How viable is full court Assisting?

[Justin Shelley]

Originally Posted by Canon reeves

This is true, but wouldn't the robot catching have to be able to move well to catch ball? And if say defensive robot had 6 CIMs and driving capabilities I think it might make it hard to catch, again causing a wild ball chase, which is what your opponent wants. But it might work? Who knows anything is possible in FIRST, maybe you could make a braking system to hold you in place?

I do agree that good defense could shut this strategy down, but can't that be said about almost any strategy? Defense could shut down FCS last year but yet FCS still prevailed..I think the same will be said about FCA(Full Court Assisting).

[WaterClaw]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

Last year we had full court shooters, but because of the rules (and ball size) this year full court shooting isn't an option. However, if a team had a strong enough shooter they could get the inbound from the human player and immediately launch it down the field to a teammate who would ideally catch it and score it.

In this scenario each cycle would be worth: 10 truss points, 10 catch points (in the unlikely case that the ball is caught), 10 assist points, and 10 goal points for a total of 40 points.

I feel like this strategy would be a more efficient way of moving the ball down the field and into the goal than a more traditional approach.

What does the CD community think about this?

There is almost absolutely no point in my opinion. If you can score 20 assisting, why not aim for 40?

[Canon reeves]

Originally Posted by Justin Shelley

I do agree that good defense could shut this strategy down, but can't that be said about almost any strategy? Defense could shut down FCS last year but yet FCS still prevailed..I think the same will be said about FCA(Full Court Assisting).

This is true for pretty much any strategy, but its a thing of how good the defense is, there is a difference in strategies that can be shut down by a rookie robot that had an ambitious design fail, or a team prepared and great at defense? So lets say FCA is on the blue alliance, they have 2 great shooters on team, they start in red and then shoot it over the truss, then go and play decent Defense but aren't very effective because they used the motors for the FCA (this may not be what you do, just a possibility), then their opponent score and so does their alliance, the shooter for the other team plays defense against them, or the midfield opponent, and stops them from feeding, then the midfield alliance bot gets the ball and truss shots over and it isn't caught because of the in-bounding opponent robot blocks, the ball goes bouncing, it is retrieved, your bot lines up to inbound, the cycle starts over and you shoot it over, by this time the opponents understand and block the catcher, another flying ball, while they are scrambling you have to attempt to play defense on shooter if ball is there because you can't go help because you aren't fast enough. And by time selections come around your opponents in finals know what you can do so they play easy defense on you (the shooter for opponents) but the problem is that more than likely in a finals match that shooter would be one of the top teams so they would be very versatile, so they could play quick defense, so what do you do, you grab the ball and bring it down to shoot , if you focus on a full court assister wouldn't you have to also refine it to be able to shoot closely and maybe not as good so you'd want to hand it off well? but you spent so much time on the FCA that it's not that great? this could go a million ways but this is just a way I thought of. There are so many other great ways for this ending up but this is a bad way that very well could? Please correct me if this is totally nonviable.

[PVCpirate]

Originally Posted by WaterClaw

There is almost absolutely no point in my opinion. If you can score 20 assisting, why not aim for 40?

One reason might be that you can do these 20 or 30 point cycles faster than a 40 point cycle. Say it takes 45 seconds for some alliance to complete a 3 assist cycle. If one robot has the ability to pass the ball from their defensive zone, over the truss, to a partner in the offensive zone, they may be able to complete this 30 point cycle in say 30 seconds. Using those times, they could do 3 40 point cycles for 120 points, or 5 30 point cycles for 150 points. What would you do?

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by Canon reeves

This is true for pretty much any strategy, but its a thing of how good the defense is, there is a difference in strategies that can be shut down by a rookie robot that had an ambitious design fail, or a team prepared and great at defense? So lets say FCA is on the blue alliance, they have 2 great shooters on team, they start in red and then shoot it over the truss, then go and play decent Defense but aren't very effective because they used the motors for the FCA (this may not be what you do, just a possibility), then their opponent score and so does their alliance, the shooter for the other team plays defense against them, or the midfield opponent, and stops them from feeding, then the midfield alliance bot gets the ball and truss shots over and it isn't caught because of the in-bounding opponent robot blocks, the ball goes bouncing, it is retrieved, your bot lines up to inbound, the cycle starts over and you shoot it over, by this time the opponents understand and block the catcher, another flying ball, while they are scrambling you have to attempt to play defense on shooter if ball is there because you can't go help because you aren't fast enough. And by time selections come around your opponents in finals know what you can do so they play easy defense on you (the shooter for opponents) but the problem is that more than likely in a finals match that shooter would be one of the top teams so they would be very versatile, so they could play quick defense, so what do you do, you grab the ball and bring it down to shoot , if you focus on a full court assister wouldn't you have to also refine it to be able to shoot closely and maybe not as good so you'd want to hand it off well? but you spent so much time on the FCA that it's not that great? this could go a million ways but this is just a way I thought of. There are so many other great ways for this ending up but this is a bad way that very well could? Please correct me if this is totally nonviable.

