-2016 22:24

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by messer5740 (Post 1521610)
Are there any limitations on the number of wheels that we are able to use this year?

You may use no more than approximately 100 lbs of wheels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abigailthefox (Post 1521608)
Always a good idea to keep in mind that the game WILL evolve to high levels of play...so that while a low goal seems quick and easy now, ultimately, reliable high goal scoring will likely become a major force later on. However, if you don't have the time/resources to put into a reliable high goal mechanism, a quick low goal scorer won't win anything alone, but it's better than nothing.

I'm mildly concerned that you're relegating the vast majority of the FIRST community to better than nothing status or presumably worse. I think perhaps what you meant to say is that low goals can also offer a good points scored per effort expended if you can't manage high goals. If your team doesn't have the resources or expertise to make a successful high goal robot, then design within your available resources is the correct engineering decision. Try not to insult insult teams that are making design decisions that are smart and correct for their situation.

cait.schroeder 11-01-2016 22:35

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamma + (Post 1520831)
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?

I was actually thinking a lot about this too, my team is thinking of launching boulders into the high goal but in my opinion, a robot that can breach most defenses and constantly put boulders in the low goal is good rather than having to have an intake system and launch or outtake system for the boulders.

pfreivald 13-01-2016 15:05

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.

Bob Steele 13-01-2016 15:25

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by messer5740 (Post 1521610)
Are there any limitations on the number of wheels that we are able to use this year?

That would depend on how much each wheel weighs....

Kevin Sevcik 13-01-2016 15:32

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Steele (Post 1522914)
That would depend on how much each wheel weighs....

Assume we're talking HotWheels. How many then, do you think?

Bob Steele 13-01-2016 15:37

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by abigailthefox (Post 1521608)
Always a good idea to keep in mind that the game WILL evolve to high levels of play...so that while a low goal seems quick and easy now, ultimately, reliable high goal scoring will likely become a major force later on. However, if you don't have the time/resources to put into a reliable high goal mechanism, a quick low goal scorer won't win anything alone, but it's better than nothing.

It is a WHOLE LOT better than nothing....

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....

Mr. Tatorscout 13-01-2016 17:48

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by philso (Post 1521177)
A mistake that many teams are likely to make is to aim to have the functionality to play at the Championship level at an early Tournament. At each tournament you compete at, including Championship, all of the teams there have had the same number of days to work on their robot. You are not competing with teams that have had more time to work on their robots.

Doesn't that depend on whether they were a district robot or a multi vs single regional robot? The more competitions you play in, the more time you get to work on your robot.

Daniel_LaFleur 13-01-2016 18:57

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik (Post 1521342)
See earlier in this thread, there's some argument that G43 makes the entire OUTER WORKS a safe zone, since opponents can't interfere with a robot attempting a traverse, and a traverse is defined as any part of your bumper over the OUTER WORKS. So if you mostly cross a defense and stop on the courtyard side with your bumper still over the defense, then you've got yourself a protected zone for lining up your shot.

While this is true, I believe it will be very hard to do. Bumpers are 2 1/2" wide (maybe up to 3") and you cannot have your wheels in the OUTER WORKS. I see many penalties for "shooting from the OUTER WORKS" while attempting this maneuver (even if you score in the upper goal it's an equivalent 0 points and 0 tower reduction during teleop).

philso 13-01-2016 19:08

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Tatorscout (Post 1523009)
Doesn't that depend on whether they were a district robot or a multi vs single regional robot? The more competitions you play in, the more time you get to work on your robot.

If you are referring to working on your competition robot, then yes, the more competitions you attend, the more time you have to work on it. My comment was referring to the time you have to work in new mechanisms and/or software that you bring to any particular competition in your withholding allowance.

Kevin Sevcik 13-01-2016 19:52

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur (Post 1523061)
While this is true, I believe it will be very hard to do. Bumpers are 2 1/2" wide (maybe up to 3") and you cannot have your wheels in the OUTER WORKS. I see many penalties for "shooting from the OUTER WORKS" while attempting this maneuver (even if you score in the upper goal it's an equivalent 0 points and 0 tower reduction during teleop).

