What do you think of going for the Outer Port vs the Inner Port?

My team’s current strategy is to go for the Outer Port during teleop. We find value in scoring in the Inner Port during auton, as there is no defense and it’s pre-programmed. Plus we’d get 30 points if we scored 5 balls. In teleop the point difference is off by one and we figure we’d save lining up time by shooting for a 2’ 6" wide target vs a 13" target, so we could cycle faster. There is also the fact that the stages go by the amount of balls scored and not overall points, so we can sacrifice a couple dozen points to gain a ranking point by completing all of the stages.

Good plan, especially if there is a cycle speed improvement .

It sounds like your robot will be able to shoot for either port. Given that, I would recommend that you finalize your strategy once you figure out how much time you save by lining up to the larger target, and then figure out if your saved cycle time is worth not shooting in the inner port. Without this data, I would not be so sure that the lining up time is going to be dramatically different.

Currently the inner port is a “nice to have” vs the outer port “need to have” for us. The extra points would be nice but the higher throughput of the outer port will probably be necessary if we want the rank point and bonus points from the control panel objectives. If we can get our shooter accurate enough to consistently hit the inner port then great but it’s near the bottom of our priorities.

6 Likes

I think that’s a great way to view not only that part of the game, but the robot build in general. Outer goal is still a great thing to be able to do in this game. Inner will be a great plus, but is not necessary to the game play as a whole. Plus with no bag, there is always time to assess the switch to inner after the robot is done.

1 Like

I think it comes down to what your expect your accuracy to be. I was initially of the same thought that the 3-pointer is too hard and the 2-pointer will be much easier, but upon further evaluation we decided to take an “aim small, miss small” strategy. This was based on an evaluation of points per shot.

Let’s break it down:
Start with some assumptions, like say you can roll a ball in the low port every time, and only one out of ten ‘misses’ on the inner port ‘bounces out’ of the Outer Port. Now is the hard part, figuring out how accurate you think you can make your shooter, and do you adjust for shooting from various distances or just make an assumption for accuracy from your own ‘shooting spot’ (to make this simple, lets assume that accuracy is constant). I’ll start with a shooter that can hit one four out of five in the Outer but only half of the Inner. It breaks down as follows.
Low Port - 100% accuracy yields 1 point per ball (1pt x 1.00)
Outer Port - 80% accuracy yield 1.6 points per ball (2pts x 0.80)
Inner Port - 50% accuracy yields 2.4 points per ball (3pts x 0.50 + 2pts x 0.90 x (1.00-0.50))

So extrapolating this, you need to either assume a 90% ‘bounce out’ rate (3pts x 0.50 + 2pts x 0.10 x 1.00-0.50) to break even with an 80% Outer shooter (assuming no lucky ‘bounce ins’). Even if you assume 100% accuracy on the Outer (again with out any ‘bounce ins’) giving you an expected 2 points per ball, you would need to lower your Inner accuracy to 16.7% to break even at 10% bounce outs.

Bottom line: you need an extremely accurate Outer shooter an incredibly inaccurate and unlucky Inner shooter to ever break even. That said, the 13" is going to be much harder to hit, but what do you have to lose?

Completely concur. There will be many teams who go for the 3 point shot who will be easily shut down through defense. A faster, more certain 2 point shot is likely more valuable. OTOH, if you have that 3 point shot in your back pocket, perhaps you can use it to draw a defender away from an alliance partner.

Development time my team could be working on a climber with instead.

10 Likes

Concur , Think about one dedicated and one addition as needed on the scoring end, could shut down the 3 point bot easily if they take extra time to “line up” this game has a lot of winning possibilities. I like it.

Remember there’s one goal this year so if 2+ robots try to shoot at the inner goal at the same time they’ll end up with a bunch of outer goal points instead - alliance coordination is going to have to be on a whole nother level for this game compared to years past. This will complicate auto routine timing as well.

1 Like

i see you reviewed the 254 tech binder. we did the same. its seemed to help us a lot in making decisions. we broke into groups and discussed all the different factors (game periods and game piece manipulation etc) and then broke it down to those three sections. all groups reconvened and we put every idea on the board. and then voted on all those things as an entire team. and day one we had a direction we wanted to go with design. now its just figure out how to accomplish our goals via prototyping. not decide our goals by prototyping.
totally off subject here though sorry lol