![]() |
Fuel Seems Undercosted
Does anyone else feel that Fuel is under costed in this game?
You can put in 120 high efficiency or 360 low efficiency Fuel to get the same amount of points as one gear in teleop. (I will concede that there is one QP for Fuel that would be valuable) Plus, would the field be able to count 360 balls in 150 seconds (full match)? |
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Don't ignore the 'pressure' associated with a ball, at 40 kPa you see a Ranking Point, win or lose.
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Notice that the rotor has to be turning to get 40 points. So while that rate is true for the first gear, towards the end 120 fuel is equivalent in points to the 4 gears required for the last rotor.
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Just because a task closely resembles the "main" task of old games, doesn't mean it's the "main" task of this one.
Also, fuel has an effectively infinite scoring potential, whereas gears are finite. True, the gears limit is relatively high and will take many alliances the full match or more to reach, but others will be able to finish them off with plenty of time to spare. In these matches, where both alliances do this, fuel will be the difference maker. Additionally, there's two very key differences between fuel and most recent shooting tasks: the ball is tiny compared to the robot, and storage is unlimited. Unlike recent games, and especially unlike last year, where you had to make every shot count, pure rate of fire is arguably more important than actual accuracy, and the size difference opens up some interesting possible ways to make this happen. |
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Can anyone find a rule on how much fuel one robot can carry? Please link a rule where you found the answer
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
Also, I believe this was mentioned specifically in the Kickoff stream, I want to say in Blair's segment. |
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Since the boiler takes about 2 seconds to process fuel, the following questions are:
What is the boiler's capacity? Are there separate counters for top and bottom? |
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
I'd assume so since they are scored differently. |
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
I was wondering, can someone point to me the rule that states only one gear at a time in teleop? Also anyone up for discussing strategy? I'm stuck in a longggg car ride and wanna bounce some ideas.
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
G27. One-GEAR limit. ROBOTS may not control more than one GEAR at a time. Violation: FOUL. If strategic, TECH FOUL and YELLOW CARD. |
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
As my team discussed this topic, it was brought up that if scoring gears has the most point potential, why wouldn't everyone do it? The answer seems to be that gearing is an intimidating task that may prove to be much more difficult than previously thought.
On the other hand, dumping fuel to achieve the boiler ranking point is comparatively less difficult. However, the big thing we seemed to realize was that while scoring ranking points via fuel may get you to playoffs, it just isn't enough to win playoffs against teams scoring ranking points via gears. A gearing ranking point is worth 100 pts, while the fuel point translates to 20 points; leaving a gap of 80 points at the very least, which would be extremely difficult to overcome by only scoring fuel. While it may seem undercosted point wise, strategy will be crucial as fuel provides a comparatively easier way to rack up ranking points, which is what really matters in terms of your shot at playoffs if you may not be able to always win matches point wise (similar to breaching the defenses last year) |
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
The thing about fuel is that it's fairly important in order to rank high and very important if both alliances can max out on gear points. 120 balls in the high boiler seems to be a very achievable task to get the ranking point while 12 gears is going to be very difficult for any single robot to do. Climbing is also not to be overlooked. One climb is worth 150 high boiler shots! Elimination matches are certainly going to be interesting and i expect a lot of upsets from specialized alliances such as a gear only alliance. Lots of different strategies and counters to different types of robots.
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
I see the fuel RP as equivalent to the breach - 60-80% of the alliances should get it. the Gear/Rotor RP is like capturing, where things have to go well for the whole alliance.
Also when working out the cost/benefit of gears vs fuel, remember that the points scored per gear goes down through the match (fist gear is 40 or 60 points, while the last 6 gears are needed to get the last 40 points). An alliance that only scores 11 gears gets the same points as an alliance that stopped after 6. Fuel scoring is more linear. |
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
The Cylinder itself appears to be ~ 1.78 cubic feet, and the funnel is ~ 1.63. Assuming that the trapezoid below the cylinder is used for processing fuel, thats ~ 3.41 cubic feet total. The large clear bins used in the videos look like they hold approximately 50 balls, and are 4.24 cubic feet. Using this, the number of balls that could be held in the boiler stack is approximately 40. If you were shooting at a rate of 6 balls per second non-stop, the boiler stack would fill up in 40 seconds. So you need 240 balls going in non-stop. Obviously the voids in a rectangular container will be different than the voids in a cylindrical container, but it's close enough for me tonight. There are bigger fish to fry, like figuring out how to flood the boiler in the first place. |
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
I addressed it in a little more detail here: https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/s...d.php?t=153169 It should be more around 54 or so? I may have calculated that inaccurately but it's a bit less than 66 balls. |
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
Quote:
I suppose the best way to know for sure is have someone dump a bunch of balls in the high goal of an official field boiler. I think that one is on a shipping container as we speak though... |
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
I agree with the roughly 60-65% packing. That would be for both the robot capacity and for the capacity in the boiler. Operating on the assumption that the boiler is approximately 3.41 ft^3, we multiply (3.41 ft^3)*(.60 usable ft^3/ft^3) giving us roughly 2.05 usable ft^3. Since balls take up a volume of roughly 4/3*pi*2.5^3 that would give us a volume of 65.45 in^3. The boiler volume converts from 2.05 usable ft^3 to 3535.5 usable in^3. Dividing those gives you roughly 54 balls. So it is certainly safe to assume that at least 50 balls will fit within the boiler while waiting to be processed.
