So the tall goal exists, and as we know it’s the largest point potential of anything in the entire game. you can get (realistically) 80 points from rings on the high branches, 32 points from rings on the low branches, and 20 points (realistically I don’t think elevating a fully loaded tall goal is a good idea) from the goal being in your home zone. That’s a whopping 132 points, more than 3 elevated goals.
There’s no arguing that the potential pointage from the tall goal is an enormous advantage, but is it one that can viably be taken advantage of?
What I mean by this is that is it realistic to be able to fully load out the tall goal in a match, but still retain the ability to competently play the alliance and short neutral goal game?
The only robot revealed so far that can internally stack on the high goal (which I think is necessary if you’re going to stack on the high goal so you can firmly posses the goal and rotate it) is NorCal’s. NorCal VEX Tipping Point RI3D Reveal - YouTube
This robot can also grab an alliance goal and internally stack on it as well, and I’m not sure but it looks to me like they could also externally stack on alliance and lower neutral goals if they want to. And while this robot currently can’t lift goal onto the platform externally, I think it’s safe to say that with some modification it probably could. So this establishes that it’s clearly possible for a robot to do everything the game has to offer.
But my question is not is it possible, but rather, is it worth it.
Looking at some other robots revealed, we can see that they are much better at playing the goal and/or low branch game than NorCal’s robot.
2145z, while lacking ring mechanisms, is undoubtable the best goal-focused bot we’ve seen yet. It has capacity for 3 goals, and can quickly and efficiently lift goals externally onto the platform. And it has a mechanism to quickly snatch 2 neutral goals at once during auton. And it has a 6 motor drive so it can be faster than most other robots.
1469a is probably the best robot revealed so far at scoring rings on alliance goals. I’d go as far as to say it’s likely as fast at doing so as you’d ever need to be.
I’m not making any claims about which of these robots is better, because they’re all playing different aspects of the game, but I think it’s obvious that robots that ignore the tall goal are able to play the other aspects of the game much more efficiently.
So with that in mind, what does everyone think about the viability of going for the tall goal vs ignoring it and focusing on the other aspects of the game?
if you go for the tall goal, you have to sacrifice speed and efficiency in seemingly all other aspects of the game, you aren’t guaranteed to obtain the tall goal by any means, and even if you do get it, you are much easier to defend than a shorter, less ring focused robot. But you can tap into that huge point potential from the goal, and if you can successfully pull a fully loaded tall goal off, that’s an enormous advantage you have over your opponents.
if you don’t try to stack rings on the tall goal, you can focus more on the many other aspects of the game, such as goal controlling or scoring rings on alliance goals. This can make for a very effective strategy, even without any points from rings on the tall goal.
A robot like 1469a is only able to score 158 points (80 points from elevating 2 alliance goals, 30 points from parking robot, 48 points from rings on goals), which is less than a robot capable of doing everything (including tall goal) is, but I think it’d be able to do so a lot more consistently, since alliance goals can be reliably possessed and rings are in abundance.
And a robot like 2145z, while unable to score rings, would be able to get 200 points alone by putting 5 goals onto the platform from the side. However, these points are hardly reliable, since it requires gaining and retaining possession of all 3 neutral goals, which I think is a stretch even for a robot designed to gain possession of neutral goals as fast as possible.
Is a do it all robot the most competitive option? You have the ability to score the most possible points, and because of the wide variety of scoring options you’d have, you could easily adapt your strategy to fit each match. However you wouldn’t be able to do most aspects of the game as quickly as a simpler robot would. And if a do it all robot isn’t the most competitive option, what aspects of the game should be focused on?