Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Fuel Seems Undercosted (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153119)

Steven Carmain 07-01-2017 13:00

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)?

ATannahill 07-01-2017 13:05

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carmain (Post 1626454)
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)?

It is estimated that the field counters can handle 5 balls (fuel) per second (page 34). That would mean that 360 ball would take about 72 seconds to count.

DonRotolo 07-01-2017 13:14

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Don't ignore the 'pressure' associated with a ball, at 40 kPa you see a Ranking Point, win or lose.

beijing_strbow 07-01-2017 13:32

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.

ATannahill 07-01-2017 13:35

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by beijing_strbow (Post 1626467)
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.

The pilot is required to place 6 gears for the last rotor. They then have to do three rotations of the first gear, which might be harder than some people think.

Joe G. 07-01-2017 13:41

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.

Neovtan 07-01-2017 14:00

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

Nebster 07-01-2017 14:02

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Neovtan (Post 1626471)
Can anyone find a rule on how much fuel one robot can carry? Please link a rule where you found the answer

There is no limit

Neovtan 07-01-2017 14:05

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nebster (Post 1626472)
There is no limit

Where did you find that? I'm telling my team this but I cant find it in the rules

EricH 07-01-2017 14:08

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Neovtan (Post 1626477)
Where did you find that? I'm telling my team this but I cant find it in the rules

The fact that you cannot find a limit in the rules is the indicator that the limit is not there.


Also, I believe this was mentioned specifically in the Kickoff stream, I want to say in Blair's segment.

Nebster 07-01-2017 14:11

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Neovtan (Post 1626477)
Where did you find that? I'm telling my team this but I cant find it in the rules

It was said during the live webcast, you can watch a VOD of that, it isn't in the rules because it would only need to mention it if there was a limit. There's is a theoretical limit due to the volume constraints on the robot but other than that there is none.

Trey178 07-01-2017 14:25

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?

mman1506 07-01-2017 14:29

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Trey178 (Post 1626496)
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?

The fuel is recycled onto the field so capacity is essentially infinite.

I'd assume so since they are scored differently.

Jack3637 07-01-2017 14:31

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.

GaryVoshol 07-01-2017 14:36

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack3637 (Post 1626504)
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.

A search for "gear" in the rules found this in about 10 seconds:

G27. One-GEAR limit. ROBOTS may not control more than one GEAR at a time.
Violation: FOUL. If strategic, TECH FOUL and YELLOW CARD.

Kpchem 07-01-2017 15:30

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Trey178 (Post 1626496)
Since the boiler takes about 2 seconds to process fuel...

Where are you pulling this from? The boiler goals process 4-5 Fuel per second as stated during the webcast.

darklink2458 07-01-2017 18:05

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe G. (Post 1626469)
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.

Yes but you can calculate the top amount of fuel that can be processed and even then in perfect conditions accuracy and speed it is marginally better than gears.

Hitchhiker 42 07-01-2017 18:10

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mman1506 (Post 1626503)
The fuel is recycled onto the field so capacity is essentially infinite.

I'd assume so since they are scored differently.

No, but how much overflow can the boiler handle (say if you shoot at >5 fuel/sec)?

ollien 07-01-2017 18:19

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitchhiker 42 (Post 1626655)
No, but how much overflow can the boiler handle (say if you shoot at >5 fuel/sec)?

I think this depends on the geometry of the funnel. I can't find it in the field drawings, but it would be nice to see someone calculate the maximum possible number of fuel.

wheelerka 07-01-2017 18:38

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)

Rangel 07-01-2017 18:43

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.

engunneer 07-01-2017 19:08

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.

Jarren Harkema 07-01-2017 19:14

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ollien (Post 1626660)
I think this depends on the geometry of the funnel. I can't find it in the field drawings, but it would be nice to see someone calculate the maximum possible number of fuel.

We tried to do this and came up with some rough numbers.

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.

faraz5557 07-01-2017 20:22

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarren Harkema (Post 1626704)
3.41 cubic feet total.

Using this, the number of balls that could be held in the boiler stack is approximately 40.