I would like to argue that balls are actually being incredibly under-valued in many discussions so far. I am going to operate under the assumption of 60% packing due to packing error and that a team can dedicate roughly 25% of their robot to ball storage which does not seem to be unreasonable. Assuming tall configuration (excluding bumpers is 24in x 26in x 36in tall), this gives us a total robot volume of 22,464 in^3. This gives us roughly 5,616 in^3 of ball storage. Multiplied by .6 to find usable space yields 3,370 usable in^3. Divided by the volume of a ball (65.45 in^3), gives a conservative robot capacity of 50 balls. Now to calculate the number of cycles, I will assume a bad accuracy of 30% into the high goal. High achieving teams may have an accuracy of upwards of 90%, but 30% is a conservative estimate for your average team. Since 120 balls will be necessary to achieve the goal of a ranking point, that means that it would require that the team shoot 120/.3 balls which is equal to 400 balls. This would require 8 cycles for an inaccurate team. The time for a cycle in this game I believe would be rather short allowing for that number of cycles without many problems. This is primarily due to the fact that many teams could find a way to increase their ball capacity. Additionally, with a fly wheel shooter, the amount of balls that could be fired off per second is large. This would mean that the only time-consuming portion of scoring balls is collection. Balls are very readily available both on the field and from feeder station-like inputs. All of these estimates are likely underestimates of both the capacity of a robot and the accuracy of a capable team. I, therefore, believe that it would appear to be an almost guaranteed ranking point for teams with high goal scoring capabilities. |
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
I don't think you will have time for 8 cycles and shooting 400 balls.
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
400 balls does seem like a long shot, but if you improved that accuracy to 50%, 240 seems more reasonable to me. |
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
A robot that can trigger the hopper bin closest to the boiler would have access to 60 fuel balls and a clear shot at the high goal without having to reposition. At 1 fuel ball per kPa in auto, a robot with a decent rate of fire could reach the 40 kPa RP threshold in auto, or put a serious dent in it.
Anyone considering this strategy? |
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
My initial thoughts were that the GDC is going to rebalance fuel in order to make more people care about it.
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
There are separate counters for the high and low efficiency goals. Each capable of an average of 5 fuel/second.
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
You also had 3 high goals and 2 low goals to align with last year. It was relatively rare you had to wait on a partner to move out of the way. This year that may not be the case. Especially once you consider the processing rate of the goals and the potential of overfilling. |
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
There are lots of reasons to care about the fuel balls, which have been discussed in this thread. Don't underestimate it just because it has a low point value. |
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
I'm expecting a short reveal video of a top-tier robot (not saying who) reaching 40kPa during autonomous. I don't expect this to the only model for great robots to follow this year, but it'll happen.
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
How it is now can change, they could lower the required fuel for the 1 Q pt. But for now, a strategi=y is coming to light that my team, team 2544, is seeing. Hording fuel. Crazy at first, but can work. If you have an all gear team, the 12 required is possible, and if 3 can be put on in auto, that is 120 pts right there. I digress. If you shove much fuel into your launchpad, and you do not release your fuel you have got from the boiler, you can starve the other team. If you could make a pile of fuel near the boiler, you could in fact make a pile they can not touch and possible start falling into the boiler. Fuel is lomited, so if you starve the opposite alliance, and have a spot-on gear alliance, you will win.
Also, the fuel will unintenally block the opponents from getting gears from their shoots on your side. :} |
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
See 3.1 and the Loading Lane and 3.11.5 for the Return Bins. The red alliance human player is in charge of the return totes collecting balls scored in the blue alliance's boiler. The blue alliance can only access the overflow totes. You cannot prevent the other alliance from using fuel recycled from your boiler.
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
If they are not scored, but simplky kept in the boiler area, the other team can't access it.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 20:34. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi