![]() |
Fuel Vs. Gears
At the end of Day 1, the decision we are all facing is simple: Gears or Fuel? Which will pose the easiest way to get both rank and match points?
What I want from you is simple: today, at the end of the night, what is your team leaning to. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
6065 is leaning very heavily towards gears
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
what about doing both
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
![]() |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
The way I see it, it can't hurt to be prepared for a strategy change, so if we can manipulate both game pieces why not? |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
I think, at least right now, that the gears are probably more important as they are of higher point value and there are a significant number of them, but neglecting the fuel seems like a poor decision to me. I think that systems for both fuel handling and gear handling hold great value on a robot and both will be present on well performing robots. Something to keep in mind here is that the gears are limited, there are only so many of them that are worth moving and a gear by itself scores nothing, it must be placed and have the others in the chain to go with it. The fuel on the other hand does score each piece as an individual and there is an unlimited supply.
I foresee, especially at high levels of play, all four rotors turning on pretty quickly in the match and the robots moving to all shooting fuel by the end. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
The thing that I've noticed, (and seems somewhat odd, to be honest) is that if the pre placed gears on the tower are allowed to be moved, in addition to the gear placed on the floor of the air ship (a total of 4 gears), a team would be capable of achieving 2 rotors turning during the teleop period, accounting for 80 points, despite never having actually scored a gear.
This is interesting, as in playoffs it would close the gap of point difference between the value of a RP from gears vs an RP from fuel |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
We decided to do gears; we don't know that we have the capability to do both and would rather be good at something. If we conquer gears rapidly (it would be a miracle), then we could look to expand to fuel as well.
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
I think a lot of teams are going to prioritize gears over fuel. My concern with this is that gear-specific robots are a lot easier to defend against. There is no key to provide any protection, and your only choice to acquire gears is to traverse the field multiple times. I doubt we will see more than 2 rotors activated early on.
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
I'm leaning towards being able to do both:
Tentative Qual matches strategy: get 2-3 rotors spinning (only have to deliver 2-6 gears, seems doable) then shoot fuel as much as possible before climbing. I say only 2-3 rotors because I think that 4 will be very difficult to attain for your average quals alliances, needing to deliver 13 gears. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
My team was thinking about what an Einstein alliance would look like. The general thought was that you would have 2 gear bots, both which can do some fuel cycling after they get the 12 gears, then a dedicated fuel shooter who can cycle quickly, probably high goal but maybe low. Also probably at least two climbers.
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
1) Climb
2) Gears 3) Fuel high prototyping may change this. We will not forget playing some D |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
I think that if there is a good way to do gears with a completely passive mechanism, most teams will have the resources to make effective mechanisms for both gears and balls.
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
My team (3019) has decided to go for gears and here is our logic:
For autonomous the gear is a clear winner, even if you shot and made all ten high goal shots in auto that is only 10 points, and if you shot all ten in low goal that is even worse at 3 points. Getting a single gear and turning the first rotor on nets you 60 points, vastly outclassing either other option. Of course you could try to get all ten in top goal, and get the gear in auto but to us it seems like having a shooter/pickup mechanism for fuel leaves little room for climbing and gear processing on the robot. For teleop we made 2 scenarios. The more realistic scenario allots 30 seconds for a gear "cycle" consisting of moving to the pickup bin, getting a gear, and bringing it back. This would allow 4 gears per teleop for a total of 5 gears per match, which nets 2 and 3/4 rotors, effectively 100 points with 140 if one teammate can place one gear(considering you start with one reserve gear,per match R1 needs 1 gear, R2 needs 2, R3 needs 6, and R4 needs 12). Our next, more optimistic scenario would be cutting down that cycle time to around 20 seconds, allowing us to score 5 gears in teleop and 1 in auto for a total of 6 gears/3 rotors at effectively 140 points ourselves, with 35 seconds left to climb for another possible 50 points, netting a total of 190 points. In my opinion, the fourth rotor is going to be very difficult to achieve- you need a total of 12 gears delivered and it is hard to get 6 with one bot (note: these are very rough numbers we tossed around to get an idea of fuel vs. gears) requiring two bots to be doing gears all match. That means that we would have to devote 2/3 of the alliance power to gears that would only net another 40 points, or 40 points and a RP if the remaining single bot was able to accumulate 40 kPa on it's own (very unlikely). |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
You score 10 points, but also gain 10 kPA. You're 50 points behind what you would be, yet 10 kPA closer to threshold pressure of 40. Now in teleop, you collect a gear, and put it on the peg. Now you get the 40 points because the rotor is on. So we're at 10 kPA and 50 pts (10 pts behind). If you went with the gear, you'd need to shoot 30 balls in to catch up to kPa. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
A robot in playoffs will absolutely have to do both. I foresee an alliance of 3 robots being able to get all 4 rotors spinning nearly every match. The infinite source of points will be the deciding factor.