I'm going to dispute your 3.41 cubic feet figure (I'm getting like 4 cubic feet, 26 in tall cylinder with an approximately 9.1875 in radius which is less than the given number of 10.5 in bc the tube is lower radius than the frustrum), but more importantly how did you get 40? 3.41 cft is 5892 cubic inches, each ball is 65.5 cubic inches for 90 balls, but since sphere packing is only about 74% efficient this is 66 balls in only the cylindrical and frustrum part of the boiler room. How did you only get 40 balls?

engunneer 07-01-2017 20:35

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by faraz5557 (Post 1626773)
I'm going to dispute your 3.41 cubic feet figure (I'm getting like 4 cubic feet, 26 in tall cylinder with an approximately 9.1875 in radius which is less than the given number of 10.5 in bc the tube is lower radius than the frustrum), but more importantly how did you get 40? 3.41 cft is 5892 cubic inches, each ball is 65.5 cubic inches for 90 balls, but since sphere packing is only about 74% efficient this is 66 balls in only the cylindrical and frustrum part of the boiler room. How did you only get 40 balls?

packing is 74% best case. see wikipedia. I'd estimate we get loose or poured for most cases in this game, so 60% packing seems reasonable.

Jamesa47 07-01-2017 20:35

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by faraz5557 (Post 1626773)
I'm going to dispute your 3.41 cubic feet figure (since sphere packing is only about 74% efficient this is 66 balls in only the cylindrical and frustrum part of the boiler room. How did you only get 40 balls?

74% packing efficiency is maximum possible if you pack perfectly, in reality I think it should be more around 60-62%.

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.

Jarren Harkema 07-01-2017 21:49

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by faraz5557 (Post 1626773)
I'm going to dispute your 3.41 cubic feet figure (I'm getting like 4 cubic feet, 26 in tall cylinder with an approximately 9.1875 in radius which is less than the given number of 10.5 in bc the tube is lower radius than the frustrum), but more importantly how did you get 40? 3.41 cft is 5892 cubic inches, each ball is 65.5 cubic inches for 90 balls, but since sphere packing is only about 74% efficient this is 66 balls in only the cylindrical and frustrum part of the boiler room. How did you only get 40 balls?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamesa47 (Post 1626786)
74% packing efficiency is maximum possible if you pack perfectly, in reality I think it should be more around 60-62%.

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.

Again, as explained by the numerous "about" and "approximately" disclaimers, my numbers were a quick 15 minute back-of-a-napkin estimate. With either number, the possibility that enough fuel can be constantly supplied to overflow the high goal is very slim in my opinion.

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...

gigaboggie 08-01-2017 10:36

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.

Grim Tuesday 08-01-2017 11:14

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
I don't think you will have time for 8 cycles and shooting 400 balls.

Jarren Harkema 08-01-2017 12:04

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday (Post 1627145)
I don't think you will have time for 8 cycles and shooting 400 balls.

Plenty of teams last year performed way more than 8 cycles, all while avoiding defense. This year, shooting is mostly protected, or at least risky enough for most drivers to avoid. Something else I think is being underestimated is how much of the field is obscured by the airships. Looking at the top view, possibly two of the three driver stations won't be able to clearly see their opponent's key.

400 balls does seem like a long shot, but if you improved that accuracy to 50%, 240 seems more reasonable to me.

evanperryg 08-01-2017 12:59

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe G. (Post 1626469)
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.

Don't forget that there's less risk associated with fuel than there is with gears. With gears, you MUST reach a certain quantity of gears to get those big points. With fuel, even if you miss the RP you still get points. Both gamepieces have finite "steps" at which you get your next point, but those "steps" are much closer together with fuel. As such, fuel is the "low risk, low reward" elims strategy, while gears are the "high risk, high reward" strategy.

gigaboggie 08-01-2017 13:32

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarren Harkema (Post 1627168)
Plenty of teams last year performed way more than 8 cycles, all while avoiding defense. This year, shooting is mostly protected, or at least risky enough for most drivers to avoid. Something else I think is being underestimated is how much of the field is obscured by the airships. Looking at the top view, possibly two of the three driver stations won't be able to clearly see their opponent's key.

