Tower Strength Raised to 10 for CMP

[Ty Tremblay]

As seen here: https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.n...Updates/21.pdf

How does this affect how low-goal robots will seed in subdivisions?

Is the change significant enough to effect subdivision playoffs?

[TDav540]

Obviously we'll find out. I think low goal robots will now seed higher than they would have previously, but I'll still take the high goal shooters over the low goal scorers for the simple reason that a team can win a match in quals without getting a capture, especially if their opponent only scores low goals. 4 high goals = 10 low goals, so I think most low goaling teams will be susceptible to a decent-to-good high goal shooter, costing wins and subsequent ranking position.

I seriously doubt it will significantly impact subdivision playoffs, other than possibly emphasizing the scoring capability of third/fourth robots. All/most alliances will still be able to get a capture as before.

[MooreteP]

I think it should have gone to 12.

Divisible by 2,3,4, & 6. Look at your fingers.
I love the metric system, but we're in 'Murica.

Nonetheless, 10 is better than 8.

Can't wait for the first FMS burp that doesn't incorporate this change.

[Liu346]

It is very interesting that they have made this change. I like that it will increase the curve separating the good robots from the bad, but getting 10 boulders in the tower is relatively easy with the level of offense this year presents. I believe that this will affect mid range shooter quite significantly though because with a low health tower teams will be more convinced to play more aggressive defense to prevent captures in elims. I like this change and am looking forward to see how it plays out on the field.

[Eric Scheuing]

Low goal bots will definitely be a bit more viable, since some high goal shooters (ourselves included) take a bit of time per cycle to line up the shot and require more constant defense.

Speaking of defense, a good defender is now that much more valuable.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by Eric Scheuing

Low goal bots will definitely be a bit more viable, since some high goal shooters (ourselves included) take a bit of time per cycle to line up the shot and require more constant defense.

We can shoot 6 high in a game if not being defended.

If being defended, we can shoot low.

We are working on shooting from the Outerworks if the defender is not tall.

A fast defender still messes up low goal shooting (keeps us from getting to the low goal).

A defender can only really block one robot. So two robots that can shoot high and low will still allow one robot to shoot high while the other occupies the defender.

Cycle time, absent a defender, is about the same for high/low. The extra travel time (distance) for low goal shooting is about what we need to shoot the high goal.

With 2 shooting and 1 defending, we would be marginal on getting to 10 against a team that defends. We would probably have 2 shooting and 1 defending, and in the last minute, if close, pull the defending robot to shoot an extra boulder or two (3 on 1).

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by rich2202

A fast defender still messes up low goal shooting (keeps us from getting to the low goal).

A defender can only really block one robot. So two robots that can shoot high and low will still allow one robot to shoot high while the other occupies the defender.

I'd say depends on the defense. If you're playing man-to-man, then yes, you can only block one robot. But given that a vast majority of robots that shoot from the outerworks have a largely unblockable shot, I expect that the more typical defense is going to be a zone defense where you generally delay cycles rather than straight up block shots.

[billbo911]

What I find interesting is the addition to G41 in the Blue Box.

Do I smell a new strategy to slow down Breaching coming?

[Liu346]

How would you use that to make a new strategy?

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by Liu346

How would you use that to make a new strategy?

Put a boulder in the other alliance's outerworks. It forces the other alliance to clear the boulder before crossing, or cross without a boulder, and hope the boulder follows the robot.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by rich2202

Put a boulder in the other alliance's outerworks. It forces the other alliance to clear the boulder before crossing, or cross without a boulder, and hope the boulder follows the robot.

Assumedly this would be a G11 infraction.

[Ginger Power]

This change definitely increases the value of defensive robots. Preventing a capture is much more doable during quals. Defensive robots will force mid-teir shooters to think carefully about shooting high and potentially missing out on a capture.

I don't believe this reduces the value of defenders during alliance selections because 2 elite offensive robots should have no trouble weakening the tower on their own. An interesting impact that this could have is with the lower ranked alliances. I could see the need for a 3rd offensive robot to get the capture especially if the top alliances are running with 1 dedicated defender.

[Chak]

Originally Posted by CalTran

Assumedly this would be a G11 infraction.

Imo, putting a boulder in your own defenses would not be a G11 infraction by itself. G11's blue box says

G11 requires an intentional act with limited or no opportunity for the TEAM being acted on to avoid the penalty.

Putting a boulder in your own defenses would be a valid defense strategy then, since the opposing robots can choose to slow down and clear out the boulder to avoid the foul. As I see it, the difference is that the opposing alliance is not forced into committing a foul.

Disclaimer: Just a student's interpretation of the rules. The refs may call it differently.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Chak

Imo, putting a boulder in your own defenses would not be a G11 infraction by itself. ...
Putting a boulder in your own defenses would be a valid defense strategy then, since the opposing robots can choose to slow down and clear out the boulder to avoid the foul.

Read one rule further.

G12-1 ROBOTS may not deliberately use FIELD elements, e.g. BOULDERS, in an attempt to ease or amplify the challenge associated with other FIELD elements, e.g. DEFENSES. Violation: FOUL. For every five (5) seconds in which the situation is not corrected, FOUL

And its Blue Box:

Example actions that violate G12-1 include, but aren’t limited to the
following: adding BOULDERS to your Moat to make it harder for your
opponents to CROSS the Moat, using a BOULDER to prop up Cheval
de Frise elements, propping open a DEFENSE door with a BOULDER.

[Chak]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Read one rule further.

G12-1 ROBOTS may not deliberately use FIELD elements, e.g. BOULDERS, in an attempt to ease or amplify the challenge associated with other FIELD elements, e.g. DEFENSES. Violation: FOUL. For every five (5) seconds in which the situation is not corrected, FOUL

And its Blue Box:

Example actions that violate G12-1 include, but aren’t limited to the
following: adding BOULDERS to your Moat to make it harder for your
opponents to CROSS the Moat, using a BOULDER to prop up Cheval
de Frise elements, propping open a DEFENSE door with a BOULDER.

Oh. I didn't consider this other rule . This rule would invalidate almost all strategies blocking the defenses with boulders.
But in very few situations, it could be possible to place a boulder to "block" the defense without making it harder. For example, a ball behind the sally port in the outerworks imo does not "amplify" the challenge of driving across the flat part of the sally port.
I would like to Q&A this, but I cannot.