Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Bendicksen
Beautiful robot (as always) from 1983.
Can you talk a little about your decision to not shoot? I know Looking Forward alluded to a possible shooter to be added later, but why didn't you go to Auburn-Mountainview without a shooter?
I guess I'm just curious about the strategic reasoning around prioritizing climbing over shooting.
|
Benton beat me to the punch while I was typing this, but I'll post anyways. YOLO.
The decision came down to the lack of protected shooting zones. While our team is quite fortunate in what we are able to design, manufacture, and control, we felt that there would have to be some level of compromise this year. It was the opinion of the design group that we were in a "pick two of three" type of scenario; solo-breach, shoot high, climb. We could execute two of these three options at a very high level, or be fairly mediocre at all.
Our analysis yielded that shooting high, compared to low goal scoring, would provide a net gain of roughly twenty-nine points over the course of a match that included an auto ball and eight more in tele-op. A climber would be able to mitigate ten of those twenty-nine points, and proper defense combined with unrefined shooting in week one would more than likely decrease the average number of high goal cycles from the baseline eight to a conservative three or four.
With solo-breaching for the extra RP the clear first priority, it came down to shooting or climbing. At this point, we felt that a climber would be a more robust and reliable mechanism. Unlike high shooting, the defense that we would face breaching and climbing would have minimal effect on cycle time.