Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

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

I believe that 90% of teams are going to TRY to go under the low bar, I just don't think that there will be that many that are effective at it. By which I mean that their robot can not only go under the low bar but can do something else that adds significant value to their alliance (e.g. cross many/most other defenses, score boulders into the high goal, scale the tower, block opponent shots/play defense effectively, ...).

So... What percentage of teams do YOU thing will be effective Limbo Robots?

For the purposes of this survey, let's not count weeks 0-3 of the season. Answer based on Week 4 and beyond.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

Around 20%. Of the remaining 80%, about half will go under the bar, but would have been better off otherwise.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

Keep in mind that Chief Delphi polls disproportionately represent more experienced FRC teams. That 90% probably will not hold true once competitions start up.

That being said, I expect 100% of low bar bots to be able to either shoot low or cross many defenses.

I'd guess 40% of low bar bots will have mechanisms that shoot high, and 50% of those to work fairly well.

I would expect 20% of low bar bots to have hanging mechanisms, and 50% of those to work well.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

Defining : EFFECTIVE

Low goal scoring is not considered such?

We assume most low bots can assist or cross at least two defenses (Low and open from back doors) so one more qualifies?

Think the poll to be accurate needs to be defined better.

For instance...A low bot that is super fast intakes like no other and can score eight low goals seems "effective" to me.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

I agree that the term effective should be defined a little bit better. Are you referring to robots that can not only go under low bar and do something meaningful with a boulder, are you talking about robots who can get under the low bar but the only other thing that their good at is getting over some of the obstacles what is your criteria?

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

Everybody seems to have low bar as a pretty firm requirement, and for good reason. Few teams making low goal scorers will have a problem getting under the low bar (unless they completely miss the geometry of the ramp and design 16" high and do not test). Most teams capable of scoring high consistently will engineer their way through it. I think that by week 4 more than 60% of teams will be able to traverse the low bar at least as efficiently as any other defense, so I checked 60-79%.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

I'm interested to see what a robot does if it can't cross a defense or go under the low bar.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

Wait for a partner to open the Group C Defense, or focus on defense in its own courtyard (or at one other point...). Could also play shuttle, dropping off boulders for partners in the Neutral Zone, but that's a risky business.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

If I had that bot, I would want to start in the spy position. That way, I could get 5 points for challenging, have access to boulders and goals, and be able to open drawbridges and sally ports.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

Being a really good rebounder/shooter that can hang would seem to be an effective robot in many matches. Especially with the small upper goal I expect a lot of missed shots in qualifying matches. I think their value would decrease as Saturday goes on however.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

I don't know about 100%, because teams that just build a kitbot (with all the foibles that usually follow) are likely to fall into this category. Call it 70-80?

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

0-19%... why? Because that's about the percentage of robots that seem to reliably do the game challenge anyway.

How many will continue to tell you they do it and are 110% accurate into the high goal? If the number of teams in 2014 who told me they always scored a ball in auto is any indicator it'll be something like the remaining 81%. And they'll all scream about me being "un GP" when I point out data to the contrary of their delusions.


Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man already.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

Nope, you're right. It's 2014 all over again :)

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

I tend to agree teams say they'll be able to go under the low bar and maybe the can in teleop under the right conditions and little pressure. But come competition time are they going to be able to do something once in the courtyard.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

Your stated criteria for being EFFECTIVE is not our criteria.

Last year, investing design and practice resources on the coop task might help you in quals, but was worth nothing in eliminations. This year, coop task 1 is crossing defenses, which helps you both in quals and gives bonus points in eliminations. Coop task 2 is achieved by scoring low goals and parking on the batter, also giving bonus points both in quals and eliminations.

Our criteria for a fully effective robot, and one we would be happy to pick for an alliance member, is the ability to quickly traverse defenses (to earn the first bonus) and to quickly score low goals (to earn the second bonus). These can easily be accomplished by a robot that fits under the low bar.

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. Those are the teams our scouts will be identifying and avoiding like the black plague.

So, to answer your poll with more than just checking a box, I believe 90% of teams COULD make an effective Limbo bot. 50%-60% of teams will make a robot that physically could be effective. But, only 10% of teams will actually use that robot in an effective gameplay strategy.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

I think that most teams that try to get under the low bar will be able to. If you're going to design your entire robot to fit under that bar, most teams are going to make sure they can.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

In 2014 most teams designed their robots to hold the ball. Most teams couldn't.

(I have more examples)

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

I definitely think that the number of effective Limbo Robots will be greater after week 4 than before, in the early weeks. After teams try using their robots and strategies in a real match, they'll find the flaws, and be able to fix them as the season goes on, whether on their second robot, in the programming, or whatever other method.

I also think that the best limbo bots need to shoot goals of some sort, they can't just breach the defenses and be done. This is because, as mentioned earlier, the biggest benefit of being able to go under the low bar is the faster cycle time for getting boulders. But if you don't design a robot that can take advantage of this, you'll only be mediocre at best.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

Its honestly not too hard to design a effective robot that can go under the low bar, but yes I agree with the fact that most rookie teams will not be on chief delphi, so all these percentages that we are seeing in the polls represent a good number of teams that already have experience with or have an idea on how to design how to do this.

Our robot will be able to cross every defence, and shoot in low and high goals. The only function im not a hundred percent sure will function is scaling the wall, but even that has a 90 percent chance of working (will find out later this week).

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

Welcome to the club.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

I totally agree with you, the number of teams last year that told me (during scouting) that they could do multiple x stacks (like 3 stacks of 4 or etc), and would have them ready for me to cap off were huge. But when we got to the actuall match, they crapped out, did nothing, or could do maximum stacks of two.... at maximum. Some teams even pointed me towards their reveal video that showed them doing stacks of 5 and 6, but that was in a perfect world, on the field, they couldn't even do stacks of 3.

And one thing that really annoyed me, is when some teams had bots that were nothing but a drive train, and a simple grabber arm that could lift one tote at a time (don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with having a not as good bot, everyone has to start learning somewhere), but what annoyed me was when they started claiming they could stack a 4 or 5 tote high stack AND a recycle bin on top, but they could barely push one tote onto the scoring zone.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

If a team demonstrates the ability to go under the low bar, and then in the next match demonstrates the ability to bolt on a scaling mechanism that precludes low bar but enables the scaling, is that still considered effective for the low bar?

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

If it's bolt-on-bolt-off, I'd give it to them. Operational flexibility never hurt anybody!

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

I've been eyeing this thread a lot and I didn't know how to approach it but I think a robot will be effective at going under the low bar is a weird thing to say (like everyone else has pointed out). Otherwise "effective limbo" is just teams that can utilize the low bar so it wouldn't actually boil down to an if you can, but an if you do does it help more statement.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

When I try to define an "effective" low-bar robot, I consider this:

* Should be able to cross the low bar during autonomous play.
* Must be able to easily go under the low bar with minimal slowing.
* Must have some primary role based on its ability to go under the low bar (cycling through secret passage - and scoring most of the time, damaging other defenses, very quickly ferrying boulders through for an opponent, carry boulders across several different defenses)
* Must either be so good at its primary purpose that there is generally no reason to do anything else OR must have a solid secondary purpose.
* Climbing and Autonomous points not involving the low bar are bonuses.

Examples:
Robot A: Can go under the low bar, pick up a boulder from teh secret passage and score it in the low goal. During tele-op, it generally can manage four full cycles, scoring twice.... It can cross Category B and D defenses, but is labored in doing so and will often lose a boulder in the process. Auto: Can cross the low bar - but nothing else. I view this robot as "ineffective" - but would make a decent third robot in the right alliance in district eliminations. (24 pts., including the act of rolling up to the tower)

Robot B: Goes under the low bar, picks up boulders from the secret passage and scores in the low goal - nearly 100% of the time - and can complete about five cycles per match. Additionally, it can cross all the Category B, C and D defenses, carrying a boulder across. Though, admittedly not as effectively as the low bar. During Autonomous, it can cross the low bar and score in the low bar, or simply cross a category B defense. I view this robot as "effective" and would be a good second robot or, possibly, a low level captain in district events. (40-50 pts., including threatening a tower.).

I figure that less than 20% of all robots will be as strong as Robot B.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up more. Shooting percentage needs to be factored in when considering shooting for the high goal. Top level teams are going to have accurate shooters regardless, and this poll ask about being an "effective" robot, two entirely different things. I think a mid level team is going to get a similar amount of points if they choose the high goal or the low goal. The percent of missed high shots is going to bring their final score down close to what they would have made if they did nothing but low goals.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

Yup, our (low) robot design will be able to attempt both high and low goals....if it's not so good at high shots, we'll do low shots. As usual, we won't know until we play the game.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

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. 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.

Having 1 offensive robot completely shut down by a defender means the other offensive robot needs to perform the tower weakening by itself, all else equal. If the low goal-only bot is also distracted from defense weakening, it's gravy on top for the defender.

Though I do agree that sacrificing the ability to do low goal in order to go after high goal is an error. That was a tough lesson from 2014.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

Is scoring in the low goal not considered useful? do they need to do all those things, one of them, or some combination?

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

It can be useful because it will still weaken the tower, which will give you a chance to capture the tower (for the RP point). As well, it definitely would be very useful to be able to do some of the other goals.

Re: Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots
 

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.
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
 

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
 

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
 

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.

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.