Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

So, with the "Terrifying Karthik" thread, a vibrant discussion has started over the design choices of many FRC teams. With almost 80% of teams in the last poll stating they were planning on being "low bar capable," GeeTwo brought up a very good point that, if all these teams are going to only go under the low bar, then focus solely on shooting, this potentially very exciting and strategically diverse game will stagnate quickly. So, I want to see how many teams actually are focusing on being a dedicated low bar fast-cycle shooter.

EDIT: In order to improve clarity of the options I've made-
when I say "breach capable" I mean being able to handle three full groups of defenses, in addition to the low bar, without any assistance.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

I don't see the poll.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

Sorry, I was finishing it up. Should work now.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

Very few teams actively plan on being worse at other tasks to be good at other ones. These are the teams with a good grasp of strategic tradeoffs and what they are capable of. Far more just figure they have some way of doing everything, and these teams will assume they will be fine at everything until the moment the robot goes in the bag, or even later. Those are the teams whom are likely compromising their performance the most - the jack of all trades is the master of none and all that.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

Most (>80%?) teams find out what they are bad at in competition. And of those, most do not adjust meaningfully to their strengths. Successful teams are good at foresight and adaptability.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

I have a bad feeling this poll is going to be more terrifying then the first one.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

Do you think that those teams that misjudge how strong they will be relative to the field at their designed tasks will become defense robots?

If you look at the geometry, I believe a 54 inch moving wall will be able to block basically any shooter sitting near to the ground in the safe zone, and because of the small size of the goal this year teams being molested outside the safe zone by even a weak drive train probably have a low chance of hitting the high goal. Added to that is, if a defense robot forces a low shooter to shoot into the low goal (2 points versus 5 points) they take away any advantage the added accessibility of the courtyard via the low bar adds in the first place.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

Our strategy is to be able to defeat B, C, D and low bar defenses while still shooting in the high goal. We are choosing not to shoot from far away. We thought that if we are going all the way to the low goal, we might as well have a consistent uber close range high goal shooter. So for our shot, we plan on being on the batter which could help defend against any sideswipes but it could make getting out harder.

I don't think there will be too much of a problem with traffic if the two offensive robots communicate often on what they are planning to do. If the offense is not communicating to each other, that will be quite a mess....

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

You make a really good point here. An alliance of hybrid tower-breach bots is only as powerful as the communication between teams. If communication isn't good, that alliance will struggle to do much of anything.

This poll is astounding to me. The "Jack of all trades" role is typically the worst role to take on (we've all seen the karthik thing, so I'm not going to discuss why), and few teams have the ability to adapt to their flaws during and between competitions. And, with the number of people crying for a shooting game after last season, I figured there'd be a lot of teams who would single out shooting as a singular priority.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

Can confirm, very terrifying indeed. Over 50% of responders have indicated that they will shoot, low bar, and breach capable. That means over 50% of responders are designing to be able to handle every element of the game, save for climbing. From my experience, only a very small percentage of teams will be able to accomplish that.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

50% of responders are either really, really good, or somewhat delusional as to their capabilities.


On the other hand, 50% of responders are at least somewhat honest with themselves.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

Experience dictates that the 50% of delusional teams are most likely not nearly as good at aiming and shooting as they think they will be.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

Accidentally voted for the wrong option :/

But when it does come down to it, honestly? Going under the low bar is definitely worth it. Copying off Rebound Rumble is not the way to go here, because should a robot this year have a significant amount of height, there's a good shot at it tipping (therefore failing at the majority of other defenses). Just going off the top of my head, it would take a seriously good driver to get a tall robot up over the Cheval de Frise, the Rough Terrain, the Ramparts, and the Rock Wall (for much the same reason why you never saw the "standard shooter" from 2012 crossing over the central bar across the Rebound Rumble field). The only defenses where I see a serious advantage coming in with a taller design are the Portcullis, Sally Port, and Drawbridge, and that's something to consider.
Traffic has been a primary concern of many teams in regards to the low bar. However, based on the limited number of designs that have been made publicly available by teams, with the right wheels, good balance, and good driving, doors open up (NPI) to many other defenses as well.
The fact of the matter is, don't be too quick to turn your nose up at either option.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

I don't think this poll is all that scary... If a robot is going to be a "breaching specialist," it only stands to reason that it will be able to cross at least four of the defenses. Two of the defenses are mastered with a drive train, a third by being short.... That leaves a single manipulator to get through a fourth category.... Beyond that, is anybody really going to build a robot that can't attempt to put a boulder into one of the two goals? Notice, the poll does not specify shooting accurately - or even low goal vs. high goal.

It is fully believable that better than 50% of robots will be capable of crossing four defenses and capable of shooting boulders. The real question is: how proficient will they be? There will be very few robots capable of crossing four or more defenses in under five seconds each and firing off an aimed shot at the high goal with better than 90% accuracy within just a few seconds of crossing the defenses.... Even fewer will be able to also pick up a loose boulder quickly....

At the same time, it is really hard to know, at this point, just how good your team is going to be at any specific task... I know that this next week is huge for us: mechanisms are basically built and we are in the process of testing and tweaking them..... As an example, we tested our robot on the rough terrain last night and decided its performance was unacceptable, so we are making some adjustments this evening to the chassis and retesting in a bit.... We know we have a good shooter, but have not yet tested its integration with the boulder pickup... Nor have we finished with our vision-tracking - we decided we needed some better lights.... Etc.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

I don't think we should be ridiculing people who think they're going to be able to do something that we know is hard. Every year, pretty much every team realizes that something or other is way harder than they thought. It's good that teams understand that many events will be won by robots that go under the low bar and shoot high and go over several other defenses.

The GDC designs these games to be very difficult for most teams. There are learning experiences to be had. Every year I look forward to the previously mediocre teams that have their breakout years, and show the world that they've learned something.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

This seems to be the case of a silent majority and vocal minority. There are valid arguments to be made on both sides. At this point in the season, teams who have already designed to NOT go UNDER the bar aren't going to change their minds. I think the more interesting number is now many teams change their minds in the last 13 days and decide to not limbo.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

I put other since...

We can go under the low bar
Cross every defense without help other then The Sally Port, and Drawbridge.
Climb
Shoot High goals and low goals

We have finished the mechanisms to do everything but climb. The climber is slated to be finished at the end of this week.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

I selected that we can do B/D defenses. But I also think that we can breach, since we don't have to do one category (that would be A for us), and we might be able to do C with alliance help.

Since this can be interpreted two ways, I am not very confident that the poll is an accurate reflection of what some folks think it is.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

Advice taken, threw in a little edit in my original post to hopefully provide a little clarity. Regardless of possible misinterpretations, I think this poll still shows that a stunning number of teams plan on taking on the single hardest strategy available in this game, and only a select few have explicitly chosen to focus on one aspect of the game. Whether one particular strategy proves superior to the other will be proven in competition, but it seems we may have already made that decision ourselves.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

We're building as a sapper (breaching specialist) first and foremost. But, as this has limited scoring possibilities (especially if there is another sapper on the alliance), we also have a boulder pickup and launch at high goal (and can reverse the pickup for a low goal attempt), though our speed is rather slow and we have only made two high goal shots so far - but they were consecutive and did not touch the tower on the way in.

We're switching from surgical tubing to springs (springs arrived via UPS today) to improve range/height consistency from shot to shot.

We are currently light enough that we may work on a scaling mechanism or a deployable defensive wall after bagging.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

50% checking in for "Yes low bar, breach capable with a shooter"...

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

i mean, the poll doesn't state they do it all effectively...

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

How many teams are we talking about here exactly? :yikes:

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

That would include us. Avoiding G45 yellow cards was high on our priority list, and I doubt we'll change that.::rtm:: :p

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

Ahh! Poor choice of words. My bad.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

At this rate there should be a poll with how consistent the shooters will actually be. I think if you could sink two baskets in 2012 you were doing better than most teams that year.

This is year is going to be a scouting nightmare.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

I dont agree about this, I think that this year scouting is gonna be realy fun, scouting nightmare was 2013 mission, was hard to follow all the discs that were flying around the field.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

Do remember this is a poll of Chief Dehlpi teams. This is not a clean slice of the general FRC population. Rather this is a highly skewed sample of teams who's BBQ is far greater then the standard FRC population.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

Why do people think this? Not to pick on specifically Drakxii, but almost any interesting poll has multiple comments like these. It doesn't seem to do anything but reinforce the casual elitism on this forum.

Clearly, teams on Chief Delphi have some advantages that should make their robots and teams better, but besides the general consensus is there really any evidence of this? There are some very top tier teams with active members on this forum, but there are also plenty of teams that are either basically rookies or show off robots that are typical of the average competitive FIRST robotics team I see at competitions.

I'm sorry if I come off as rude, but I think that dismissing this poll (or any poll on this website) on the assumption that most of the 300 people who have already responded to this poll are on far better than average teams does not seem to do anything except cheapen the discussion.

Thoughts?

