High Goal Vs. Low Goal

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by coachm

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

The drawbridge specifically seems more complicated for a low bot to breach from the front, being 3' high, while everything else is 2' or lower. We've been figuring the drawbridge is so easy from the back, and so much more complicated from the front, that we wouldn't expend much effort on it.

[markmcgary]

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.

Is it not true that there will always be at least 6 boulders available on the field at all times? I would think that G34 would virtually guarantee that there will always be at least 6 boulders available.

G34 No more than six (6) BOULDERS may remain in a CASTLE at any time. If the BOULDER count ever
exceeds six (6), excess BOULDERS must be introduced to the FIELD immediately.
Violation: FOUL per excess BOULDER

[A_Reed]

Originally Posted by markmcgary

Is it not true that there will always be at least 6 boulders available on the field at all times? I would think that G34 would virtually guarantee that there will always be at least 6 boulders available.

With 5 other robots potentially all possessing boulders by that rule there should always be one free boulder for your team. You may have very well have to trek all the way across the field to get it, thus slowing down the game even more. A 'gopher' bot may have its benefits to shuttle balls to the other side.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by mitchklong

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.

And a bot built to the height limit will have more problems traversing the defenses (remember crossing the bridge on rebound rumble).

During Arial Assist, our bot had a pretty good accuracy shooting the high goal with a low robot.

[Jonathan Norris]

The high goal this year is by far (horizontally) the tightest goal we've ever had to shoot into, especially with no safe zones from defense. The goals in 2006/2012/2013/2014 were all multiple times wider then the game piece, this year your clearance is 6" total... I think teams are vastly underestimating how difficult it will be to score in the high goal this year and how long it will take to line up the shot, even from very close. In 2012 (the closest shooting game in difficulty), the top teams often took 10 seconds to properly lineup their shots (and they had a safe zone to shoot from).

I'll be very impressed when we see a single robot do 8 boulder high goal scores by themselves. In our best match in 2013 we were able to do 7 full court cycles with no defenses to get over, no defensive robots bothering us, a safe zone with a fast passive alignment mechanism, and one of the fastest shooters in the world (usually around a second to unload all 4 discs).

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by markmcgary

Is it not true that there will always be at least 6 boulders available on the field at all times? I would think that G34 would virtually guarantee that there will always be at least 6 boulders available.

Thanks for clarifying this for me! The lack of sleep is catching up apparently.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Norris

The high goal this year is by far (horizontally) the tightest goal we've ever had to shoot into, especially with no safe zones from defense.

See earlier in this thread, there's some argument that G43 makes the entire OUTER WORKS a safe zone, since opponents can't interfere with a robot attempting a traverse, and a traverse is defined as any part of your bumper over the OUTER WORKS. So if you mostly cross a defense and stop on the courtyard side with your bumper still over the defense, then you've got yourself a protected zone for lining up your shot. Take your shot and finish crossing the defense by completely clearing it, and your opponent never has a chance to touch you, while you're still perfectly legal on boulder rules.

If they let this protected shooting zone stand, then scouting high scorers to put their weakest defense in slot 4 is going to be important.

[philso]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

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).

Hey Nathan

I think we are putting emphasis on different aspects of the same issue. You were emphasizing the difficulties of scoring in the high goal and the high probability of missing it. I was emphasizing the significant consequences of missing the high goal.

[philso]

Originally Posted by coachm

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

I would encourage your team to spend a bit of time thinking of how the number of mechanisms you are using to overcome the Defenses can be reduced. Since you have a small number of students, the extra time invested in thinking about reducing the number of mechanisms you will have to build (and buy materials for) will give greater returns to your team. It is also possible that in this exercise, your team might find a way to acquire and securely house a boulder using this mechanism With the limited resources you have available, it may be advantageous for you to plan on making use of the withholding allowance to buy you time.

[coachm]

Originally Posted by philso

I would encourage your team to spend a bit of time thinking of how the number of mechanisms you are using to overcome the Defenses can be reduced. Since you have a small number of students, the extra time invested in thinking about reducing the number of mechanisms you will have to build (and buy materials for) will give greater returns to your team. It is also possible that in this exercise, your team might find a way to acquire and securely house a boulder using this mechanism With the limited resources you have available, it may be advantageous for you to plan on making use of the withholding allowance to buy you time.

