My team has discussed thoroughly discussed this topic, as have several other teams that we have talked to. This game has an interesting twist this year due to the fact that the power cells have an innate strategic value. The power cells themselves are required to complete stages, and the point value only depends on where they end up. So is it more effective to have faster cycle times that pour cells into the low goal in order to complete the stages, or is it more effective to run the risk of lower accuracy and go for the higher point value?
“Shoot for the moon, land amongst the stars”
Aim for 3, be happy with 2.
Aim for 2s, you’re bound to get a 3 sometime.
Why wouldn’t you aim for the center of the target anyways?
You need to decide on your cycle efficency.
If you go for a 5 ball cycle, get 3 in 3 and 2 in 2. Each cycle is worth 13 points. If you get all in the 2 it is 10.
If aiming for the 3 you can only get 3 cycles but can get an extra cycle in aiming for 2 it is worth it for both points and process towards the RP
However after 4 cycles in the 3-2 split versus just the 2 this becomes 52 vs 50 meaning you would need to run 6 cycles to 4 to stay ahead on points. However for the rp you are still ahead.
So i would recommend prototyping and figuring out how long it takes to line up your 3
During our discussion of hitting high, the past history of shooting and ball handling ALWAYS comes up. So therefore, i said, if we aim perfectly for the 2, sometime later, its bound to hit a 3. (We arent a shooting team)
I disagree with this. This is a sketchy mindset and will cause you to settle for less when you could be doing more.
I would say go for 3 as much as possible as long as it doesn’t prevent you from achieving more. For example, if you can get 3 balls in 2 in 3 seconds vs 3 balls in 3 in 10 seconds, its obviously more worth it to go for 2.
Getting the ball into the inner requires a certain trajectory that will not be achieved for many outer shots. So if you want to hit the inner you either need to plan for it, get lucky by chosing the correct trajectory, or just having an inaccurate shooter.
why is everyone talking about 3 vs 2 points, when the OP is asking about 2 vs 1 point?
I believe that there will be a strategic advantage to being able to quickly dump 5 balls in the low goal if you are getting close to the RP. I think it is probably going to depend on the level of defense. Coming into the protected zone to dump in the low goal might allow some very fast cycles compared to trying to get off shots between hits from a defender.
I expect that many high goal shooters will be able to shoot on the low goal as well and it would not surprise me to see them occasionally shoot low to get a last batch of balls in as time is winding down and they are near the RP.
I also think that a low goal shooter could help overload the opposing alliance so that they have to dump power cells on the field. The positive feedback loop that has been discussed in other threads could really be amplified if one high goal and one low goal shooter are both putting balls into the goals at the same time.
For us, we determined that the throughput of the 2 point goal was higher than the 1 point because it would allow delivering balls from range. So more points, more balls, and more strategic flexibility, at the cost of a possibly more complex system.
The 2 point goal is really big so we aren’t really worried about missing the goal entirely, even from 20-35 ft away. The low goal seems more inclined to a run and dump strategy which incorporates more driving distance, and more opportunity for defence.
I agree that’s what the OP is asking (and I know of a team focusing on the low goal for that reason.) Here’s the EveryBot that does just that very efficiently. The 2020 Robonauts Everybot Low Resource Build
The question is whether this bot can cycle faster than a high goal scorer, and whether the points gained from Stage 2 and 3 outweigh the points gained from the high goal shooter.
This is a great question and can be assessed numerically using probabilities of shot success and different time values for pick up and lining up.
The discussion to decide between high and low goals, is something I would discuss if I cared about the extra 1 RP. Otherwise, its high goal everytime if I plan to try to win matches and events.
I wonder if every team is capable of reliably scoring high?
Some teams aren’t capable of reliably driving, so there are certainly some teams that can’t reliably score high.
That said, I think scoring in the Outer Port is as easy of a “high goal” as we’ve had in FRC in a long time. I think a large percentage of teams should be able to score there more efficiently (pts/time) than they would in the low goal.
Aim small, miss small
Visibility is going to be an issue for many teams. From the driver station, the view of the high goal is through the center switch superstructure. It is not completely blocked, but probably obscured enough to make it difficult to shoot by manually aiming. The low goal, on the other hand, will have very good visibility.
I highly disagree (as oppose to lowly disagreeing)
To score both high and low adds extra complexity for just about the most minimal reward of this game. Anyone who should be making a high goal shooter will be able to shoot 2 pointers just as fast as cycling low.
The last couple of years have shown that defensive strategies change throughout the season and if defense becomes a factor this year (as I expect it will), it would not surprise me to see high goal shooters needing to spend time fending off the pesky defender bot between shots in the later weeks. This will slow down their shooting. If that same bot can either shoot high goals from the protected zone in front of the goal, or shoot low goals very rapidly from that same location, then they may be able to score more points. Plus, since the RP depends on balls scored rather than points, dumping 5 balls in very rapidly into the low goal rather than taking the time to line up for a high goal shot may get you the RP.
We’ll see. But I suspect that many shooters with adjustable hoods will include the ability the shoot low just in case they need it someday.
Oh, sorry mate, I come from Indiana, we typically prefer an offense roll for our second picks.
I would like to make an adjustment to my statement. I doubt to see anyone who has an additional mechanism build for scoring low instead of scoring high. Sure, one could aim there low bot shooter into the low goal.
I doubt to see many people having different mechanisms for high and low scoring. I would be very concerned with the additional work that would have to be done for that option, and it would go very much against the KISS principle. While there is some viable situations it possible could help with, I don’t see it being common place.