Shooters & Percentage Poll

[Joe Johnson]

I have not been involved with any team to any extent this year so I am somewhat unbiased. My bias if anything is for a great game.

To be honest, I was worried about this year's game when I first saw it.

To my mind, the success of the entire game hinged on two items:

1) The percentage of the teams that could score effectively in the middle goal (even if unguarded)

2) The real time scoring system keeping up*

As to #2, we are just going to have to trust FIRST. While they are not perfect, they do a pretty good job. I suppose they will get this one right.

As to #1, my view was that if the percentage got down below 33% there would be a lot of matches where one alliance had nobody with a robot that could score in the middle goal against another that could score in the middle goal. To my mind, this is a recipe for a snoozer, the very definition of a lousy game.

My initial estimate was that 25% of teams would be able score in the middle, so I was worried.

Now... ...seeing the robots that folks have posted and the videos, I am thinking that my estimate must be low.

So.... ... I thought we should have a poll. That asks 2 things:

Given 100 randomly selected FIRST robots, Estimate how many will be able to score 5 or more balls in the middle goal in 40 seconds with no robot defending against them?

Has this estimate changed since Week 1?

What do you think? Let us know.

Joe J.



*including penalties so that we don't have a repeat of last year where it just didn't pay to try to figure the score because you had no way of knowing who won without the penalties being factored in.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

I think your estimates are right on.

I'm estimating about 40% of the teams will not try to shoot at all, or realize their mechanism isnt up to snuff and scrap it after a few rounds at their first regional. Out of the remaining 60%, at least half wont use dynamic aiming, which will be very hard indeed.

Next point: Defense. I've seen alot of succesful shooters so far, but all were pretty much hard mounted to the floor, and aimed beforehand. Now, put that same shooter on the field, while trying to aim it via code or human from 40 feet away, drive another 140 lb. robot into it at 8 ft/s, and see if the results are the same. I think not.

[Don Wright]

Like you, after seeing the videos and personal experience, I would have to say:

25% of the robots won't be designed to shoot for the center goal at all.

60% will be able to get 5 balls in 40 seconds unguarded

15% will try, and fail.

This is much different than my initial impression and I think this game will be very exciting for everyone to watch!!

[MattB703]

I agree that defense is going to make it much harder for shooters that people understand.

This years game reminds me of "army basketball". Do you remember playing ball as kids with no foul calls? Remember how rough the game got?

[DjAlamose]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

Next point: Defense. I've seen alot of succesful shooters so far, but all were pretty much hard mounted to the floor, and aimed beforehand. Now, put that same shooter on the field, while trying to aim it via code or human from 40 feet away, drive another 140 lb. robot into it at 8 ft/s, and see if the results are the same. I think not.

The only problem with this assumption is that would be ramming! You don't understand how much I hate it when teams do this. You also need to remember that there are the bumpers that will help protect the robot and then (my guess) there will be teams that have devises to keep themselves in one position.

My thoughts are that 30% of teams will be able to score at least 20 balls in 40 seconds given that the goal is unguarded (i.e. no robot interfering). But if those same robots are being guarded against then 25% of them would be able to get the 5 balls in the goal.

[d.courtney]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

To my mind, this is a recipe for a snoozer, the very definition of a lousy game.

remember that if you are not trying to trample the other team as that can't be put under the words Gracious Professionalism... thus in my opinion, if you can still win (assuming you are the stronger team) yet play it low, equalizing the talent, this will make a much more enjoyable game in my opinion and at the same time you gain the respect of others, remember the point is not so much to win as it is to learn, inspire, and teach science and technogy, thats how I can see any match being exciting... for instance two years ago, you still had exciting matches when there were no teams lifting themselves, it seemed pointless to watch when one side could, and it was slightly better then the first when both sides could lift... so if you keep the talent almost the same in a match, even if it means your team sacrificing some points, then the match is much more enjoyable...

[MattB703]

Originally Posted by DjAlamose

The only problem with this assumption is that would be ramming! ....

Not necessarily true. I have seen many robots (some that I have helped build) that do not need to ram to be able to shove 80% of the other FIRST robots across the floor. All legal and legit. No ramming involved.

This years game will be rough. Be prepared.

[d.courtney]

Originally Posted by MattB703

Not necessarily true. I have seen many robots (some that I have helped build) that do not need to ram to be able to shove 80% of the other FIRST robots across the floor. All legal and legit. No ramming involved.