Indeed! Right now, we've narrowed it down to 3 motions/appendages and... what the heck with the low bar!... uh... any suggestions?

Certainly if we can breach defenses we can drive and push boulders into low goals, but only if the alliance members are too busy or unable. Breaching is 40 game pts plus guaranteed RP. Capturing requires 8 boulders (ranging game point combos from 8-40 pts) and only a RP is all three 'bots at least challenge. Especially in early weeks and matches, that is NOT guaranteed!

As for withholding allowance - oh, yes! Definitely!

[philso]

Originally Posted by coachm

Indeed! Right now, we've narrowed it down to 3 motions/appendages and... what the heck with the low bar!... uh... any suggestions?

Certainly if we can breach defenses we can drive and push boulders into low goals, but only if the alliance members are too busy or unable. Breaching is 40 game pts plus guaranteed RP. Capturing requires 8 boulders (ranging game point combos from 8-40 pts) and only a RP is all three 'bots at least challenge. Especially in early weeks and matches, that is NOT guaranteed!

As for withholding allowance - oh, yes! Definitely!

I think that the feeling of many here on CD is that several of the Defenses (the ones with no moving parts) might be defeated with proper drivetrain design so that might get rid of at least one of your mechanisms.

The Low Bar doesn't move either and you either go under it or over it. There is another thread here discussing the robot geometry required to go under it.

Perhaps your team can make cardboard mockups of the Defenses with moving parts and play with different concepts to see if you can reduce the number of mechanisms further. These would not even have to be full-sized. It would be a lot faster than building them following the drawings then finding that you might not have any ideas that are promising.

The following video might give you some ideas too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJREahxuy4Q

[abigailthefox]

Originally Posted by Chak

I believe that at the highest levels of play, shooting in the high goal is necessary.

Always a good idea to keep in mind that the game WILL evolve to high levels of play...so that while a low goal seems quick and easy now, ultimately, reliable high goal scoring will likely become a major force later on. However, if you don't have the time/resources to put into a reliable high goal mechanism, a quick low goal scorer won't win anything alone, but it's better than nothing.

[messer5740]

Are there any limitations on the number of wheels that we are able to use this year?

[coachm]

Originally Posted by philso

I think that the feeling of many here on CD is that several of the Defenses (the ones with no moving parts) might be defeated with proper drivetrain design so that might get rid of at least one of your mechanisms.

The Low Bar doesn't move either and you either go under it or over it. There is another thread here discussing the robot geometry required to go under it.

Perhaps your team can make cardboard mockups of the Defenses with moving parts and play with different concepts to see if you can reduce the number of mechanisms further. These would not even have to be full-sized. It would be a lot faster than building them following the drawings then finding that you might not have any ideas that are promising.

The following video might give you some ideas too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJREahxuy4Q

Thanks! I agree that a properly researched drivetrain, and ruggedly constructed 'bot will readily knock out 4 of the obstacles. We're kind of thinking 10" wheels - help get up over the wall in particular. Team Indiana on ri3d used the tank treads and they're bouncing all over the place. I am worried about securing the ball. A third row of wheels (not powered necessarily) might help with the cheval de frise, preventing the middle plank from swinging back up to catch the undercarriage and trap the 'bot - just something to be in contact with the ramp and hold it down while we drive over it. That one will take a model, we're building it tomorrow evening, I think. Unfortunately, it's final exams this week so our kids are a little split in their focus. Stupid school schedule, really. Finals AFTER winter hols? What a dumb idea.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by messer5740

Are there any limitations on the number of wheels that we are able to use this year?

You may use no more than approximately 100 lbs of wheels.

Originally Posted by abigailthefox

Always a good idea to keep in mind that the game WILL evolve to high levels of play...so that while a low goal seems quick and easy now, ultimately, reliable high goal scoring will likely become a major force later on. However, if you don't have the time/resources to put into a reliable high goal mechanism, a quick low goal scorer won't win anything alone, but it's better than nothing.

I'm mildly concerned that you're relegating the vast majority of the FIRST community to better than nothing status or presumably worse. I think perhaps what you meant to say is that low goals can also offer a good points scored per effort expended if you can't manage high goals. If your team doesn't have the resources or expertise to make a successful high goal robot, then design within your available resources is the correct engineering decision. Try not to insult insult teams that are making design decisions that are smart and correct for their situation.