[Siri]

I'm interested in what game mechanic is making gears so much of a better fit for folk on this score than other years' low goals (herein meaning a goal within robot height whose game pieces can be received at a higher altitude than they are scored).

I'd argue that that gear pegging could well end up significantly more difficult even than low goaling frisbees in 2013. I saw more than one box on wheels just consistently collect 4 frisbees in a static tray, run across the field, and ram into the low goal to send them tumbling. A consistent static loader may be around the same level of difficulty both years, but the goal alignment (including the obstructed vision) looks far more difficult at least viewing it from build season. And certainly running two slanted hooks into the bottom rung of the pyramid is far easier than rope climbing. Low goaling in 2014, for its part, was far easier than either 2013 or now. In fact, I'd argue that 2014, between the chair assists and the low goaling and the Aerial Assault defense--and the number of points they were all worth--was the most versatile, valuable, and strategically interesting for Dozer bots in recent years with 2016 also being similar. The actual 2017 low goal (for fuel) is among the more difficult low goals for good throughput that we've had recently. 2015's was less exciting (in oh so many ways), but you could indeed push bunches of single or double totes onto platforms and people did this.

I do agree that gears have a certain je ne sais quoi, but I don't think it's about challenge levels or strategic complexity. We've long had both of those if you knew where to look (and you don't look in Lunacy :P). My current conjecture is that we simply like the balance between the two tasks better in terms of match effects and design prioritization. This, for instance, is something 2013 arguably really struggled with in the point/complexity difference between 10, 20, and 30 point climbs. This year teams that might otherwise say "but we have to shoot high to be worth it" are saying "yay, passive gear mechanism" simply because of the point potential they're anticipating.