Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Fuel Vs. Gears (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153173)

NShep98 08-01-2017 11:20

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Azelf482 (Post 1627141)
There is, however, a tech foul given to an opposing team if an opposing robot touches your robot with any part of it inside your retrieval zone, regardless of who initiates the contact (Rule G13). If your robot can reach the retrieval zone with a reasonable amount of speed, most robots won't be able to defend against you obtaining the gear. Even if they try not to touch you, in the retrieval zone, bumping them to still gives them a tech foul, because no one can touch you in the retrieval zone.

While it's true an opposing robot can just prevent you from reaching the retrieval zone in the first place, that's a lot harder to do, and depending on the robot, not worth the time and the points they could be scoring instead of preventing you from scoring.

All this is also true for fuel from the retrieval zone AND you have the key providing limited protection AND you have the hoppers so you do not always have to drive the full length of the field each time you want to score. With gears, you can be prevented from getting them, and you can be prevented from bringing them back. You have to go to one specific location across the field to get them, and several times for it to be worthwhile after 2 rotors. If you are going to be playing defense in a match, gear robots will likely be easier to defend against.

Siri 08-01-2017 14:45

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
2013 provides a very valuable counterexample to teams thinking it'll be ineffective to run quick cycles between these two approximate points on an otherwise flat field under defense.

Part though certainly not all of this is that many times teams overlook the value of a consistent traffic routine. Drivers get very, very good at moving between these two points quickly by any means necessary and legal. Floor pickup is a fundamentally different on-field approach that comes with a unique set of challenges and difficulties. Several recent games can illustrate floor pickup of numerous unorganized game pieces in actual reality. Using the retrieval zone for fuel vs gears poses other differences.

In general, unless you've been doing this very well for a very long time, try not to rely on what the game "looks" like in your own head. It's almost certainly incorrect/incomplete--that's what match achieves are for. The question also isn't whether one situation will face more defense, it's what effect that defense has on your net value. Even if Function B is defended twice as heavily as Function A, if Function B is offensively worth 3 times as much as A, well then you can do the math for what you expect your own robot to achieve.

Sunnykx 08-01-2017 16:35

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Siri (Post 1627252)
2013 provides a very valuable counterexample to teams thinking it'll be ineffective to run quick cycles between these two approximate points on an otherwise flat field under defense.

Part though certainly not all of this is that many times teams overlook the value of a consistent traffic routine. Drivers get very, very good at moving between these two points quickly by any means necessary and legal. Floor pickup is a fundamentally different on-field approach that comes with a unique set of challenges and difficulties. Several recent games can illustrate floor pickup of numerous unorganized game pieces in actual reality. Using the retrieval zone for fuel vs gears poses other differences.

In general, unless you've been doing this very well for a very long time, try not to rely on what the game "looks" like in your own head. It's almost certainly incorrect/incomplete--that's what match achieves are for. The question also isn't whether one situation will face more defense, it's what effect that defense has on your net value. Even if Function B is defended twice as heavily as Function A, if Function B is offensively worth 3 times as much as A, well then you can do the math for what you expect your own robot to achieve.

I agree. I have been thinking quite a bit about the Frisbee year, 2013, as I have looked at this year's competition. We were a full court shooter that year but there were several "cycle" shooters. 1983, Skunkworks, was an excellent cycle shooter. We needed TWO defensive bots to harry them in the middle to slow down their shooting. They were very maneuverable. We avoided trying to stop them in collecting their Frisbees at the feeder because of the high danger of fouls. We used two robots in the middle to form an L formation around them (it wasn't pinning because they could easily move backwards) to keep them from shooting in their preferred spot. We eked out a win in a match using this strategy.

My points are: 1) Fast, maneuverable robots will be successful doing cycles. It will take a lot of resources to slow them down. 2) It took 1983 about 15-20 seconds to do their cycles. 7-8 cycles will probably be the upper limit for the best teams, 5-6 cycles for good teams. 3) There are many similarities of this year's game to 2013: the stationary fuel shooters, the cycle shooters/gear placers, the littered field (Frisbees were ALL over the ground in 2013), the flow of traffic and types of defense, and even the climbing. If you're curious about how this year's game will look on the field, check out some videos from 2013. There will, of course, be differences but there are enough similarities to make a perusal worthwhile.

Paul Copioli 08-01-2017 19:23

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
The best robots in the world will be able to score 6, maybe 7, gears per match.

So you will need 2 elite level gear scorers to get the 4th rotor.

2011 was significantly easier to acquire the objects and the best in the world averaged just over 6.

Cothron Theiss 08-01-2017 19:40

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
I wonder if we'll see a Gear ferrying strategy develop. I think it's obvious that receiving a Gear and carrying it to your alliance's Airship is an easier task than actually placing a Gear on the peg. So it might beneficial for alliances to have two robots ferrying Gears to a robot picking up those Gears and placing them on the Lifts. I know this introduces quite a few points of possible error, most notably the passing of the Gear from ferry bot to placing bot, but it might be a useful strategy for Quals when you have a bit of an underdog alliance.

