Every team should seriously consider the low goal this year

And probably point the shooter in the opposite direction


Is there any reason teams considering the high goal shouldn’t do the same thing?


Not necessarily, one thing to consider is shooting 2 balls side by side in an arc may lead to some issues with mid air collisions.

This game looks like it’ll heavily reward simple, but consistent designs. I could see a team with only a low goal and level 1 climb mechanism making it pretty far at events.


And still leave room for the very accomplished teams to show of their skills. In effect, this can raise the floor for the 2nd (and 3rd) pick robots in playoffs, making the game much more fun to watch.


My prediction is that Everybot for this year is a low-goal and level 2 climber, possibly with floor pickup skills.


2019 everybot cargo mech + 2 2020 everybot climbers straddling it = ez 2022 everybot


I agree, and I think that robot, with some minor improvements and driver practice will be better than >70% of robots fielded this year


See I also loved the idea of a low goal bot at first because I was confident that low goal cycles could be more than double a high shooter (hence making up the point difference). But I eventually ran into problems with it.

I’m interested as to why you think defense will be easier for a low to deal with because I had the exact opposite thought. I think it’s incredibly easy to stop any low scoring robot because the robots can be as high as the low goal is and cover half the opening (4’4" robot compared to the top of the low goal being 5’7"). If a defense bot just goes in circles around the HUB the low goal team could really easily score 0. We also did some “human-robot testing” with carts and found low bots easy to block as they had to get close to score (ofc this isn’t a completely representative test lol).

However, for high bots, you can shoot from anywhere (theoretically) AND have a protected zone to shoot from, meaning you get GUARANTEED points no matter the defense (even if its slower than normal, its still guaranteed shots). Also shooting into the low goal seems harder than the high as you can’t “high arch” the shot into the low goal. Hence why you cant shoot into the low goal over a 4’4" robot.

Based on this, the most guaranteed way to score was high goal. They were similar anyway if done correctly (low edging it out), but the fact that a low bot could be completely boxed out made me rule out low bots entirely. I’m curious if anyone has anything that would prove me wrong as I really like the idea and simplicity of a low bot, too.


The challenge is actually scoring those balls. Thats a ~17 foot shot you have to lob in without it bouncing back out, which will be a challenge.

I think most teams with some driver practice can outmaneuver the average defense bot with much less effort than trying to get that shot.


I’ll definitely have to test shots bouncing out. I didn’t consider that (we just had a tube/hole for the high goal in the human-robot tests). And as for drive practice, it just scares me that we could be the best low goal bot and still score less than an average high bot due to a defender that knows what they’re doing.

1 Like

After running a bunch of robot profiles (assumed cycle times, make %, etc.) through a spreadsheet, I agree going low goal is worth a look. An average lowbot’s make % might be 85% while an average highbot’s make % might be more like 40-60% (if that)… higher if close-in fixed shooting spot IMO… (Yes, elite teams will shoot high & at a high %.)

Cargo balls will be bouncing like crazy to the far reaches of the field, so average cycle time projections are tougher to make IMO, but on average cycles won’t be super short for most teams. Net is… it could be close to a wash scoring wise between low and high. “Shoot from anywhere” and “Shoot protected” are advantages of high, yes, if you can actually execute those things. If you went into build season saying, “we need a simpler robot this year”, then look at low.


Another consideration - in eliminations, the extra benefit of the Cargo Bonus disappears, so if you CAN build a reliable high shooter, it could have an advantage in the elims (or playoffs or whatever the bracket is called this year). However, I also agree with all of the points about less bouncing around, cycle times, and reliability of shots for the low goal. Hmmmm…

Personally, I don’t think going for the highest rung is worth the difficulty, but still considering the second-highest. Point values seem really well thought-out this year.


This is, IMO, the tricky bit. In 2020/21, for example, our home-built goals were a very good analogue for the true field. At present, I’m considerably less confident about this year’s home-built’s accurately modeling however much “bounce out” the real field will have. Our modeling indicates we should be able to do a very good job of getting balls into the goal from reasonable distances, but no idea how many will actually STAY in.


Not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet or not, but the upper hub opening is about 4.5x the width of the ball. It sounds like a lot, but I think it will be deceptively challenging to get a shooter that can consistently hit that shot from the launch pad. Idk though, it’s early on and I don’t think anyone has tested how these balls work yet.


But is it possible to reduce cycle times by half by scoring in the low goal? Assuming similar accuracy for both (though upper would of course be somewhat lower), that would be necessary to justify focusing on the lower goal.


Instead of thinking of low and high goal shooting as mutually exclusive, do low goal shooting when it is most beneficial. During autonomous there is no defense, and there is a huge reward for accuracy. If you have 3 robots shooting high in autonomous (possibly at the same time, so their balls will hit in midair) and ANY of the shots miss, you likely have zero chance of scoring 5 balls in auto.

If you think 100% accuracy in auto is easy, check the match video from the week 1 competitions in 2020 and see how often all three robots made all 3 of their preloaded balls in the high goal during auto.

As an alliance, would you rather come out of auto with 10 points on the board and 13 more goals for a guaranteed ranking point OR 12-16 points on the board with 16-17 more goals for that same ranking point? 13 goals divided among 3 robots is 2 ish cycles each (at 100% scoring). 16 goals is 3 ish cycles each (at 100% scoring).

My suggestion is first make a 100% reliable low goal shooter/dumper. Use that during auto and 2 cycles after. Then switch to your high goal shooter to run up your score. If your high goal shooter is >50% accurate, you have a net gain. If (as is more likely) your high goal shooting accuracy is less than 50%, stick with low goals. This strategy gives us a solid performance base from which to start our development efforts, and a fun development path with a concrete performance goal for our high goal shooter. Want to attempt high goals? Demonstrate in practice that the accuracy of the high goal shooter is greater than 50%, and you can use it in teleop.


You already get a 2s reduction in ball processing time. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that balls bouncing could take another 2-3s. This is pretty squarely a 50% cycle time reduction, even with pretty conservative estimates for bouncing. You could also make a case that the balls will travel far further post-exit when dropped from the high port, further increasing this advantage.


You don’t need to be cycling twice as fast as a high goal shooter to beat them as a low goal.

So lets assume a shooter has 75% accuracy in teleop (in my experience in shooting game this is a very accurate shooter), during the match they can run 4 two ball cycles (once again this sounds low but will most likely be more than early week winning teams can do) so they score 12 points.

I make a robot who does slam dunks no shooter, I just run up slam into the low goal and tip my hopper. That is 2 points every time since baring a freak accident I am 100% Accurate. This means to keep up with the high goal shooter I need to run 6 cycles to their 4 to keep up in points. I also have produced twice as many cargo for the RP. These extra cycles are made easier by the fact that as others have mentioned cargo comes out of the low goal quicker and more controlled then the high.


The big downside to the low goal, is that it’s so much fun to make a ball fly way up high in the air! so the team misses out on all that fun. And misses out on all the fun of trying to get the ball into the high goal. And by “fun”, I mean really difficult challenge.