Chief Delphi - Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142944)

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by JesseK (Post 1533530)

I think this grossly underestimates the effect of defense on low goal. The low goal-only bot has fewer options for scoring. Far shots into the low goal have the same margins of error as far shots into the high goal, thus the only guaranteed low goal shot is the one made from really up close.

I think it's inaccurate to say that a low goal "roll" has the same margin of error as a high goal shot. For once thing, the effective distance you will be propelling the ball cannot be as large as the distance for a shot. You also have the added complexity of a shooter vs a roller which, in most cases, will add inaccuracy.

Quote:

Since these are two static spots on the field, and (unlike 2014) the spots are relatively close to each other, I bet a good defender can easily and completely shut down a good low-goal-only fast-cycler bot.

I would say the same is true for a high goal shooter. All a defender needs to do is stay in front of the shooter assuming they are tall enough) to block shots. No pushing or shoving is needed, just the same good driving that is needed to block a low goal.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson (Post 1533116)

According to the poll Low Bar 90% of teams are planning on being able to go under the low bar.

I agree with Joe's analysis, with one minor but important point. This is 90% of individual responders; there's likely multiple responses representing the same team, as multiple members from the same team might respond to the same poll. Other than that, though, I think you're right on.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToddF (Post 1533324)

In my view, the most damaging action a robot can take is to shoot for the high goal and miss, robbing your alliance of the second bonus. The possible benefit of a high goal over a low goal (3 points) is not worth the risk of taking that shot (losing 25 points) unless your shooter is greater than 80% accurate (not bloody likely) AND you have time to make all 8 shots into the high goal. (Which, at 80% accuracy, means attempting 10 undefended shots.)

That said, the temptation to waste resources on a mechanism with low point power (high goal shooter) can be overwhelming. I suspect that many teams will go down that road, making mediocre shooters, missing high goal shots and costing their alliances the bonus points for capturing the tower.

Agreed. I expect the most common type of ineffective robot this year to be mediocre (or bad) high goal shooters. Unfortunately, a significant subset of of high goal teams will focus a lot of time on the shooter while neglecting their boulder collectors, which is a shame.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monochron (Post 1533546)

I suppose I'm biased by my team's solution, so I'll concede a bit here when comparing complexity of mechanisms. Yet the toughest thing will not be distance calculation for high goal or low goal - the goals are quite tall and fairly forgiving compared to other years. The errors will come from left/right aiming. Rolling will be as (in)effective as shooting from this perspective.

Quote:

I guess if we're talking about the low-to-average high goal bot, sure. But I bet there are plenty of average high-goal bots where the protected zone is actually unblockable. Whether or not that unblockable bot can also go under the low bar is a real challenge though, so probably not doable for an 'average' low bar bot.