You don't have to completely exit the OUTER WORKS:
Quote:

Originally Posted by G39
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.

The OUTER WORKS aren't carpet, and you only have to touch the COURTYARD carpet. Heck, you could sit on the platform and shoot out a poking stick to touch the carpet and shoot nice and level and completely untouchable. Provided you stuck to the bumper and frame perimeter extension rules, of course.

Ginger Power 13-01-2016 20:43

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.

mac 16-01-2016 13:02

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.

mac 16-01-2016 14:41

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ginger Power (Post 1521155)
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.

In this game you have unlimited amount of balls to score. There is no ceiling on scoring. Thank You Mentor Mac

PowerfulKitty 16-01-2016 17:35

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.

Chris is me 16-01-2016 17:53

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PowerfulKitty (Post 1525000)
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.

I bet you will see a lot of teams try more than 8 shots on the high goal, miss some, and fail to fully weaken the tower, when they could have gotten them all in the low goal for points instead. It's not more than double the points at that point - it can even be less depending on how many you miss. To me this is a lot like 2014 where teams who try and miss the high goal are going to play a lot worse than teams that can more quickly cycle in the low goal.

PowerfulKitty 16-01-2016 17:57

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.

Chris is me 16-01-2016 18:04

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PowerfulKitty (Post 1525008)
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.

I would say it takes about as much time to pick up a missed ball, return to your shooting spot, aim, and fire again as it does to take another shot. 50% is optimistic. Not to mention that it probably takes more time to line up a high goal shot than it does to jam a low goal ball in.

team-4480 16-01-2016 18:21

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

nandeeka 16-01-2016 18:34

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by team-4480 (Post 1525016)
-Have to get past the defensive robot

It seems to me like this is should be a pro for low goal. The defense bot can only defend one goal at a time and so it will be easier to go up to a free goal. With the high goal, it is much more likely that the robot will get hit as it lines up to shoot.

rich2202 16-01-2016 18:52

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nandeeka (Post 1525018)
With the high goal, it is much more likely that the robot will get hit as it lines up to shoot.

If the Robot can shoot from the Outer works, it is protected from contact.

Bryce2471 16-01-2016 19:10

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rich2202 (Post 1525024)
If the Robot can shoot from the Outer works, it is protected from contact.

Correction: It is protected from "interference."

Quote:

G43 ROBOTS on the same half of the FIELD as their ALLIANCE TOWER may not interfere with
opponent ROBOTS attempting to traverse OUTER WORKS (regardless of direction). A ROBOT is
considered traversing the opponent’s OUTER WORKS if any part of its BUMPERS are within the
opponent’s OUTER WORKS.
Violation: FOUL. For every five (5) seconds in which the situation is not corrected, FOUL

pfreivald 16-01-2016 20:10

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rich2202 (Post 1525024)
If the Robot can shoot from the Outer works, it is protected from contact.

At a high level of play, this definitely matters. For most FRC teams, hitting a target that small from that distance with any kind of consistency will be a serious challenge, and far too many teams will spend far too much time failing at it, rather than designing around the low goal.

(In my experience, extrapolated to this season. I'll be delighted to be wrong.)

Sunshine 16-01-2016 20:31

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rich2202 (Post 1525024)
If the Robot can shoot from the Outer works, it is protected from contact.

Illegal
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

Sunshine 16-01-2016 20:33

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Low goal shooting gets you to the eliminations but you lose when you get there.

Kevin Sevcik 16-01-2016 20:34

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mac (Post 1524882)
In this game you have unlimited amount of balls to score. There is no ceiling on scoring. Thank You Mentor Mac

There's a ceiling, it's just not a hard ceiling. There will be no alliance that will score more than 40 high goals in a match. Also, there will be no single robot that will score more than 20 high goals in a match.

jdaming 16-01-2016 20:46

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine (Post 1525071)
Illegal
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

I don't understand. The have been many discussions about how a robot can be fully in compliance with what you quoted above and have their bumper still in the outer works and be protected while shooting. Are you disagreeing with this? Are you saying there is no protected space?