This is definitely a scenario that could conceivably happen. However, like you said it could go a million different ways. I think you are underestimating how hard it would be to actually play defense on the FCA. A well designed FCA should have a good drivetrain and should be able to launch the ball from a number of different spots to a number of different spots. I just don't think even an experienced defensive team would bother trying to block the FCA.
Blocking the robot (or two robots) on the receiving end of the FCA is a different story. Finding a way around defense from the receiving end is definitely more difficult. If there are two robots receiving from the FCA then the FCA would aim for the one that isn't being defensed against (or is more open). If one of the receiving robots is better at catching the ball, then the inferior receiving robot could play anti - defense (setting a pick) for the superior receiving robot allowing it to get room to catch or quickly corral the ball in order to shoot. This ties up one robot from the opposing alliance taking away triple assist opportunities for them and still allows for (in theory) quick 40 point cycles for the FCA team.
If there is one robot on the receiving end of the FCA then it all comes down to driver/drivetrain superiority between the defensive and offensive robot. This also would allow for the third member of the FCA alliance to strictly play defense against the opposing alliance.
The advantage of having a FCA in quals is huge because there are a lot of ways to do it depending on who the FCA is paired with. The disadvantages are glaringly obvious as well because the strategy relies on a teammate of the FCA to be able to quickly attain possession of the ball and consistently put it in the 10 pt goal which will be rare qualities (I realize this paragraph contradicts itself).

[Canon reeves]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

This is definitely a scenario that could conceivably happen. However, like you said it could go a million different ways. I think you are underestimating how hard it would be to actually play defense on the FCA. A well designed FCA should have a good drivetrain and should be able to launch the ball from a number of different spots to a number of different spots. I just don't think even an experienced defensive team would bother trying to block the FCA.
Blocking the robot (or two robots) on the receiving end of the FCA is a different story. Finding a way around defense from the receiving end is definitely more difficult. If there are two robots receiving from the FCA then the FCA would aim for the one that isn't being defensed against (or is more open). If one of the receiving robots is better at catching the ball, then the inferior receiving robot could play anti - defense (setting a pick) for the superior receiving robot allowing it to get room to catch or quickly corral the ball in order to shoot. This ties up one robot from the opposing alliance taking away triple assist opportunities for them and still allows for (in theory) quick 40 point cycles for the FCA team.
If there is one robot on the receiving end of the FCA then it all comes down to driver/drivetrain superiority between the defensive and offensive robot. This also would allow for the third member of the FCA alliance to strictly play defense against the opposing alliance.
The advantage of having a FCA in quals is huge because there are a lot of ways to do it depending on who the FCA is paired with. The disadvantages are glaringly obvious as well because the strategy relies on a teammate of the FCA to be able to quickly attain possession of the ball and consistently put it in the 10 pt goal which will be rare qualities (I realize this paragraph contradicts itself).

why would a defensive team not play D on an FCA???? if the defensive robot hit them off a slight and off goes the ball? if a good FCA could easily be kept from getting the ball by a good defensive player? its like playing defense on a shooter, but bigger risks for the shooter. Just my thoughts, I am a defensive driver and that's what our team prides ourselves in is our driving, because our last robot stunk. Know that this is just my opinion and it can, and has often been, be wrong so believe what you believe is right.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by Canon reeves

why would a defensive team not play D on an FCA???? if the defensive robot hit them off a slight and off goes the ball? if a good FCA could easily be kept from getting the ball by a good defensive player? its like playing defense on a shooter, but bigger risks for the shooter. Just my thoughts, I am a defensive driver and that's what our team prides ourselves in is our driving, because our last robot stunk. Know that this is just my opinion and it can, and has often been, be wrong so believe what you believe is right.

I see your rational but if your playing defense on the FCA and the FCA gets a shot off (and eventually they will) even in the vicinity of the receiving robot (assuming your defense alters the shot so it is less accurate) there is no defense preventing the receiving robot from getting the ball and scoring it. Unless you want 2/3rds of your alliance at least partially dedicated to defense you can't effectively cover both the FCA and receiving robot.
Also if you are covering the FCA it will come down to driver/drivetrain skill of the FCA and defensive robot. Like almost every strategy in this game it will come down to robot v. robot in an open field. The key is limiting potential for error and inefficiency.

[Canon reeves]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

I see your rational but if your playing defense on the FCA and the FCA gets a shot off (and eventually they will) even in the vicinity of the receiving robot (assuming your defense alters the shot so it is less accurate) there is no defense preventing the receiving robot from getting the ball and scoring it. Unless you want 2/3rds of your alliance at least partially dedicated to defense you can't effectively cover both the FCA and receiving robot.
Also if you are covering the FCA it will come down to driver/drivetrain skill of the FCA and defensive robot. Like almost every strategy in this game it will come down to robot v. robot in an open field. The key is limiting potential for error and inefficiency.

