High Goal Vs. Low Goal

[Procolsaurus]

R43 is oddly specific about bumpers. I now agree that there is a band of protected space, the depth of a bumper, from the edge of the COURTYARD going over the ramp of the OUTERWORKS.

I hope it gets clarified by QA.

[Nathan Streeter]

A lot of people have made a lot of good points here... obviously a HG is worth more (and is the only way to accumulate 'infinite' points, making it a key factor at highest levels) and I agree it can often be done faster by elite shooters.

BUT, I think this could be the hardest game to have high shot accuracy (compared to 2006, 2012, 2013, and perhaps even 2014). The goal (HG or LG) is only 2.5 balls high and 1.5 balls wide, making it one of the tightest goals we've ever had... I suspect THE tightest. 2006 was quite large compared to the ball, 2012 probably had a comparable or larger "sweet spot" on the backboard for backspun balls, 2013 was far bigger, and 2014 was ~1.5 balls tall and wicked wide. One of the only "protected areas" is backed against the Defenses, which isn't bad, but it doesn't have the super-close fender option that 2012 had.

To make the goal size even more significant, you only get 1 shot per cycle... so if you miss 25% or 33% of your shots or so, the cost is considerably higher (you have much fewer shots AND you can't use your first as a 'tracer' of sorts). Furthermore, and we have yet to see how the Boulders wear... and how that'll impact various shooter designs. Consider though, that a rare few teams in 2012 actually had a 'ball stiffness testers' on their robot to calibrate for each ball's wear/stiffness...

At any rate, I think that elite HG shooters will be formiddable and will require excellent defense to stop and/or some serious offensive firepower on the other side... that said, I also think that strong HG shooters will be very rare and that many teams attempting HG shooters will (or should, but perhaps won't) end up prefering the LG.

[Chris is me]

Prediction: Regionals will be won with alliance captains who either can't shoot high goals or score almost exclusively low goals this year. Especially at early events, it will be a challenge to get 8 balls in the tower consistently during most qual matches.

After the disaster that was 2015 for the MCC robot, 2016 is looking more like other years, where the jack of all trades is the master of none. I'm a big fan of this game.

[coachm]

We've made a different decision than I am seeing here... we've decided to not score high or low goals at all, but focus on speed and defeating all the defense obstacles. Our aim is to be able to deliver boulders to alliance members in the courtyard for goal scoring while breaching the outer works. If we can get the speed factor high enough, we can give our alliance members time to line up high goals and evade defense bots - or chase down missed shots and try again - while we bring them ammunition. If we can succeed, our alliance members will be able to spend more time in the courtyard attacking the tower's strength towards capture, while we focus on breaching the outer works. This strategy will play to our strengths, while presenting a challenge in getting the cycle time low enough to benefit the alliance. Thoughts?

[philso]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

A lot of people have made a lot of good points here... obviously a HG is worth more (and is the only way to accumulate 'infinite' points, making it a key factor at highest levels) and I agree it can often be done faster by elite shooters.

BUT, I think this could be the hardest game to have high shot accuracy (compared to 2006, 2012, 2013, and perhaps even 2014). The goal (HG or LG) is only 2.5 balls high and 1.5 balls wide, making it one of the tightest goals we've ever had... I suspect THE tightest. 2006 was quite large compared to the ball, 2012 probably had a comparable or larger "sweet spot" on the backboard for backspun balls, 2013 was far bigger, and 2014 was ~1.5 balls tall and wicked wide. One of the only "protected areas" is backed against the Defenses, which isn't bad, but it doesn't have the super-close fender option that 2012 had.

To make the goal size even more significant, you only get 1 shot per cycle... so if you miss 25% or 33% of your shots or so, the cost is considerably higher (you have much fewer shots AND you can't use your first as a 'tracer' of sorts). Furthermore, and we have yet to see how the Boulders wear... and how that'll impact various shooter designs. Consider though, that a rare few teams in 2012 actually had a 'ball stiffness testers' on their robot to calibrate for each ball's wear/stiffness...

At any rate, I think that elite HG shooters will be formiddable and will require excellent defense to stop and/or some serious offensive firepower on the other side... that said, I also think that strong HG shooters will be very rare and that many teams attempting HG shooters will (or should, but perhaps won't) end up prefering the LG.

How much time will your robot spend chasing the same boulder around if you miss the high goal? Keep in mind that there are two sets of Defenses that may be obscuring your view of the courtyard your robot is in and that a defending robot will be doing its best to interfere with your robot. It was heartbreaking in 2012 to watch our drivers waste many, many precious seconds where he could not see that the ball he was trying to pick up was really about 2 feet further down the field than the robot was.

Your team needs to be very honest about what it is capable of accomplishing then apply Karthik's two Golden Rules. Some of the features you then choose to implement may be a stretch but it should be a thoroughly calculated risk.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Prediction: Regionals will be won with alliance captains who either can't shoot high goals or score almost exclusively low goals this year. Especially at early events, it will be a challenge to get 8 balls in the tower consistently during most qual matches.

After the disaster that was 2015 for the MCC robot, 2016 is looking more like other years, where the jack of all trades is the master of none. I'm a big fan of this game.

^ Yes!

[philso]

Originally Posted by coachm

We've made a different decision than I am seeing here... we've decided to not score high or low goals at all, but focus on speed and defeating all the defense obstacles. Our aim is to be able to deliver boulders to alliance members in the courtyard for goal scoring while breaching the outer works. If we can get the speed factor high enough, we can give our alliance members time to line up high goals and evade defense bots - or chase down missed shots and try again - while we bring them ammunition. If we can succeed, our alliance members will be able to spend more time in the courtyard attacking the tower's strength towards capture, while we focus on breaching the outer works. This strategy will play to our strengths, while presenting a challenge in getting the cycle time low enough to benefit the alliance. Thoughts?

