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)

rocketgamer102 09-01-2017 11:11

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
Team 2544 is very early in the deciding. We are very clearly NOT going for a high goal fuel. Our prior experience in shooting of every kind were complete failures. Even if we go for the low goal fuel, it requires 360 fuel to get the 40 KPa required for the 1 QP. This 1QP is going to be like the tower at 0 health in Qualifying last year... very rare. An auto gear this year if all 3 teams can put gears on the airship, it is 120pts. Gears is a no brainer, but a fuel person is super important not for points in a game but for that elusive 1QP.
But that fuel person is only important in Qualifying since in the finals that 1 QP turns into 40 pts, as much as the reserve gear can get.
But Fuel hording may be a strategy this year, and if you can plow fuel in the boiler corner, you could get a pile up into the opening.
This is just thoughts from team 2544, so if it helps, you are welcome.

mypie4050 09-01-2017 11:21

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
I am hesitant to reveal too much of Team 4050's current strategy outlook, but I will note the following:

1. Gears are by far the most efficient way to score points

2. Because of 1, many of the higher-caliber teams at regionals will be gear-focused, thus leaving a lack of quality, fuel-scoring teams.

3. Winning (playoff) alliances will almost always include 1 team that focuses on scoring fuel, however it is unlikely that such a team will rank well in qualifications.

4. It will be very difficult to create a robot that effectively focuses on both gears and fuel; I'm not saying it won't be done, but it will be very difficult. The best robots will be the ones that focus on one or the other, while still having limited capabilities to perform the other.

madman404 09-01-2017 11:46

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
From the looks of it, gears seem to be most popular by far. However, my team is much more interested in making niche bots that fill the roles others don't. For that reason, we MAY be aiming to round out alliances as a pure fuel or support bot. Perhaps more to come as we decide.

madman404 09-01-2017 11:48

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
(sorry for the double post, but it seems mobile has no edit button!) this is in no way conclusive, as our team has barely even begun to discuss our strategies. the rest is a secret, though. :)

riley.jean23 09-01-2017 12:02

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
While gears seem like an awesome opportunity for scoring points, one has to consider if everyone goes for gears, not only does that not create a balanced alliance at all but there is only 2 spots for gear loading, and with 3 robots trying to use those loading stations could cause quite a commotion and a jam up. The alliance would have to be very careful in their strategy planning. And that's assuming that no one on the other alliance is playing defense.

Fuel is going to be difficult because in order to even match the same amount of points that gears can achieve a team would have to put 360 out of 500 fuel in the low goal. However, seeing as a lot of teams are looking at getting gears it could be a smart decision to go for fuel to create a well balanced alliance.

This is all assuming the other alliance won't be playing defense.


None of this is taking into account auto, but mostly just alliance strategy. This entire game is coming down to excellent strategy, excellent teamwork, and an INCREDIBLY well working robot. I feel like the debate between fuel and gears is like being stuck between a rock and a hard place

Classified* 09-01-2017 12:30

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by riley.jean23 (Post 1627885)
While gears seem like an awesome opportunity for scoring points, one has to consider if everyone goes for gears, not only does that not create a balanced alliance at all but there is only 2 spots for gear loading, and with 3 robots trying to use those loading stations could cause quite a commotion and a jam up. The alliance would have to be very careful in their strategy planning.

There are actually 3 pegs:
Quote:

One (1) LIFT is mounted to each of the three (3) sides of the deck that face the PLAYER STATIONS.
EDIT: Sorry, I misread loading stations for lifts. That being said, robots should not take long at all to accept a gear from the loading station.

Cothron Theiss 09-01-2017 13:24

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by madman404 (Post 1627865)
(sorry for the double post, but it seems mobile has no edit button!) this is in no way conclusive, as our team has barely even begun to discuss our strategies. the rest is a secret, though. :)

Not to stray off topic, but you likely don't see an Edit button because you're a new user. New users aren't able to edit posts until they get a certain amount of posts under their belt. This is to reduce the spam problems we had in the off-season.