I think robots will be doing the 50-foot dash for a gear from the feeder station while passively intaking balls. While on the friendly side of the field you can perform both point-scoring actions with efficiency. The bigger question is what should a team focus if they are the only operational robot on an alliance? If only one robot can shoot/capture rotors, which should they focus? If the enemy alliance is good, the single easy RP from shooting will be a good option. If the enemy alliance is also non-operational or weak, then the story changes. Focusing on only gears during a match is probably the best way to score points if only robot is doing anything. However, scoring 12 gears alone during teleop leaves you with little room for error. You'd have to be scoring one every 11 seconds, dodging defenders and intaking/placing flawlessly. As such, a single robot probably can't get the RP from turning all 4 rotors. They may win the match through points alone and get the 2 RP making it a risky all-or nothing play. Shooting would still net the safe 1 RP but lower point values put the 2 RP from winning out of the question. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Another thing to consider is the mechanical limitations of building a robot intended to collect gears, shoot fuel, pickup, and climb all at once. It would be very difficult to fit all of those systems on to a bot and still have room to fit a funneling system to process the balls. It will definitely be doable by the best funded and most veteran teams, but to the average team it would be a lot more efficient to focus on 2 goals such as gear handling and climbing rather than all 4 listed above.
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
the two rules that make me believe this are H10 which states gears cant be moved after they complete a gear set and get a rotor spinning, which moving the prepositioned gears would not violate and A05 which states the reserve gear cant be moved in auton, but this doesnt apply to prepostioned gears |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
I voted too prematurely, for the sake of rank points I should've put Fuel.
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Would it be possible for all three robots to shoot their fuel into the HE stack? That would give you 30kPa and you would only need to dump another 30 in to the high energy stack or 90 into the low energy stack to get to 40kPa and get the extra rank point?
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
3495 is leaning heavily toward fuel collection as a primary scoring strategy, but we may change. Currently our other option is to prioritize collecting and placing the gears, and in the process of driving, we'll be picking up dropped fuel (since there's gonna be a ton on the floor). Once we place the gear, we unload our storage tank into the high efficiency boiler. Rinse and repeat.
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
Either way, I'll put this in the Q&A if it's not addressed by the time it opens. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
I see the potential for a very fast shooter to lock up 40kpa in autonomous thus giving then a ranking point within the first 15 secounds. After auto it takes 3 times as long to reach the 40kpa limit tending it rather useless unless in a game that can both alliances can turn all four rotors... Basically in my opinion hitting the top goal in auto an being able to hit 20+ in 15 secound which should not be hard. Makes get the extra ranking point a ton simpler and quicker 40 high goal is auto equals a ranking point 120 high goals in Telekom is a ranking point Don't get me started on low goals |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It seems strange that FIRST would limit the dream of the perfect auto with a slow ball counter. To the Q&A we go! |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Gears are all about cycle time. Look back to 2014 for an idea on cycle times. Now factor in the field is covered in fuel. If all the bins are dumped on the field, that's one mess of balls. Now what is the center line of a ball and what is the bumper height. What happens when your robot's bumper contacts the balls?
If your going to do gears, figure out how to drive in a sea of balls. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
At this point, we're thinking gears as our primary function (and a rope climb of course).