One robot in each zone, then you would have two partners for stopping, say the defensive bot controls the feeding zone for their alliance, their two shooters help eachother as well as the defensive bot. but needless to say other robots could still defend catching, and if a robot is fast enough ( a good defensive bot will be), than they could catch up and stop the shooter before they either get it or try to shoot?

[Donut]

If you have the 'perfect' alliance pairing, I'm not sure why defense has to matter much at all.

Maybe some missed it in the initial game analysis, but if I am Red alliance there are 4 spots in the red zone I can park my robot where defense cannot move or block me. If I have a catching device, and the 'perfect' full court assist partner is parked in the parallel location in the blue zone, then that's game. Our 3rd alliance partner can play defense on Blue alliance or can park in front of the FCA in case someone is tall enough to attempt a block in front of it.

If none of the robots have to move to complete a cycle, can our alliance break 300 in a match?

[jblay]

Originally Posted by Donut

If you have the 'perfect' alliance pairing, I'm not sure why defense has to matter much at all.

Maybe some missed it in the initial game analysis, but if I am Red alliance there are 4 spots in the red zone I can park my robot where defense cannot move or block me. If I have a catching device, and the 'perfect' full court assist partner is parked in the parallel location in the blue zone, then that's game. Our 3rd alliance partner can play defense on Blue alliance or can park in front of the FCA in case someone is tall enough to attempt a block in front of it.

If none of the robots have to move to complete a cycle, can our alliance break 300 in a match?

Mind sufficiently blown. I don't think we will see this, but it is still awesome and I am mad at myself for not seeing it.

I think aiming for running quick solo cycles is probably the most efficient and likely way to do something in this spirit and something we are going to see a lot of, especially in the early regionals. You can run a solo cycle straight to the goal in 5-10 seconds assuming accuracy (which is never safe to assume). But theoretically you can run 22-44 cycles a match in your perfect scenario. That is a lot of points.

[BJC]

Originally Posted by jblay

You can run a solo cycle straight to the goal in 5-10 seconds assuming accuracy (which is never safe to assume). But theoretically you can run 22-44 cycles a match in your perfect scenario. That is a lot of points.

22 cycles in a match will not ever happen. Not on Einstein, not at IRI, never. There are 140 seconds in Teleop. 140sec / 22 cycles is 6.36 sec/cycle. Subtract 4sec for your very athletic human player to get the ball from behind the player station into your robot and and you only have 2.36 sec left to score and be back in position to do it again.

Historically in games where teams have to cross the field and back to score game pieces, the Einstein level play maxes out around 9ish cycles (1 cycle every 15.5sec.)

Cheers, Bryan

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by Jay O'Donnell

I think this could be a deadly strategy in early regionals for the top seeded alliances. Since the one seed has the best two robots and then the 24th best, depending on the regional the top two may not want the third robot slowing down their cycle times, and if one has a strong shooter this could be a quick 40 point cycle opportunity.

This idea pairs well with Donuts idea:

Maybe some missed it in the initial game analysis, but if I am Red alliance there are 4 spots in the red zone I can park my robot where$@#defense cannot move or block me.$@#If I have a catching device, and the 'perfect' full court assist partner is parked in the parallel location in the blue zone, then that's game. Our 3rd alliance partner can play defense on Blue alliance or can park in front of the FCA in case someone is tall enough to attempt a block in front of it.

If none of the robots have to move to complete a cycle, can our alliance break 300 in a match?


If the top 2 robots on the #1 alliance are FCAing then I could see them becoming very efficient at it. Maybe even efficient enough to resemble the scenario described by Donut.

[SoccerTaco]

If a Full Court Assist (FCA) robot is launching balls down the field, there will be times when that ball hits another robot.

Will your robot (the pickup arm, the launcher, the electronics, etc) be able to sustain that hit?

That is something that teams may want to consider in their design.

[jblay]

Originally Posted by BJC

22 cycles in a match will not ever happen. Not on Einstein, not at IRI, never. There are 140 seconds in Teleop. 140sec / 22 cycles is 6.36 sec/cycle. Subtract 4sec for your very athletic human player to get the ball from behind the player station into your robot and and you only have 2.36 sec left to score and be back in position to do it again.

Historically in games where teams have to cross the field and back to score game pieces, the Einstein level play maxes out around 9ish cycles (1 cycle every 15.5sec.)

Cheers, Bryan

I did really poor 3am math in my head... i meant 14-28 in perfect scenarios. I agree that a realistic max of 10 at the top level is what we are probably going to see on average. But I do think you can do these much more quickly than you could last year, because you don't have to travel as far and you don't really have to align with a specific human player slot and people can have giant "sweet spots"

[Canon reeves]

my only opposition to this is you would have to be able to still move and then park and that could be defended except in auto mode so that would work as far as I could tell?. the only possible way I can think of to defend that would just be to ram them as hard as possible. One problem is that if you ever miss you have only one mobile robot on the alliance and that could be easily defended so you can't slip up and with being rammed that might be hard to do?