Zebra_Fact_Man 09-01-2017 13:29

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug G (Post 1627665)
I think this is the grand poobaa auto with this game... like the 2 ball auto last year or the 2/3 ball auto in '14. If a robot or alliance can get 40 balls in the top boiler in Auto... you can spend the rest of the game cycling the gears. As mentioned previously... it is definitely feasible and we will see the top teams inch closer and closer to achieving it at each regional they attend. By champs, there will be teams that can pull this off.

I very much believe 40 auto balls will happen a LOT for an alliance, even at districts. Even 40/robot is probable. I do NOT believe 100 will ever happen (even for an alliance).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cory (Post 1627668)
I think it's far more likely that a single robot comes close to scoring 100 balls in auto than I do that no alliance will score 100 balls in auto.

No way any one robot scores more than 75 auto balls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe G. (Post 1627670)
Agreed. Collection is pretty easy -- trip the dump so that you collect them in the air from the far bin, then turn your intake on on the way to the boiler to scoop many of the remaining balls off the floor as possible. Should be able to get 70+ in the robot that way. Additionally, I think many people are seriously underestimating the potential fire rate of elite shooters in this game. Comparing to past games with heavy and large game pieces that largely did not incentivize fire rate optimization is not a good way to gauge how fast teams that really try to pump balls through their robots as fast as possible are going to be. Pure throughput is going to be more like lunacy dumpers than any recent more conventional "shooting" game, and also like Lunacy, absolute accuracy isn't as important due to the huge number of balls on the field. Like Lunacy, I do not think a single ball wide, turreted, angle adjustable shooter with heavy camera control is optimal for this game because it forces your game pieces to come out single file...

Quote:

Originally Posted by indubitably (Post 1627681)
Do you expect the official high goal to process fuel at a rate faster than 5 per second? Because if not, this feat isn't even possible (100 balls / 5 balls per second) = 20 seconds. It would need to be AT LEAST 25% faster to be possible and likely 50% faster when factoring in scoring latency, hang time of the first shot, and robot travel time to the hopper.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cory (Post 1627684)
My personal opinion is that the scoring feeder is going to be a disaster, because automated scoring has never worked properly in a FRC game before and now they're also introducing moving parts.

That being said, 5 balls per second is the average and it counts faster with more balls in. So if it's functioning correctly it needs to count 100 balls in say 8-10s which seems more reasonable.

In reality an alliance may score 100 balls in auto but not have 20+ counted until teleop. That would suck, but they still put 100 balls in the goal in auto, which is impressive.

FIRST has used automated scoring multiple times in the past and I don't ever remember them giving up on it at some point during the season (correct me if I'm wrong). It will not be a disaster.

Furthermore, robots will not be scoring the entirety of the 15 seconds, eating some of that counter time. Bots would have to shoot their 10, travel, trigger hopper deploy, re-aim, and empty their entire hoppers, all while collectively having an 84% shooting accuracy.

4-5 ball/sec is the average. I do not believe any single counting system will ever count faster than 6-7 bps. You're basing your entire 8-10sec on a hunch? Why would the GDC just lie to us like that in the Game manual?

Hate to play the "technically" card, but technically, those last 20 balls would not be scored in autonomous, meaning technically the alliance didn't score 100 pts in auto. It shot 100 balls in auto, scored 80 in auto and 20 in teleop for a total of 87.3 pts.

Chris is me 09-01-2017 13:39

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man (Post 1627956)
FIRST has used automated scoring multiple times in the past and I don't ever remember them giving up on it at some point during the season (correct me if I'm wrong). It will not be a disaster.

Games where automated scoring of game pieces shot into a goal was a problem at one point or another, that I know of: 2006, 2010, 2013, 2016 (but to a fairly small extent last year)

Games where automated scoring was abandoned by the end of the season: 2006, 2013

It's an extremely valid concern. In 2013, the automated goal scoring was abandoned for pure manual count. In 2006, the light sensors were a mess and humans manually counted scored balls later on (if I remember correctly). Both of these games are notable for having a large number of game pieces shot into a goal.

2010 had a specific problem where two game pieces passing through the ball return at the same time would be counted as one, and then DOGMA penalties would stack infinitely as a ball was never returned. Similar problems at the goal too. I don't know how this was fixed or if it was just avoided.