400 balls does seem like a long shot, but if you improved that accuracy to 50%, 240 seems more reasonable to me.

I think that's a fair assessment of shooting. It is reasonably difficult for drivers to see and no amount of cameras are going to fix that. I do also agree that 400 balls is pushing it in terms of what teams can reasonably accomplish. I have yet to sort of make an estimate of how long a cycle would feasibly take, however like I mentioned previously the balls are in a great abundance. Obviously if you can get accuracy above 30% the necessary cycles decreases drastically. For example if a team is actually able to get upwards of 90% which I think is likely possible, the cycles reduces to 3. I agree that avoiding defense may be reasonably difficult. There are however spots that a robot is effectively undefendable.

apm4242 08-01-2017 13:42

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?

The Doctor 08-01-2017 13:53

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.

pmattin5459 08-01-2017 13:58

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apm4242 (Post 1627211)
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?

You have to re position to the shooting area to shoot the balls into the high goal. Also, the trigger for the bins is offset from where the balls are located, so it might be hard to fill a robot with 40 balls. However, if you could manage to pull it off, even mostly, that strategy would make it really easy to reach the limit. So, while problematic, with a fast shooter and some clever auto code to position to the shooting area and lock on to the target, the strategy could work pretty well.

Donut 08-01-2017 17:59

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apm4242 (Post 1627211)
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?

With a floor pick up, you have access to 110 fuel balls, though it's not very realistic to get all of them off the ground.

MattV781 08-01-2017 18:27

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
There are separate counters for the high and low efficiency goals. Each capable of an average of 5 fuel/second.

Siri 08-01-2017 20:20

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Donut (Post 1627383)
With a floor pick up, you have access to 110 fuel balls, though it's not very realistic to get all of them off the ground.

Plus if you're close/fender shooting (in auto or teleop), there's a potential to catch N% of your own misses in your nice big open-top hopper, which means even with a low 30% shooting average you won't be physically running 8 cycles (though you will be shooting that many times).

Lil' Lavery 08-01-2017 20:39

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarren Harkema (Post 1627168)
Plenty of teams last year performed way more than 8 cycles, all while avoiding defense. This year, shooting is mostly protected, or at least risky enough for most drivers to avoid. Something else I think is being underestimated is how much of the field is obscured by the airships. Looking at the top view, possibly two of the three driver stations won't be able to clearly see their opponent's key.

400 balls does seem like a long shot, but if you improved that accuracy to 50%, 240 seems more reasonable to me.

A "cycle" last year involved acquiring and releasing one ball. I know people can build some pretty darn fast shooters, but it's going to take a lot more time to expel 50 balls that it takes to expel one ball.

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.

StevenB 09-01-2017 01:19

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Doctor (Post 1627215)
My initial thoughts were that the GDC is going to rebalance fuel in order to make more people care about it.

I think this is unlikely. I don't know how the GDC tests the game, but I'm willing to bet they've evaluated the point values pretty carefully, and picked these values because they're confident it will make the game play well.

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.

engunneer 09-01-2017 07:09

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by StevenB (Post 1627644)
I think this is unlikely. I don't know how the GDC tests the game, but I'm willing to bet they've evaluated the point values pretty carefully, and picked these values because they're confident it will make the game play well.

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.

I don't know if they still do this, but back in the day, there were a few teams that played a prototype game in the fall. Changes get made based on learning and then the game gets released. Two of my classmates in college were on fall teams in high school.

mrnoble 09-01-2017 08:17

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.

Chris is me 09-01-2017 09:12

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnoble (Post 1627721)
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.

I think determining whether or not this achievement is viable for your team is the most important strategic choice teams will make this year. If this is truly possible within your team's resources, you will have a completely different list of strategic priorities than a team that knows they cannot do this. This is absolutely a year where there is not one "right answer" for a robot, and that teams honest about their capabilities will excel.

fearxzombie 09-01-2017 11:00

Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carmain (Post 1626454)
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)?

It is probably undercosted due to its abundance

rocketgamer102 09-01-2017 11:35

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. :}

Ogehsim 09-01-2017 11:45

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.

Hexachloro 12-01-2017 15:50

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