If your robot can bring boulders to the courtyard, it is likely that it will be capable of scoring in the low goal. If not, it would likely not take much more effort.

[audietron]

I am seeing the ability to score high goal as an unnecessary ability unless you have an alliance partner that will bring boulders to the courtyard to shorten time in between cycles. I think an optimal robot is one that is fast at getting over/under all defenses while picking up boulders for quick low goal scoring or just releasing for another team. In quals it can score them while doing the defenses and in elims release them for a team member that can shoot high goals accurately that might take more time but less since they would be in a relatively close position to the tower.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Prediction: Regionals will be won with alliance captains who either can't shoot high goals or score almost exclusively low goals this year. Especially at early events, it will be a challenge to get 8 balls in the tower consistently during most qual matches.

After the disaster that was 2015 for the MCC robot, 2016 is looking more like other years, where the jack of all trades is the master of none. I'm a big fan of this game.

At the very least, I'll predict that at least 95% of regional winning alliances will have at least one robot that can't shoot high goals. The important thing is to consider how to contribute to an alliance if you're not the superstar high-goal robot.

[Ginger Power]

You have 18 game pieces potentially available to you in this game. The limited number of game pieces will make the high goal valuable at high levels. Low goal to win regionals/districts, but I think the World champs will be the alliance that can most effectively put balls in the high goal. So many teams will stuggle just to get across the defenses... at low levels of play I think the low goal rules. Open up that ability to capture the tower and you're in great shape.

On the other hand, if you can score in the high goal, you can score in the low goal. Don't start the year off by setting restrictions like that for your robot. I think a lot of teams will find out during prototyping the these boulders are easy to manipulate.

[philso]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

You have 18 game pieces potentially available to you in this game. The limited number of game pieces will make the high goal valuable at high levels. Low goal to win regionals/districts, but I think the World champs will be the alliance that can most effectively put balls in the high goal. So many teams will stuggle just to get across the defenses... at low levels of play I think the low goal rules. Open up that ability to capture the tower and you're in great shape.

A mistake that many teams are likely to make is to aim to have the functionality to play at the Championship level at an early Tournament. At each tournament you compete at, including Championship, all of the teams there have had the same number of days to work on their robot. You are not competing with teams that have had more time to work on their robots.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

I'm kind of curious: has anyone in this thread actually ran a Time Study of this game with your team, or is this all uncalculated opinion? Did your Time Study account for missed-shot probability and chase-down time? Did it account for defense played on the shooter?

You'd be quite surprised how similar the Expected Values are between low and high goal scoring.

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by philso

How much time will your robot spend chasing the same boulder around if you miss the high goal? Keep in mind that there are two sets of Defenses that may be obscuring your view of the courtyard your robot is in and that a defending robot will be doing its best to interfere with your robot. It was heartbreaking in 2012 to watch our drivers waste many, many precious seconds where he could not see that the ball he was trying to pick up was really about 2 feet further down the field than the robot was.

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments... but it seems like you thought they were in contrast to my post you quoted. I'd say my post was saying: shooting in the HG well enough to make it worthwhile will be very challenging... harder than HG shooting in previous games; but the rewards are big for those who can do it very, very well. The shooting mechanism itself must be very accurate and repeatable (depending on range to target), and it probably will need to be paired with auto-targeting, skilled and practiced drivers, and/or a consistent shooting location... but the teams that can have excellent shot accuracy and get into and out of position quickly will be very valuable (in some ways because I expect it to be a smaller group).

Originally Posted by philso

Your team needs to be very honest about what it is capable of accomplishing then apply Karthik's two Golden Rules. Some of the features you then choose to implement may be a stretch but it should be a thoroughly calculated risk.

I concur. a lot. :-)

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

On the other hand, if you can score in the high goal, you can score in the low goal.

This is not a true statement. Brattice-load only high shooters can't hit low without adding a layer of complexity and inaccuracy to a shooter. Similarly if you have an irreversible ball collection mechanism. A high shooter that can also score low is a more specific and constrained design than just a high shooter.

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man

I'm kind of curious: has anyone in fthis thread actually ran a Time Study of this game with your team, or is this all uncalculated opinion? Did your Time Study account for missed-shot probability and chase-down time? Did it account for defense played on the shooter?

You'd be quite surprised how similar the Expected Values are between low and high goal scoring.

Our team was, in fact, slightly flummoxed when we started estimating scoring potentials of high-goals specialists, breach and low goals, breach and scale bots, etc. They all came out rather surprisingly close together.

[mitchklong]

The low bar defense also brings a case for low scoring. That defense is always there, in a predictable place, ideal for teams to build low scoring solutions in auto. A bot that goes under that bar is going to have a harder time shooting a high shot then a bot that builds all the way to the height limit.

The winning alliance almost always has a team of vairos roles. It seems to me the low score bot is just as much a part of a winning aliance as the high one.

[coachm]

Originally Posted by philso

If your robot can bring boulders to the courtyard, it is likely that it will be capable of scoring in the low goal. If not, it would likely not take much more effort.

That might be true, but for securing purposes, we might choose to house the boulder inside the robot to cross the bumpy obstacles. Plus, low goal is an add on once we achieve our primary goal of crossing ALL the defenses. High goal is "right out", so to speak for us, though. Reality: 7 student members, 43 days, and 9 different obstacles is enough! LOL