As seen here: https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.net/frc2016manuals/TeamUpdates/21.pdf
How does this affect how low-goal robots will seed in subdivisions?
Is the change significant enough to effect subdivision playoffs?
Obviously we’ll find out. I think low goal robots will now seed higher than they would have previously, but I’ll still take the high goal shooters over the low goal scorers for the simple reason that a team can win a match in quals without getting a capture, especially if their opponent only scores low goals. 4 high goals = 10 low goals, so I think most low goaling teams will be susceptible to a decent-to-good high goal shooter, costing wins and subsequent ranking position.
I seriously doubt it will significantly impact subdivision playoffs, other than possibly emphasizing the scoring capability of third/fourth robots. All/most alliances will still be able to get a capture as before.
I think it should have gone to 12.
Divisible by 2,3,4, & 6. Look at your fingers.
I love the metric system, but we’re in 'Murica. 
Nonetheless, 10 is better than 8.
Can’t wait for the first FMS burp that doesn’t incorporate this change.
It is very interesting that they have made this change. I like that it will increase the curve separating the good robots from the bad, but getting 10 boulders in the tower is relatively easy with the level of offense this year presents. I believe that this will affect mid range shooter quite significantly though because with a low health tower teams will be more convinced to play more aggressive defense to prevent captures in elims. I like this change and am looking forward to see how it plays out on the field.
Low goal bots will definitely be a bit more viable, since some high goal shooters (ourselves included) take a bit of time per cycle to line up the shot and require more constant defense.
Speaking of defense, a good defender is now that much more valuable.
What I find interesting is the addition to G41 in the Blue Box.
Do I smell a new strategy to slow down Breaching coming?
How would you use that to make a new strategy?
Put a boulder in the other alliance’s outerworks. It forces the other alliance to clear the boulder before crossing, or cross without a boulder, and hope the boulder follows the robot.
You’re gaming that wrong. This will improve the ranking of fast low-goalers vs. slow high goalers, though it might not get them PAST the slow high goalers.
Assume scoring stays exactly the same after this strength increase. Win-loss RPs stay the same. Say the high-goal alliance scores 8 boulders, but low-goal is faster with 10. With 8 strength, HG gets 4 RP, LG gets 2. With 10 strength, HG gets 3 RP, LG gets 2. LG is 1 RP closer to HG with the added strength.
Basically, this shifts rankings towards goal scoring of any sort, high or low. Faster goal scoring alliances will rank higher. Of course it also puts an emphasis on defense, since the margin for error for a Capture is going to be 2 boulders smaller.
Assumedly this would be a G11 infraction.
We can shoot 6 high in a game if not being defended.
If being defended, we can shoot low.
We are working on shooting from the Outerworks if the defender is not tall.
A fast defender still messes up low goal shooting (keeps us from getting to the low goal).
A defender can only really block one robot. So two robots that can shoot high and low will still allow one robot to shoot high while the other occupies the defender.
Cycle time, absent a defender, is about the same for high/low. The extra travel time (distance) for low goal shooting is about what we need to shoot the high goal.
With 2 shooting and 1 defending, we would be marginal on getting to 10 against a team that defends. We would probably have 2 shooting and 1 defending, and in the last minute, if close, pull the defending robot to shoot an extra boulder or two (3 on 1).
I’d say depends on the defense. If you’re playing man-to-man, then yes, you can only block one robot. But given that a vast majority of robots that shoot from the outerworks have a largely unblockable shot, I expect that the more typical defense is going to be a zone defense where you generally delay cycles rather than straight up block shots.
There are 142 robots attending championships who can consistently score 4 or more boulders per match.* With the tower strength at 8, that would mean that there would probably be enough pairings for all 64 playoff alliances to reliably get enough boulders for captures with just two robots, freeing up the third to do something else.
There are only 61 robots attending championships who have proven they can consistently score 5 boulders or more per match though. This means that, given the tower strength of 10, only the top ~3 alliances in each division will be able to reliably get enough boulders for captures with just two robots. The lower seeded alliances now have to think very carefully about what their last partner should do, because they will likely be unable to capture consistently without extra support. Defense also has a much higher potential to dramatically swing scores now.
This change definitely increases the value of defensive robots. Preventing a capture is much more doable during quals. Defensive robots will force mid-teir shooters to think carefully about shooting high and potentially missing out on a capture.
I don’t believe this reduces the value of defenders during alliance selections because 2 elite offensive robots should have no trouble weakening the tower on their own. An interesting impact that this could have is with the lower ranked alliances. I could see the need for a 3rd offensive robot to get the capture especially if the top alliances are running with 1 dedicated defender.
Einstein will be like the OK Corral at high noon. Better bring a pair of 6 shooters if you expect to survive.
