16-01-2016, 17:53
|
 |
no bag, vex only, final destination
AKA: Pinecone
 FRC #0228 (GUS Robotics); FRC #2170 (Titanium Tomahawks) Team Role: Mentor
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 7,628
|
|
|
Re: High Goal Vs. Low Goal
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerfulKitty
High goal gets you more than double the points, so the low goal will be better IF it cuts your cycle time in half, or more. Personally I don't think that is likely. A robot should be designed to be able to do both. We are planning to only do low goals if it will mean the difference in getting that 8th ball scored to weaken the tower.
|
I bet you will see a lot of teams try more than 8 shots on the high goal, miss some, and fail to fully weaken the tower, when they could have gotten them all in the low goal for points instead. It's not more than double the points at that point - it can even be less depending on how many you miss. To me this is a lot like 2014 where teams who try and miss the high goal are going to play a lot worse than teams that can more quickly cycle in the low goal.
__________________
Mentor / Drive Coach: 228 (2016-?)
...2016 Waterbury SFs (with 3314, 3719), RIDE #2 Seed / Winners (with 1058, 6153), Carver QFs (with 503, 359, 4607)
Mentor / Consultant Person: 2170 (2017-?)
---
College Mentor: 2791 (2010-2015)
...2015 TVR Motorola Quality, FLR GM Industrial Design
...2014 FLR Motorola Quality / SFs (with 341, 4930)
...2013 BAE Motorola Quality, WPI Regional #1 Seed / Delphi Excellence in Engineering / Finalists (with 20, 3182)
...2012 BAE Imagery / Finalists (with 1519, 885), CT Xerox Creativity / SFs (with 2168, 118)
Student: 1714 (2009) - 2009 Minnesota 10,000 Lakes Regional Winners (with 2826, 2470)
2791 Build Season Photo Gallery - Look here for mechanism photos My Robotics Blog (Updated April 11 2014)
|