Your quote is exactly why it is legal, and protected space, all you have to do is contact courtyard carpet to launch a ball.

IndySam 16-01-2016 21:05

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine (Post 1525071)
Illegal
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

Bold and violet for emphasis.

Legal

Zebra_Fact_Man 17-01-2016 08:37

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mac (Post 1524823)
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.

6.25 seconds / shot / robot? Yeah, suuuuuuuure. Good luck with that.
More realistically, very great cycle times will exist around 15-20 seconds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PowerfulKitty (Post 1525008)
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.

Nope. You have to factor in points from crossing a defense. If I can low goal in 14 seconds (7pts) and only high goal in 20 sec (10pts), there is no difference in my scoring rate. (both = .5 pts / sec). It's gunna take time to line up your shot and/or collect the ball if you miss.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rich2202 (Post 1525024)
If the Robot can shoot from the Outer works, it is protected from contact.

You better be 4'6" tall, or you're gunna have visions of 2013 cross-court shooter defense dancing in your head.

Sunshine 17-01-2016 08:52

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.

Sunshine 17-01-2016 09:15

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.

Boltman 17-01-2016 09:58

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.

Boltman 17-01-2016 10:00

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man (Post 1525235)
6.25 seconds / shot / robot? Yeah, suuuuuuuure. Good luck with that.
More realistically, very great cycle times will exist around 15-20 seconds.



Nope. You have to factor in points from crossing a defense. If I can low goal in 14 seconds (7pts) and only high goal in 20 sec (10pts), there is no difference in my scoring rate. (both = .5 pts / sec). It's gunna take time to line up your shot and/or collect the ball if you miss.



You better be 4'6" tall, or you're gunna have visions of 2013 cross-court shooter defense dancing in your head.

As for 4'6" tall..not necessarily a limbo bot high power shooter can shoot this year from the furthest reaches of the courtyard of the opponent... I saw it. As for reliability well that needs to be seen.

Kevin Sevcik 17-01-2016 11:15

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Boltman (Post 1525259)
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.

Scenario: You're picking on Carver and you already have two high-goalers. For your second pick, are you picking a mediocre high-goaler that can only cross the rock wall and rough terrain, a pushy low-goaler that can cross everything, or a pushy defender that can cross anything but can't handle balls?

Sunshine 17-01-2016 11:20

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.

Boltman 17-01-2016 11:34

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik (Post 1525293)
Scenario: You're picking on Carver and you already have two high-goalers. For your second pick, are you picking a mediocre high-goaler that can only cross the rock wall and rough terrain, a pushy low-goaler that can cross everything, or a pushy defender that can cross anything but can't handle balls?

Pretty sure in Worlds this is the way it'll go. Its the race to 16 scoring plays + Scale x 3.

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)

pfreivald 17-01-2016 11:52

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.

Kevin Sevcik 17-01-2016 11:54

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine (Post 1525295)
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.

Congratulations, you've declared that a low-goal robot will have an impact on your Worlds Elim selection.

Doug Frisk 17-01-2016 11:54

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mac (Post 1524823)
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.

So you're predicting 6 seconds on average to travel to a boulder (which may be across both sets of outer works) travel back to the opponent's courtyard (which again may be across both sets of outer works) line up for a shot and score while avoiding a defensive robot.

OK then.

Chris is me 17-01-2016 12:09

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Boltman (Post 1525259)
Its fairly simple:

High Goal can if done right INCREASE POINTS and DECREASE CYCLE TIMES and DEFENSIVE ISSUES.

How does the high goal decrease cycle times? Driving six more feet forward is faster than aiming at a relatively tiny target, not to mention the odds of missing go up significantly.

mac 17-01-2016 12:28

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man (Post 1525235)
6.25 seconds / shot / robot? Yeah, suuuuuuuure. Good luck with that.
More realistically, very great cycle times will exist around 15-20 seconds.



