Sorry… not to boast… but think this approach of carrying 2 goals are more effective 
To be fair (toooo beeee faaairrr) the Head of the GDC does not work for either group. I was marking that there is a line, since I’;ve had people go “why are events so expensive, we already spent $3,000 with VEX on parts”
Look Meng, I am always in awe of your teams 
but truth be told - Roboty McRobotface had three mobile goals - yea, only one cone on its alliance goal:)
Pretty sure you will always outscore - but the topic is about # of mobile goals - not match score outcome
But nobody wants this to happen with the neutral goals.
“nobody”
Actually I was just trying to illustrate that lifting up the goals will be better than dragging it along that’s all
Especially for this season, there will be lots of rings lying around on the field.
Is the anti-latching rule still in place?
Because if it is, then this will not be possible.
Doesn’t look like latching to the scoring objects is prohibited:
If it turns out that the best strategy is to acquire the most neutral goals in the beginning of autonomous period, then, on the high level where teams are good enough to rarely make mistakes, the outcome of the match could, indeed, be decided in the first few seconds.
This will call for the very narrowly optimized design and will come down to who can have the most reliable execution of the strategy.
Which, imo, will result in the high degree of design convergence and a very boring remainder of the game.
Whoever gets hold of the mobile goal(s) first will have the weight advantage and could slowly retreat back into their home zone and wait it out until the end.
So, how can you build a robot that is fast enough to get to the MoGo(s) fast and strong enough to hold onto them and pull them back?
Clearly, you have to dedicate as much motors as possible to the drivetrain. Pneumatically actuated transmission would be a huge help and you can, also, have some energy for the initial sprint accumulated with elastics and triggered with pneumatics and integrated with ratchets into the drivetrain.
As much as it sounds like a great mechanical challenge, it would still remain mostly invisible under the hood and result in not very exciting game for spectators.
Reminds me of the FIRST game Recycle Rush. there was a row of trash cans on the dividing line and you wanted to capture them and drag them back to your side. Teams created these deployment systems that could go to the trash can in under a second, grapple on and pull it in the next second to keep the other team from hitting it. Awesome to watch, but then FRC fields have plexiglass to protect the drivers.
Ah, if only we didn’t have the 36” expansion limit…
You only need 2 mogos to consistently win. (Both teams do this)
Rush center and pick up 1 a neutral and then and alliance goal. Then harass the other team with 8m pushbots the whole match.
You’ll likely win autonomous since you have an additional 20 points but for now lets assume you lost somehow.
Blue: 20
Red: 0
Blue has to score 21 points in autonomous which will be much harder said than done.
Blue alliance somehow plays perfectly and gets 4 rings on all the branches and 8 on the alliance goal branches. Unfortunately they can’t get the neutral tower up the seesaw or rings will fall off and need someone to guard the tall neutral so red doesn’t steal it.
Red alliance then parks with 4 mogos and 2 robots.
Blue: 202
Red: 220
Blue loses by 18 points even with the benefit of the doubt of somehow winning autonomous and had to play perfectly scoring the maximum amount of points while somehow evading 2 8m pushbots the whole match while Red just built a 8m drive and got 2 mobile goals in autonomous.
Does this seem fun?
Possible solutions:
- Lower points for mobile goals being in homezones (10 for homezone and 20-30 for teeter totter)
- Possession limits
I personally think lowering the points for mobile goals makes the most sense as it will make robots focus more on scoring on mobile goals instead of hoarding possessing them the whole match.
- Lower Points for Mobile Goals
- Possession Limit
- No Change
0
voters
Edit:
Credit to Shane from vtow for explaining why 2 mogos wins.
I don’t think these numbers work out correctly (although it’s late, so my math could be fuzzy - or maybe I’m misunderstanding what your setup is). Are you saying Red alliance gets 4 total mogos and parks 2 bots and 4 mogos at the end and does nothing else (except harass Blue), and that all Blue would be able to do is load up on rings on the remaining 3 mogos (1 of which is the tall neutral) and park 1 bot with 1 mogo at the end? And that this means Red would beat Blue basically every time?
Red with only 4 mogos & 2 robots on the platform is 220.
4x40 + 2x30 = 160 + 60 = 220
Blue with all those branch rings and 1 mogo and 1 robot on the platform is 222 (without any auton bonus), but they also get 20 points for each mogo in the home zone (so plus at least 20 points, since this setup indicates they have the tall mogo, and 40 if they keep both).
