2014: the year of the underdog

[pruo95]

I don't disagree with you, but you should be careful. Teams with a D robot are usually high profile and high budget teams. If they have the resources, couldn't they make a universal robot. And if they notice a strategy begins to fail, they could just change and go back to beating the A, B, and C robots.

[AndyBare]

Originally Posted by pruo95

I don't disagree with you, but you should be careful. Teams with a D robot are usually high profile and high budget teams. If they have the resources, couldn't they make a universal robot. And if they notice a strategy begins to fail, they could just change and go back to beating the A, B, and C robots.

I definately agree with this. It is extremely difficult to add during competition, but way easy to strip a bot. If they plan on being 120 pounds with a D bot, by the time those teams get to their A or B bot, they'll be much less, possibly even giving them an edge over other A's and B's. I am not saying it would be wise to strip a bot in competition I'm just saying it could end up helping in the end, if this proves true. But by the time World's roles around, I think the winning alliance will have all this under wraps. Many D's will do extremely well.

[StewyJ]

So true, Todd. You wrote so well what I have been thinking all night. Could be an interesting to see what approaches teams take this year.

[bduddy]

One thing I have learned from watching FIRST for many years is that the top teams are not just the top teams because they build the best robots. They're the top teams because year after year, most of them understand the game and plan strategies far better than the average FRC team. Considering the depth of misunderstanding of the rules and potential strategies that have been seen on this forum today, I don't see that changing, and I don't think the theoretical ability of less-sophisticated robots to keep up will, by itself, help "underdogs" all that much.

[ToddF]

Originally Posted by bduddy

I don't think the theoretical ability of less-sophisticated robots to keep up will, by itself, help "underdogs" all that much.

Agreed. The key to an underdog team doing well this year is recognizing the high value in finishing an A class robot in 4 weeks and practicing for two weeks rather than finishing a C class robot in 6 weeks and getting no practice. The extra abilities of the C class robot are easily negated by middling defense, and have cost them two weeks of practice time.

[JesseK]

I disagree about the 'year of defense' thought Todd. A robot that is pure defense is denying their own alliance 20 points from the 3rd assist. The time to score the goal (either goal) is when the 'defensive' robot goes to get the assist for their alliance.

I think it's really more a year of smart strategists and smart drivers. Paying attention to the opponents' real-time strategy will be key. Paying attention to which opponents have an assist on a given cycle is a must. Even paying attention to which side a ball is about to inbounded from is a must.

Edit - come to think of it, Aerial Assist is more like Ultimate Frisbee that Ultimate Ascent was. There will be some cycles where the opposing team will say 'wtf just happened?!'.

[themccannman]

This is the first game in a long time where the bottom goal is a totally viable option. You only lose 15% of your score on a max point cycle going for the low goal rather than high. Which means if you can decrease your cycle time by 15% by going for the low goal you have effectively made up the points lost form not hitting the high goal. In a 30 second cycle, if you take 4.5 fewer seconds to score in the low goal than the high goal, you have the same scoring efficiency.

[asid61]

I think that this closes the gap quite a bit. Although as stated, the tradoff for defense is that your alliance won't be able to get the third assist (20 points). Unless you can escape the robot you are defending, gain possession, then pass it off and return before the opposing alliance can pass to the defended, defense might just be removing two robots from the game.
Although because of the difficulty of shooting, defense on high shooters can be easily accomplished with a good drivetrain and a 4-5' tall robot.

[cmrnpizzo14]

Originally Posted by themccannman

This is the first game in a long time where the bottom goal is a totally viable option. You only lose 15% of your score on a max point cycle going for the low goal rather than high. Which means if you can decrease your cycle time by 15% by going for the low goal you have effectively made up the points lost form not hitting the high goal. In a 30 second cycle, if you take 4.5 fewer seconds to score in the low goal than the high goal, you have the same scoring efficiency.

I would actually disagree that the low goal is a viable option. The low goal is small. To actually score, you need to get right up next to the goal. Chances of shooting the ball in from any sort of distance is incredibly low. A good defensive robot could easily block one of the goals off from your alliance and then probably delay a score in the other goal. It will take much more effort to actually get to the low goals.

The high goals on the other hand are so wide that if you have a shooter that is decent you should be able to get to a spot to shoot within a short matter of seconds if you have anything comparable to a kitbot drive. Additionally, if you pick your shooting position correctly, a goalie should be a non-factor in blocking the shots.

I'm sure that there will be at least one team that proves me wrong but for the vast majority of teams I feel that the high goal is a much easier scoring option when facing defense in eliminations. The easiest comparison would be fender shooters vs. key shooters in 2012. Fender shooters were effective in qualification matches but they were neutralized in eliminations when defense stepped up.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by cmrnpizzo14

I would actually disagree that the low goal is a viable option. The low goal is small. To actually score, you need to get right up next to the goal. Chances of shooting the ball in from any sort of distance is incredibly low. A good defensive robot could easily block one of the goals off from your alliance and then probably delay a score in the other goal. It will take much more effort to actually get to the low goals.

The high goals on the other hand are so wide that if you have a shooter that is decent you should be able to get to a spot to shoot within a short matter of seconds if you have anything comparable to a kitbot drive. Additionally, if you pick your shooting position correctly, a goalie should be a non-factor in blocking the shots.

I'm sure that there will be at least one team that proves me wrong but for the vast majority of teams I feel that the high goal is a much easier scoring option when facing defense in eliminations. The easiest comparison would be fender shooters vs. key shooters in 2012. Fender shooters were effective in qualification matches but they were neutralized in eliminations when defense stepped up.

There is a lot of truth to this, especially given that protrusions into the low goals seem to be allowed (GDC, please change this in Q&A/Team Updates!!!). However, the counter point is pretty simple, you only need one robot on an alliance to shoot into the high goal. Could there be benefits to having multiple? Absolutely. But for many of the "underdog" teams, focusing on being an incredible ball handler is going to be a better focus than shooting, imo.

[JesseK]

What's REALLY promising about the low goal for underdogs is that the lip on the bottom of the low goal is 7" - which is the lowest height allowed for the top of bumpers. Thus getting it into the low goal is literally as easy as 'just run into the thing' - so long as a team can acquire the ball and then get to a goal.

If the GDC doesn't change the 'protrusions into the goal' issue, then I suspect there will be a LOT of broken protrusions...

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by JesseK

What's REALLY promising about the low goal for underdogs is that the lip on the bottom of the low goal is 7" - which is the lowest height allowed for the top of bumpers. Thus getting it into the low goal is literally as easy as 'just run into the thing' - so long as a team can acquire the ball and then get to a goal.

Given how few goals (average 1-1.5 per robot per match) were scored in Breakaway with a lot more balls, and how few hurdles were made in 2008 (at my regional the average hurdler could get 1 per match) I think "literally as easy as" are very dangerous words.

[Canon reeves]

if you think about it, each zone is worth 20 points, a class B robot could focus on a great feeder, and catcher and catch often, and do good in defense and protecting the shooter from defense they are just as important and don't need a launcher at all. But without good driving theres not much you can do. Very good year for all the rookie teams including 2 year teams.

[Canon reeves]

I would take the B robot and just add a very reliable ground feeder that could pass off effectivly. We are trying to design a feeder on a long base robot because a longer base is more stable, better for defense and can take more hits without losing ballance. I think there will be alot of sheering of feeders if its not designed right.

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by cmrnpizzo14

I would actually disagree that the low goal is a viable option. The low goal is small. To actually score, you need to get right up next to the goal. Chances of shooting the ball in from any sort of distance is incredibly low. A good defensive robot could easily block one of the goals off from your alliance and then probably delay a score in the other goal. It will take much more effort to actually get to the low goals.

The high goals on the other hand are so wide that if you have a shooter that is decent you should be able to get to a spot to shoot within a short matter of seconds if you have anything comparable to a kitbot drive. Additionally, if you pick your shooting position correctly, a goalie should be a non-factor in blocking the shots.

I'm sure that there will be at least one team that proves me wrong but for the vast majority of teams I feel that the high goal is a much easier scoring option when facing defense in eliminations. The easiest comparison would be fender shooters vs. key shooters in 2012. Fender shooters were effective in qualification matches but they were neutralized in eliminations when defense stepped up.

I'm not saying you should go for the low goal because you're right it's much easier to defend the low goal than the high goal. What I'm trying to say is that if the high goal is blocked it's easy for you to just drive into the corner and quickly dump the ball into the low goal. It's viable to go for the low goal if the high goal is being defended because you lose very few points. Only 15% of your points on a perfect cycle compared to 67% the previous two years.