Ok I honestly don’t think that this will make a huge difference in score, especially in matches with high tier teams (which will be quite often as it is world’s). I say this because from what I’ve seen, at least at many competitions nationwide, a -2 or lower tower strength is not entirely uncommon. When it comes to low-goal cyclers vs high goal ones, however, I do see a bit of an advantage on the low-goal robots because of the speed and efficiency they bring to the table. High goals are easier to defend against and are statistically less accurate. However, the scores will not be affected in my opinion. Since balls still count as scored even when the tower is decreased below zero, the alliances will simply gain the Capture later in the match as opposed to after the eighth shot (which has recently occurred pretty early).
The lines show the percent of half-matches with a certain score that damaged the tower to a certain degree.
This leads me to believe that increasing tower strength may be a fairly big deal in qualifications (where match scores should hang around in the 100-150 range), but no so much in eliminations, where teams should be able to put up 120+ without the breach/capture bonuses.
I’m actually curious how this change would have affected DCMPs. It’d be interesting to see how the rankings would shuffle with 10 tower strength instead of 8. Keeping in mind that average quality at DCMPs is usually much higher than at CMP.
Seems like a pretty straightforward change. In the New England District at least, by the latter end of competition season (and especially at District Champs) you were regularly seeing both alliances get the breach ranking point every single match. It often came down to which team could score more boulders. Increasing the tower strength only seems to up the ante. It’s obviously going to favor the teams who can score quickly and consistently. As others have said, having a tower score <-2 wasn’t particularly uncommon amongst the upper caliber of teams, so I’m skeptical about the magnitude of change this rule will make. I think the obvious conclusion is that it will separate the good/quick shooting bots from the exceptional/rapid shooting bots. Things like 2-ball autonomous code will be even more valuable going into worlds.
I wrote a script to calculate just that. Here’s MSC, for example:
New Rank, Team, New Rank Pts, Spots Changed
1 frc2767 44 0
2 frc3620 42 7
3 frc4967 42 3
4 frc2771 41 7
5 frc4003 41 -2
6 frc5150 41 -2
7 frc33 41 3
8 frc27 39 -6
9 frc494 38 5
10 frc1023 38 7
11 frc5980 38 -6
12 frc1918 37 -4
13 frc67 37 0
14 frc6086 37 17
15 frc5050 37 0
16 frc573 37 8
17 frc3641 37 -1
18 frc70 36 -11
19 frc5053 36 0
20 frc858 35 9
21 frc3688 34 1
22 frc5505 34 1
23 frc2474 34 -11
24 frc4391 33 -3
25 frc548 33 13
26 frc107 33 19
27 frc1701 33 6
28 frc5048 33 -3
29 frc5712 33 19
30 frc3534 33 -10
31 frc3548 33 31
32 frc2834 32 -2
33 frc3098 32 6
34 frc51 32 8
35 frc4362 32 -17
36 frc3604 32 -8
37 frc1481 32 22
38 frc5460 32 -12
39 frc3546 31 -2
40 frc2054 31 9
41 frc5084 31 -14
42 frc217 31 -1
43 frc5878 31 -11
44 frc3357 31 -1
45 frc3234 31 2
46 frc3452 31 -10
47 frc2619 30 -7
48 frc3655 30 8
49 frc1684 30 -3
50 frc3536 30 14
51 frc1250 30 1
52 frc3618 29 1
53 frc5448 29 -9
54 frc5167 29 -3
55 frc3602 29 6
56 frc2586 28 -6
57 frc4377 28 -2
58 frc85 28 0
59 frc2337 28 1
60 frc3539 28 9
61 frc3770 28 -26
62 frc6098 27 -5
63 frc6193 27 -29
64 frc2612 27 3
65 frc3707 27 3
66 frc3656 26 21
67 frc4384 26 -13
68 frc74 26 10
69 frc4216 26 -6
70 frc5907 26 13
71 frc68 26 8
72 frc1718 26 0
73 frc5230 26 17
74 frc1025 26 2
75 frc1711 25 -4
76 frc4776 25 8
77 frc503 25 -3
78 frc6121 25 3
79 frc4680 25 14
80 frc3414 24 -10
81 frc6075 24 -1
82 frc5155 24 4
83 frc2137 23 -6
84 frc123 23 -2
85 frc2604 23 -12
86 frc2611 23 9
87 frc5166 23 -22
88 frc5114 23 -22
89 frc5203 22 -1
90 frc66 22 -1
91 frc3668 22 -16
92 frc3886 22 -1
93 frc4381 21 5
94 frc6097 21 -9
95 frc2959 20 1
96 frc5222 20 -2
97 frc3538 20 -5
98 frc5502 19 -1
99 frc1322 19 3
100 frc5090 19 0
101 frc3767 18 0
102 frc5926 18 -3