1x40 + 1x30 = 40 + 30 = 70 mogo/bot
8x3 + 8x3 = 48 for 8 rings on each of their alliance goals
4x10 + 4x10 = 80 for 4 rings on each tall neutral top
4x3 + 4x3 = 24 for 4 rings on each tall neutral mid
70 + 48 + 80 + 24 = 222
Even if Blue lost auton and didn’t keep the 2nd alliance goal (but did score the rings on it), they’d still beat Red (242 to 240).
Also, this is assuming Blue will only get 1 robot and 1 mogo on the platform, and that they will only put rings on branches. I contend that they are likely to at a minimum throw at least a decent chunk of rings into the mogo bases to get 1 point each on those. Plus they can work to push the other alliance mogo onto the platform for an extra 20 points. Finally, the last 30 seconds are a huge danger for Red going into the Blue home zone (and Red has to have time to park as well), so I think there is really enough time for Blue to get that 2nd robot up on the platform for another 30 points.
I’m not up to working out the numbers right now, but I think Red would have to at least make sure one of the 4 mogos they get is the tall neutral to cut out those high branches (of course, this means Blue is way more likely to get 2 bots & 2 mogos on the platform). They might really need to have 5 mogos instead of just 4, if they don’t win auton or if Blue loads up bases with rings.
I honestly like the idea that there is a race for the mobile goals at the beginning of the match. It puts huge emphasis towards programming the fastest autonomous which is something never seen in VEX. If nothing gets changed I can’t imagine how satisfying it would be to see autonomouses at worlds when all of the robots rush towards the center at the ring of a bell. This feeling is similar to that of dodgeball when everyone runs towards the center to get dodgeballs. I feel like having no limit for possession adds to the action, rather than removes. Additionally, this opens up a gateway for strategies that can be played out similar to sports. For instance, if the opposing team takes a mobile goal you have to decide on-the-spot whether or not you should play defense or score with the mobile goals that you have. This opens a gateway for autonomouses where you can choose to have a swift robot that can nimbly steal one mobile goal from the center or slowly steal 2 of them. Honestly, this adds so much depth to the game to a point where it’s not just a mere grind-and-drive.
Hypothetically - say 3 of the 4 robots are identical and can each carry 2 mogos on a powerful base, and the last robot is a speedy super-ringer who can carry 1.
If Red grabs 4 (not the tall neutral) and parks and wins auton = 240 points.
If Blue grabs 3 and does the following:
Blue1 parks with 2 mogos = 110 (spends the rest of the time defending Blue2)
Blue2 carries tall neutral and loads it solid with rings on branches then hoards in corner = 124 (80 top, 24 mid, 20 pts for mogo in home zone)
110 + 124 = 234
At this point, Blue is only 6 points away from winning. Blue2 can either throw a bunch of rings into mogo base, load up one or both of the alliance mogos, or rush onto the platform in the last 10 sec and they’ve won.
If Red grabs 4 but 1 is the tall neutral, they still have 240 points but Blue has to change strategies.
Blue1 stays with 110
Blue2 shoots around and loads up both alliance mogos and the both branches of the other neutral for 72, then Blue2 carries (carefully) the neutral mogo up the platform for another 70.
110 + 142 = 252
So - Blue still wins.
I think a Red alliance with 2 quality pushbots who can each carry 2 mogos will be a strong alliance but can potentially be beat out by a solid Blue alliance with a quality pushbot and a ringbot.
There’s nothing stopping pushbots on rushing the center. In fact they’ll be even more effective since 6m drive can sustain higher drive speeds
Even if you have a good pushbot but your alliance don’t have a good ringbot, you still can’t win. (I think)
Yea, the limit is what we should get rid of. Thanks for posting the video, I always though the robots that year looked like giant robot insects going after dinners.
Red would get middle mogo since they are much faster.
Here’s the math I used for blue:
20 + 20 + 30 + 80 + 8x3x3 =
Autonomous bonus + 1 mogo in alliance zone + parked robot + 2 mogos on teeter totter + 3 point rings.
Actually I gave blue an extra 20 points.
This is even more broken.
Now with the best strategy being rush middle and another neutral goal everyone builds one of these robots.
What happens when all 4 robots do this now that it’s the best strategy? They crash into each other at center and since scoring rings can’t flip the winning alliance nothing happens in driver control.
I’m unsure if this was the gdc’s intent but currently there is very little incentive for rings and too much incentive for mogos.
sigh this is why we can’t have good things