Nope. You have to factor in points from crossing a defense. If I can low goal in 14 seconds (7pts) and only high goal in 20 sec (10pts), there is no difference in my scoring rate. (both = .5 pts / sec). It's gunna take time to line up your shot and/or collect the ball if you miss.



You better be 4'6" tall, or you're gunna have visions of 2013 cross-court shooter defense dancing in your head.

Could we get a side bet going? I'm not even counting on a feeder robot to a shooter robot. I note your math. I've had some good feelings in the past about speed and scoring. I feel your under estimating the teams. This counts on no defensive play on those 2 robots. The robot that picks up the ball from the safety zone will not have to wait. I think a 25 foot range shot can be met. I really think a robot can clear the low bar in 3 to 4 seconds. Let's try to stay in touch on this one. Please. Mentor Mac God Bless

Boltman 17-01-2016 12:39

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1525328)
How does the high goal decrease cycle times? Driving six more feet forward is faster than aiming at a relatively tiny target, not to mention the odds of missing go up significantly.

Top HG shooters will be automatic and perfect once they cross into the opponents courtyard with a boulder... a fairly quick play... Either Midline acquire+ cross+HG Or SP acquire + Low Bar + HG OR Coutyard acquire + HG if other bot deleivers.

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

Anthony Galea 17-01-2016 12:43

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik (Post 1525317)
Congratulations, you've declared that a low-goal robot will have an impact on your Worlds Elim selection.

To be fair, there will be a sizable amount of high goal scorers that can also score in the low goal. Another thing, what's to say that a feeder bot HAS to be able to score in the low goal? Maybe they have a simple pickup that just releases when they get into the courtyard?

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.

Sunshine 17-01-2016 13:05

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik (Post 1525317)
Congratulations, you've declared that a low-goal robot will have an impact on your Worlds Elim selection.

90% of all robots can score low goal in some form. There's no uniqueness in your robot or analogy

pfreivald 17-01-2016 13:11

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine (Post 1525369)
90% of all robots can score low goal in some form.

That number is pretty optimistic. I'd wager that >10% of robots won't be able to consistently cross a single defense in order to get to the low goal, much less put a boulder into it.

Kevin Sevcik 17-01-2016 13:29

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?

ajhbrown 17-01-2016 21:34

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by martin417 (Post 1520880)
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.

This is partly true. You will remember that if you want to breach the field, you are going to have to go through different defenses in different areas causing you to move to a shooting position anyways. Shooting a high goal will score you more points, but on the same token, low goals may have a lower percentage of missing. Calculating the accuracy in the high and low goals is key in deciding this. It may take a lot of practice until you fully decide in which goal you decide to shoot for.

rich2202 17-01-2016 22:35

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.

JABianchi 18-01-2016 20:43

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik (Post 1525386)
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?

I think this is an excellent comparison. Here are some more contrasts between Rebound Rumble & Stronghold:
  • Foam Ball (7" basketball v 10" boulder)
  • Round-ish Goals (18" wide hoop v 16" wide castle opening)
  • Safezone for shooting (12' away key v. 16' away outerworks)
  • High goals (7'2" high hoop v. 7'1" high tower goal)
  • Ball Limit (3 basketballs v. 1 boulder)

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?

Alex2614 19-01-2016 18:29

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!

IronicDeadBird 19-01-2016 20:55

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.

Carlson V 20-01-2016 13:19

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.

Carlson V 21-01-2016 02:06

Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rich2202 (Post 1525735)
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.

You have a good point about the cycle time, but something to take into account is the levels taken of the tower. Whether it's high or low you get a level taken off. which counts for something if you only make half of your goals in the high, or all of them in the low.

MrJohnston 21-01-2016 11:18

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.

Dibit1010 21-01-2016 13:05

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

Monochron 21-01-2016 14:34

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.

pandamonium 21-01-2016 16:06

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