Bryce Clegg 08-01-2017 20:04

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cothron Theiss (Post 1627447)
I wonder if we'll see a Gear ferrying strategy develop. I think it's obvious that receiving a Gear and carrying it to your alliance's Airship is an easier task than actually placing a Gear on the peg. So it might beneficial for alliances to have two robots ferrying Gears to a robot picking up those Gears and placing them on the Lifts. I know this introduces quite a few points of possible error, most notably the passing of the Gear from ferry bot to placing bot, but it might be a useful strategy for Quals when you have a bit of an underdog alliance.

I feel that most teams would be designing their gear manipulator to work with the feeder station. But, if a team did design a robot where they pick gears up from the floor, it would create an interesting dynamic. One team to get the gears, another to place them, and a third team to shoot or play defense.

Cothron Theiss 08-01-2017 20:25

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryce Clegg (Post 1627462)
I feel that most teams would be designing their gear manipulator to work with the feeder station. But, if a team did design a robot where they pick gears up from the floor, it would create an interesting dynamic. One team to get the gears, another to place them, and a third team to shoot or play defense.

Intaking Gears off the floor will be a difficult but, in my opinion, useful strategy. It would allow teams to execute this Gear ferrying strategy and pick up any Gears dropped by teams trying to place them on the Lift. I think once the level of competition rises, it'll become less helpful because the Gear scoring process will be smoother and there will be less dropped Gears. But in the wilds of the Quals rounds, it could set a team apart.

Andhika 08-01-2017 21:03

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
It does make sense why more teams are going to focus more on gears than fuel since gears earns a lot more points in comparison.

This however, is going to make a fast, high-efficiency fuel shooter bot capable of earning 40 kPa on its own (10 kPa in autonomous, 30 kPa from unloading a hopper into the high efficiency goal in tele-op) very valuable for most alliances and an almost definite pick for alliance selections.

JamesCH95 08-01-2017 21:05

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
I must agree with Mr. Copioli, the best teams will cycle 6-7 (maybe 8, with light defense) gears per match. In many games the best teams are limited to 6-7 significant actions.

I posit that FUEL will be the best method to get RANK POINTS in qualifications (aside from winning, of course), and GEAR cycling will be the best method to win elimination matches.

Siri 08-01-2017 21:12

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andhika (Post 1627502)
It does make sense why more teams are going to focus more on gears than fuel since gears earns a lot more points in comparison.

This however, is going to make a fast, high-efficiency fuel shooter bot capable of earning 40 kPa on its own (10 kPa in autonomous, 30 kPa from unloading a hopper into the high efficiency goal in tele-op) very valuable for most alliances and an almost definite pick for alliance selections.

Yes, though it's worth mentioning that--as well as a 40kPa teleop robot could do at many events--the ultimate definition of "fast, high-efficiency fuel shooter" is earning 40 kPa on its own in autonomous and leaving the teleopers in the dust. Given the bonus's decrease vs gears once you hit elims, a 40 kPa teleop throughput loses a lot of value there.

D_Price 08-01-2017 21:18

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
Team 1708 is looking more towards the gears but will weight the option of also collecting the fuel for low goal. Due to the size constraints FIRST has given us it will be rough. Nothing like a challenge!

JamesCH95 08-01-2017 21:27

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
Scoring 40x high goals in auto seems quite ambitious to do with one robot... Backing out what a robot would need to do:

Time of flight of a ball: 1s (speaking in round numbers)
Processing time: 40/4 (or 5) balls/s = 8-10s (as stated in tour video)
Wait for all of the balls to drop from a hopper: 2-3s (observed in the Hopper tour video)
Time to drive to the hopper, then drive to shooting position, align to goal, and start firing: 15-1-8-2=4s to 15-1-10-3=1s

Seems like quite a stretch to me.

Φ_Φ 08-01-2017 21:38

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesCH95 (Post 1627520)
Wait for all of the balls to drop from a hopper: 2-3s (observed in the Hopper tour video)
Time to drive to the hopper, then drive to shooting position, align to goal, and start firing: 15-1-8-2=4s to 15-1-10-3=1s

Seems like quite a stretch to me.

The robot can begin shooting their starting 10 balls before all balls fall from the hopper as well. Still not easy by any measure, but very possible. Also, even a 30 ball auto would give quite a kPa and point boost.

engunneer 08-01-2017 21:43

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesCH95 (Post 1627520)
Scoring 40x high goals in auto seems quite ambitious to do with one robot... Backing out what a robot would need to do:

Time of flight of a ball: 1s (speaking in round numbers)
Processing time: 40/4 (or 5) balls/s = 8-10s (as stated in tour video)
Wait for all of the balls to drop from a hopper: 2-3s (observed in the Hopper tour video)
Time to drive to the hopper, then drive to shooting position, align to goal, and start firing: 15-1-8-2=4s to 15-1-10-3=1s

Seems like quite a stretch to me.

leverage the fact that both goals do 5/second and you can put 30 in the top and 30 in the bottom. that drops processing down to 6-8 seconds. the extra two seconds could be all you need.

JesseK 08-01-2017 21:54

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
Not specializing in gears is like giving up the 140 points on the 4th rotor. In rare situations, eluded to by Paul above, a 3rd robot may need to get 1 or 2 gears to finish the 4th rotor. Yet even in that case, I'd tell the 3rd robot to play defense rather than shoot balls.

So if you're doing gears, do them right - by only doing them. Hang if you find a solution for it with enough time/weight budget left.

Teams doing mainly/only balls already know there is a throughput challenge, so I suspect they're not going to also do gears.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:56.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi