![]() ![]() Don’t get me wrong, top teams will do both and have better than 90% success at it, but in my experience, a lot of teams that could be competitive are not prioritizing auto enough to compete with the stronger teams.ģ Ingredients Quick, effective mechanisms Easy to edit But in putting in the effort to have a consistent auto and trained drivers, you can be prepared to widen that gap. You might say that’s not a lot less, and it’s not. But even if they were 100% consistent at this, that would only be an expected 15 points per match (which is less than 18). A lot of robots had difficulty getting through the match, onto the tower grounds, and climbing. On the other hand, that year a team could climb in the end game for 15 points. 90% x 20 points is an expected 18 points per match. Let’s say for the sake of argument that they were only 90% consistent. A lot of teams that have learned to prioritize Auto got these consistently. In 2016, (Stronghold) robots got 10 points for crossing a defense and 10 points for scoring in the high goal in auto. TODO: fill this in a little more once we get the game for 2019 Notes: Every year there has been a way to score points for your alliance by just moving In the past, auto has been the first or second tie-breaker A consistent auto is worth more than an if-y end game. If your robot: Is easy to code for auto Has the software architected so that auto coding is simple Has driver’s that are practiced You have a mountain of potential to do well.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |