Low vs. High Goal

I want to know how many team planning on scoring fuel, plan on using the low goal vs. the high goal.

Pros to high goal: less fuel per point

cons to high goal: less fuel can be launched per second, wiffle balls are extremely inaccurate, takes more power to launch ball.

Pros to low goal: Aiming is not a problem, fuel can be dumped in low goal much faster, takes less energy to dump balls, chance to overflow enemy alliances recycle bin and it will flow in yours.

Cons to low goal: takes a lot more fuel to score a point so running out becomes a problem, wit that fuel has to be recycled more often.

If you watch, 2415 Wiredcats one of the PCH teams used an actuated hood on the top of their shooter. This would change the angle of their shots, giving them the ability of making connections from the fender or the key.
You should be able to do the same thing this year, giving an ability to easily change between goals.

[edit] The hood was never actuated in the match, so perhaps you won’t understand what I’m bringing up, but it is the highest aluminum rectangle at the output of their shooter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FExfPKVsQDE

For the 2415 Wiredcats actuated hood, could you post a link for a video of it?

Done. Thought I had, apologies.

High goal doesn’t necessarily mean low thoroughput. The balls are light and small enough that a heavy flywheel, and a multi-ball wide shooter will likely maintain a high ROF.

Patiently awaiting a Karthik “the results of this poll are terrifying” post :smiley:

Either way, for one ball cycle to be mathematically more valuable than a gear cycle at every point in any given match,* you’d need to be able to hold 40 points worth of balls. In low goal terms, that’s 360 balls, AKA a mountain of balls larger than your robot. In other words, it’s impossible to carry a match exclusively with low goals. Knowing the clientele of CD tells me nobody here is thinking about anything besides “How can I solo carry a match?”

*yes, I know you can do both in one cycle. This way of thinking simply dissects the cycle to see which part is more valuable at any given point in the match. I also know that gears have diminishing returns as you place more gears, in addition to a steadily increasing risk/reward tradeoff as the match progresses. The point still stands.

Man I must be missing something here didn’t expect that many people to go high. I kinda ruled it out because of how much space it would take to just test out designs.

No response, as fuel is (at this point) a low priority. In our discussions with fuel as a high priority, we would have worked on a high goal shooter; it would take 360 fuel to reach 40kPa in the low goal without auto; that just sounds like too much to be able to gather and dump in small loads.

I’m not. This isn’t anything like the low bar last year. This isn’t a finite scoring resource. This doesn’t further restrict your build size in favor of points an alliance partner will frequently already have covered.

If you can build a shooter that hits the high goal >33% of the time and doesn’t sacrifice ball volume, you’re doing better than a low goaler.

Low goals are not very valuable.

I think the reason some teams are leaning towards low goals is that, although they aren’t worth much, they are easy and quick. If you have a 50 ball hopper and you shoot at 5 balls/s*, it will take you 10 seconds to empty your hopper. Compared to about one second for a robot that just dumps their hopper into the low goal. Depending on how many balls you are expecting on the field and how long you think it will take you to fill your hopper**, that could be a big disadvantage. Combine that with your team’s high-goal accuracy percentage** compared to a practically 100% accuracy for the low goal and the fact that it’s a lot harder to play defense on a low goal dumper than a high goal shooter, low goal scoring could be pulling equal with high goal. For your team, you may decide it’s better to shoot high, but for other teams the right decision may be to aim low.

*Approximate speed the goal drains
**Obviously this is different for each team

It’s a pretty difficult, if completely possible objective that is interchangeable with another game objective, and offers little value compared to other objectives. The only significant differences are, as you pointed out, the lack of a points ceiling, in addition to the presence of a cheap and dirty alternative that may prove to be just as effective, cycle times permitting.

We are trying/designing for the >40 kPA in auto be nice to get RP in first 15 secs…if we do it is a complete other story.
But hey why not try?.. the teams all for it.

We had a two ball auto routine laid out in first three build days last season that determined our design…never panned out last year in fact never shot a HG in a game. But designing for that precise/fast midline grab (without a foul) gave us a super fast intake in every competition and solid LG so thats was fine for us.

If successful in HG Auto this season…we will cycle gears/climb rest of the time and relax into gear 10.58 sec gear cycling… going to be interesting, would like to nail this one.

We are settled into an overall design so that’s good…ahead of last year in that regard. No practice time last year to speak of.

I’m not arguing it is (or isn’t) worthwhile to pursue, but rather that the things that made Karthik “afraid” last year do not apply here.

Could you add a “both” and a “neither” option for completeness?

The “both” option is to select both options.

My team is planning on having the ability to do both, but i can’t imagine using the low goal shooter frequently. It’s just too inefficient to use low goal. If I dump 45 fuel into the low goal I only get 5 points. It’s so much more efficient to design an accurate shooter for high goal.