High Goal Vs. Low Goal

[cait.schroeder]

Originally Posted by Gamma +

Initially, our team reached the general consensus that scoring boulders in the high goals is advantageous. However, I don't see that much advantage aside from in auto. Is seems to me that it would be better to opt out of the 3 extra points per shot and increase cycle time than spend a lot of time and energy developing a high goal shooter that requires more time to line up shot (even with vision processing) and is even more susceptible/sensitive to defense. Thoughts?

I was actually thinking a lot about this too, my team is thinking of launching boulders into the high goal but in my opinion, a robot that can breach most defenses and constantly put boulders in the low goal is good rather than having to have an intake system and launch or outtake system for the boulders.

[pfreivald]

We pretty quickly settled on going under the low bar (someone said above that you can go under or over.... No, you can't.) This makes a device designed to pick up a ball and transport it, with another for scaling the tower, a sufficient design challenge for the time allotted.

What I mean by that is that for our engineering resources, a "do it all" robot that can play the whole game at the highest level is not realistic, and the hardest of those levels is the high goal. Points-wise, eight cycles leaves us in a -24 deficit doing low-to-high comparisons (assuming 100% accuracy and time to make eight cycles), but that swings +10 in our favor by being able to do the always-present low bar.

14 points off our theoretical maximum (call it 19 if we can get an autonomous score either way) in exchange for a drastic simplification of the design process? Yeah, we'll take that trade-off, and the only way we'll live to regret it is if we make it to Champs--at which point we'll happily compete to the best of our ability with our low-goal scoring robot.

[Bob Steele]

Originally Posted by messer5740

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

That would depend on how much each wheel weighs....

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

That would depend on how much each wheel weighs....

Assume we're talking HotWheels. How many then, do you think?

[Bob Steele]

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.

It is a WHOLE LOT better than nothing....

low goal shots damage the tower with exactly the same effect as a high goal shot. Any robot that can put in 2-3 low goals will really help an alliance gain the tower QP A quick low goal scorer that can hang....
VERY VALUABLE robot....

Even with unlimited resources.... low goal scoring is a perfectly viable option... especially if you factor in time... I will gladly put a low goal scorer than can do 8 goals in a match on my alliance.....

This is a game of alliances... The GDC has made some really good choices here regarding how points can be scored... they have done their homework.
As we look at the game, more and more things pop up...

A High Goal Scorer that only does that will not win games.... they have to have help.... You cannot put in enough boulders by one robot to control the game. The other tasks are necessary too....for both quals and elims.

Nice work GDC.... we have real alliances again.... with the necessity to work together to win.... game plans in this game are much more complex than anything I have ever seen before.

Time is the enemy..... finding ways for alliances to work together can substantially reduce times it will take to accomplish game objectives thus yielding more total game points.

This game will be a well orchestrated ballet by the time we get to St. Louis.

Not just a bludgeoning....

[Mr. Tatorscout]

Originally Posted by philso

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.

Doesn't that depend on whether they were a district robot or a multi vs single regional robot? The more competitions you play in, the more time you get to work on your robot.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

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.

While this is true, I believe it will be very hard to do. Bumpers are 2 1/2" wide (maybe up to 3") and you cannot have your wheels in the OUTER WORKS. I see many penalties for "shooting from the OUTER WORKS" while attempting this maneuver (even if you score in the upper goal it's an equivalent 0 points and 0 tower reduction during teleop).

[philso]

Originally Posted by Mr. Tatorscout

Doesn't that depend on whether they were a district robot or a multi vs single regional robot? The more competitions you play in, the more time you get to work on your robot.

If you are referring to working on your competition robot, then yes, the more competitions you attend, the more time you have to work on it. My comment was referring to the time you have to work in new mechanisms and/or software that you bring to any particular competition in your withholding allowance.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

While this is true, I believe it will be very hard to do. Bumpers are 2 1/2" wide (maybe up to 3") and you cannot have your wheels in the OUTER WORKS. I see many penalties for "shooting from the OUTER WORKS" while attempting this maneuver (even if you score in the upper goal it's an equivalent 0 points and 0 tower reduction during teleop).

You don't have to completely exit the OUTER WORKS:

Originally Posted by G39

ROBOTS are prohibited from launching BOULDERS unless they are in contact with the opponent’s TOWER or carpet in the opponent’s COURTYARD, and not in contact with any other carpet.

The OUTER WORKS aren't carpet, and you only have to touch the COURTYARD carpet. Heck, you could sit on the platform and shoot out a poking stick to touch the carpet and shoot nice and level and completely untouchable. Provided you stuck to the bumper and frame perimeter extension rules, of course.

[Ginger Power]

At first I thought high goal all the way. After testing and playing with our Ri3D robot I have changed my mind. Now obviously we don't have any autonomy including vision built into the robot, but we did have people right next to our robot telling us what direction to aim. A few degrees left or right and you're missing the high goal. Meanwhile the low goal takes some skill to miss when you're next to it. For 90+% of teams I think the low goal will be more efficient. The only way I think high goal is worth it is if you have an automatic aiming system, or a tall robot that puts the ball as close as possible to the goal.

[mac]

I predict 8 high shots made by 2 robots in 25 seconds. The great teams. The teams I know and the teams I've seen. This to me is very doable. Both of these robots will be low bar speedster. God Bless Mentor Mac.

[mac]

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.

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.

In this game you have unlimited amount of balls to score. There is no ceiling on scoring. Thank You Mentor Mac

[PowerfulKitty]

High goal gets you more than double the points, so the low goal will be better IF it cuts your cycle time in half, or more. Personally I don't think that is likely. A robot should be designed to be able to do both. We are planning to only do low goals if it will mean the difference in getting that 8th ball scored to weaken the tower.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by PowerfulKitty

High goal gets you more than double the points, so the low goal will be better IF it cuts your cycle time in half, or more. Personally I don't think that is likely. A robot should be designed to be able to do both. We are planning to only do low goals if it will mean the difference in getting that 8th ball scored to weaken the tower.

I bet you will see a lot of teams try more than 8 shots on the high goal, miss some, and fail to fully weaken the tower, when they could have gotten them all in the low goal for points instead. It's not more than double the points at that point - it can even be less depending on how many you miss. To me this is a lot like 2014 where teams who try and miss the high goal are going to play a lot worse than teams that can more quickly cycle in the low goal.

[PowerfulKitty]

So, if even if missed shots increase cycle time 50%, high goal still gets you more points. Missed shots would need to more than double your cycle time in order for low goal to be better. That judgement is hard to make at this point.