2016's problems were fairly limited, but occasionally autonomous balls would not be scored until teleop, or very rarely two balls would be scored as one. But it was better than previous years.

There is absolutely reason to be cautious as FIRST has no history of automatically scoring dozens of game pieces accurately throughout the season. I'm hopeful that they can do it, but it's a valid concern.

Zebra_Fact_Man 09-01-2017 13:39

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mypie4050 (Post 1627850)
I am hesitant to reveal too much of Team 4050's current strategy outlook, but I will note the following:

1. Gears are by far the most efficient way to score points

2. Because of 1, many of the higher-caliber teams at regionals will be gear-focused, thus leaving a lack of quality, fuel-scoring teams.

3. Winning (playoff) alliances will almost always include 1 team that focuses on scoring fuel, however it is unlikely that such a team will rank well in qualifications.

4. It will be very difficult to create a robot that effectively focuses on both gears and fuel; I'm not saying it won't be done, but it will be very difficult. The best robots will be the ones that focus on one or the other, while still having limited capabilities to perform the other.

1. According to our team's math model, it is VERY probable for a top ball-focused robot to go toe-to-toe with a top gear-bot. Based on estimated hopper size, robot speed, and average travel distance, the point values should be near equivalent.

2. I believe the necessary complexity of being a top ball-bot (shooting calibration, probable floor feeder necessary) will cause many teams to focus on gears.

3. I agree with your first point, disagree with your last point. I think good ball-bats will be capable of scoring 40 kPa by themselves with much more consistency than 2 gear-bots will score 4 rotors. As such, ball-bots will get the 3rd rank point more frequently. Due to my point from #1, I think wins will be equivalent, meaning ball-bots will come out ahead in the standings.

4. Agreed. The best way for 99% of teams to fall flat on their face is to try to manipulate both game pieces. There simply isn't enough time in a match to do both, so pick one and get great at it.

Zebra_Fact_Man 09-01-2017 13:44

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1627963)
Games where automated scoring of game pieces shot into a goal was a problem at one point or another, that I know of: 2006, 2010, 2013, 2016 (but to a fairly small extent last year)

Games where automated scoring was abandoned by the end of the season: 2006, 2013

It's an extremely valid concern. In 2013, the automated goal scoring was abandoned for pure manual count. In 2006, the light sensors were a mess and humans manually counted scored balls later on (if I remember correctly). Both of these games are notable for having a large number of game pieces shot into a goal...

I was not aware that FIRST quit using the Frisbee goal scales. I was under the impression weight was used for live scoring, and a tally was used at the end to confirm the count.

2006 was the year before my rookie year, so I am unaware of any field problems from that time or before.

Chris is me 09-01-2017 13:57

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man (Post 1627967)
I was not aware that FIRST quit using the Frisbee goal scales. I was under the impression weight was used for live scoring, and a tally was used at the end to confirm the count.

2006 was the year before my rookie year, so I am unaware of any field problems from that time or before.

It was used for real time throughout the season, but there were initially plans to only manually count the score in close games, or no games at all. By the time the Championship rolled around (maybe much before?), discs were manually counted every game.

Cothron Theiss 09-01-2017 14:00

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1627978)
By the time the Championship rolled around (maybe much before?), discs were manually counted every game.

I specifically remember after the first day of the 2013 Smoky Mountains Regional, they started manually counting every match. SMR was a Week 5 event.

EDIT - Oh, and we were explicitly told not to look at the real time scoring for any accuracy. They were having real issues with the automated scoring at that event.

Basel A 09-01-2017 15:00

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
I'm not very concerned about the ball counters. 2010, 2016, and 2017 are all similar approaches (ball passes through counter that uses prox sensor or similar). Given that it worked great in 2016, the only cause for concern for 2017 would be the sheer volume of balls because they'll be going in back-to-back-to-back-etc. Still, I think it's likely that it'll work fine all season. Hopefully FIRST doesn't make me regret this optimism.

Duct_tape_lover 09-01-2017 19:49

Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
 
The problem is that in order to achieve maximum points it seems that an entire alliance has to be focusing on the same thing. It comes down to how can a team work together to get all the points.


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