If these both go smoothly, we have two likely paths for an additional manipulator: Bee able to gather balls in passing and dump them into the low goal or at the same height as the HOPPER (we'll need to do tall configuration for this) to facilitate passing fuel to a high goal scorer who is set up to load at the HOPPER. We'll be sure to have an optional autonomous mode which begins with dumping our ten pre-load fuel (into an alliance partner) before scoring our gear. Gather gears from the floor (and get them to our hanger). |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Team 1571 is considering the possibility of shooting multiple fuel into the high goal at the same time. Each fuel is 5 in. wide, and the high goal is 21.5 inches wide with a decently accurate shooter (vision targeting will be handy here) it is possible to realistically score 2 or 3 fuel at the same time.
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
Is it 5 fuel/sec in the low goal and 5 fuel/sec in the high goal? or is it just 5 fuel/sec? |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
We debated the ability of just gears because they give a lot of points. But in order to get a Ranking Point, assuming you are the only robot placing gears, you need to make about 12 shuttle runs between the feeder and the airship. In previous years and games, some of the best teams were only able to make 7 or 8 runs across the field. We decided that is was seemingly impossible to get a Ranking Point by yourself. Just my thoughts.
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
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. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
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. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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.
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
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. |
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. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
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!
|
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. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
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. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
What assumptions are folks making as far as achievable success % shooting high fuel goals given the type of ball, size & height of the goal opening, etc.? For a top high-shooting team vs. average high-shooting team? I've seen 70% as a target - what about that?
Also, shooting rate (balls-per-sec) projections for top team vs. average team? Target the max processing rate of 5 per sec? Seems like teams may need to shoot 1 at a time until aimed and then turn on a more rapid fire mode. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
100 balls would require 2 robots to each shoot with a minimum 83.3% shot accuracy (more if you don't get all the balls from the hopper), and only gives you 4 seconds to travel to the hopper, collect the balls, and aim. I just don't see 2 robot of this caliber/skillset. ending up on the same alliance. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
Additionally, I think people may be making too much of the distinction between the act of cycling gears, and the act of cycling fuel. With so many game pieces and no possession limit, you don't really need to target specific ones. I'm guessing that a robot that just puts its intake on the ground while making a beeline to/from the feeder station to deliver a gear is going to pick up an appreciable percentage of their storage capacity without making any special effort. Doubly so if the human players just dump fuel on the ground instead of waiting for the robot. Even if your primary match strategy revolves around gear cycles, why not take some shots at the boiler while you're down at that end of the field anyways, and you have the fuel? Not a lot of added time, for potentially significant added benefit. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
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. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
At the moment, Team 74 is focusing on a fuel mechanism. We are unsure of what we will be focusing on with strategy, but we figured a shooter that does what we want is going to be harder to accomplish than a mechanism that is able to manipulate gears.
I fully expect good teams to be able to score fuel and gears, probably at the same time. With the turret designs we have seen in the past years(2012 and 2016 immediately come to mind) I don't think that's an improbability. Collection of balls will happen on the way to get the gear from the retrieval zone, and while the robots are scoring the gear, they will be able to shoot into the high goal. This was our teams largest point of discussion after kickoff, and I would be surprised if it didn't happen. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
In making this determination, I feel like I'm missing something that should be in the rules but isn't, and I want to make sure I have it right (or be corrected if I'm wrong):
Opponents can only be in your key for up to five seconds at a time, but they can contact whatever they want to (e.g. ram the heck out of you while you're trying to shoot) and only need to back out for a split second before doing so again. Yes? |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Thanks.
It seems to me that shooting is going to be a lot harder when any mobile BLT will be able to hammer on you while you're doing it. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
Just be sure to drop your auton gear for your partner to use in teleop ;). |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
The box on wheels will be useful this game ;) |
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. |
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. |
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.
|
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. :)
|
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 |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
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. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
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. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
2006 was the year before my rookie year, so I am unaware of any field problems from that time or before. |
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
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.
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
4505 decided on having a low-efficiency high goal shooter to use if we find ourselves on a team stacked with gear bots as well as a top quality gear placing system. Getting 40 kPA in quals could be useful, as we are carrying 2 autonomous programs (1 for high goal other for gear) to build up kPA quickly.
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
And the option to get 40 high shots in auto? How difficult is that?
It seems doable - not easy, but doable. And to start the match with 40 points and 1 qp - that seems a challenge worth weighing carefully. |
| 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