This years game will be rough. Be prepared.

last year our robot had 2 drive modes, after penalties started to add... we found the limit as far as speed that the refs would allow for hitting others without getting a high speed ramming and that was "normal", then we had "turbo" as we called it... we used that to quickly get down the field or when we were against someone we wanted to push... it was suprising how many people asked how we were staying the same speed after the pushing started... a very simple solution to ramming, as well it tricks many people, as they don't realise how fast the thing is...

[arabsponsor]

Originally Posted by d.courtney

last year our robot had 2 drive modes, after penalties started to add... we found the limit as far as speed that the refs would allow for hitting others without getting a high speed ramming and that was "normal", then we had "turbo" as we called it... we used that to quickly get down the field or when we were against someone we wanted to push... it was suprising how many people asked how we were staying the same speed after the pushing started... a very simple solution to ramming, as well it tricks many people, as they don't realise how fast the thing is...

The closer we get to competition the more nervous I am becoming. I feel we have a robot that can score in the center goal but I can definitely see this becoming a very rough competition. I just hope that our bot can stand it. I think we have all put a lot of thought and effort into our designs and I would hate to see just a bunch of junk at the end. Good luck to all!!

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by DjAlamose

The only problem with this assumption is that would be ramming! You don't understand how much I hate it when teams do this. You also need to remember that there are the bumpers that will help protect the robot and then (my guess) there will be teams that have devises to keep themselves in one position.

My thoughts are that 30% of teams will be able to score at least 20 balls in 40 seconds given that the goal is unguarded (i.e. no robot interfering). But if those same robots are being guarded against then 25% of them would be able to get the 5 balls in the goal.

Of course scoring while guarded is going to be harder than scoring in an open goal.

BUT... ...Being able to score in an unguarded mid-goal is enough to make exciting matches.

Here is why: During the Offense/Defense periods, it is 3 on offense VS. 2 on defense. The 2 on defense cannot be in 3 places at 1 time. If they are sitting in front of the side goals, the center goal is open. If they are defending the middle goal against scoring by an effective mid-goal scoring machine, one of the side goals has to be open. It is this dynamic that will make the game exciting.

It is the lack of this dynamic that would make the game pretty pointless if nobody can score effectivly in the mid-goal. The two Defensive robots can just sit in the corners, effectively making scoring impossible and there is nothing the other 3 robots are going to do about it (for the most part).

That's how I see it anyway.

Joe J.

[Don Wright]

[soapbox]
Before it turns into a "what is ramming" debate, can we keep this thread on the topic?
[/soapbox]

[petek]

I'd say about 30 to 50% of the teams will be able to score 5 or more balls in the center goal in 40 sec without defense and about 25% will be able to do it with defense.

I know one team which can gather and score 5 or more in the center goal in 40 sec.

As for how to defend, all a defender has to do is push against the shooting robot enough to move them a degree or two per second to significantly reduce their percentage in manual mode. On the other hand, if the shooter has a good camera:shooter servo, it might take blocking or some pretty aggressive defense to prevent scoring.

[paulcd2000]

i don't really know how many will not try to shoot, but from what i've seen, roughly 95% of all shooters will make it into the center goal 5 time in 40 sec. I mean, shooters are inefective unless they have the capacity to hold 5-6 balls, and accuracy rates are very good from what i've seen

[Schneidie]

Originally Posted by Don Wright

Like you, after seeing the videos and personal experience, I would have to say:

25% of the robots won't be designed to shoot for the center goal at all.

60% will be able to get 5 balls in 40 seconds unguarded

15% will try, and fail.

This is much different than my initial impression and I think this game will be very exciting for everyone to watch!!

I think that teying and failing is part of FIRST, adn you should at least try.

[Madison]

I've been told I'm pessimistic, generally, but I think we'll see that 75% of machines designed to shoot at the center goal will be utterly ineffective at doing so in anything but absolutely controlled circumstances. Recall that as the distance between a robot and the center goal increases, so does the accuracy required to successfully complete a shot. At 20', if your aim is knocked off by anything more than about 3*, you'll miss. Our machine design evolved to prominently feature a shooter, despite our initial estimation that it wouldn't be used often or effectively. Because of that, we're still trying to prioritize capacity and have a machine that can hold about ~30 for a single, large 1 pt. dumper.