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

I agree completely. CD isn't some elite group where only the best teams are allowed in. You don't even need to be on a team to make an account. It is true that poll results are not necessarily a great representation of all FIRST teams, but simply being a Chief Delphi poll does not make us better.

Even so, the polls say a large amount of teams are planning on the low bar, and even if it turns out to only be half that number in reality, as I like to say, "half of a lot still tends to be a lot".

All this low bar talk is starting to get repetitive, but that just goes to show how big of a deal it may turn out to be.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

What if the Transformers pick the Decepticons at Champs and need a specific type of robot for the 2nd pick?

Meh. First we have to earn the spot to Champs, and that means we need to be prepared to play the game locally - however that works. I know my team, in choosing the low bar and shooter, refused to give up the basic functions of a great low goal and great intake. It was an easy decision since our targets for breaching we solved very early on. So in playing the long game (yay districts!) we know we have until District Champs to get the shooter to its highest level of play. Since we have the resources to do so, I think we'll get there.

Then we'll have to figure out the whole paradox implied by the first sentence above...

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

Teams that have been preparing to take full advantage of the district schedule can be very successful but also will have very interesting types of performances. The robot we need to do well at our first event is somewhat unrecognizable compared to the robot we need to succeed at district champs. In theory we could wholesale replace our robot and then some across the 5 different competitions (if we actually do that, I might die).

Also while saying that Chief Delphi users are not representative of FIRST as a whole is not entirely a logical fallacy, a claim that they are always going to be stronger performers does have holes in it. Source.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

Sorry I should have explained myself better but I am not trying to say that Chief Dehlpi teams are always better then others. I just get tired of the implications that 70-90% of the teams that selected "Yes low bar, breach capable with a shooter" are going to awful or useless.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

For anyone interested, I have started another thread here which will help us to gauge how representative CD polls are of FRC teams as a whole.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

Totally agree with the scoring aspect being very easy to scout but thinking about all those low bar robots and how many field elements they need to interact with will make for a very interesting year since you will have to look for the robots that differentiate themselves from the sea of Dozer sized low bar robots. There are just so many things to look at when considering an alliance partner and I feel that it will be a challenge especially for new teams.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

In addition to the complexities of scouting, I can imagine that coaching is going to be challenging. Figuring out how to deal with all the defenses with each alliance's capabilities, coordinating when who goes where and which robot pushes which other robot through and who opens the door for whom when...plus the fun of getting everyone on the batter when it's time to challenge....

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

I originally thought that Karthik's reasoning for being terrified was simply because there are teams that would give up "playing" the game for going under the low bar. What I mean by this is teams that would give up shooting high, scoring the boulder or climbing the castle for going under the low bar, being that it is a easy objective. But this poll seems to reflect that teams are going to attempt to do it all. Personally I think this perspective is beneficial to the FIRST community, making competition more competitive, and it allows the students to overcome the large problem of engineering a robot that can do it all. Disclaimer, if fifty percent of robots will be able to travel under the low bar then the low bar will be a highly contested team strategy. I think due to the format of the game most teams will not be able to travel through the defenses as fast as they can travel under the low bar. The best teams in the world will be able to do all the defenses as fast as they can traverse the low bar. Currently I believe the reasoning for Karthik being terrified is due to strategy, we need to ask ourselves, did Simbotics or OP Robotics build a robot around a strategy, such as a Low Bar cycle shooter (Only traveling through the Low Bar). While I think this specific strategy example is starkly unlikely for either Simbotics or OP Robotics use, I do think that Karthik is scared due to a mistake (shocking to think this is possible of either team). Stronghold will be exciting to watch.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

I can tell you what's really tough.
Wiring your robot with all of your control system parts in a tiny package footprint for trying to achieve a low bar passage, lift and traversing the barriers.


Here's what nobody is talking about.
What would an elite team really do?

My guess is that they focus on a superior articulating frame that traverses the defenses effortlessly, keeping a relatively high robot, doing all of the above with excellence.
Why?
Because they can easily choose a 2nd and/or 3rd partner that focuses solely on the low bar and the fact that there will be lots of them.

The biggest hint was on the poll that asked if teams were affected by the change in dimensions to one of the barriers.
Only the elite chose that they were screwed.:)

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

For the GREAT Low Bar Robots it should be inefficient to go across the field to the low bar.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

For the great.....yes.
But for the rest, it depends just how effective they traverse those barriers.
And we will see a lot struggle with it...

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

On the other hand it could just be multiple members from the same team voting that has skewed the results the way they are. Most highly successful teams have much larger student and mentor populations, if they are all voting it will skew the results towards the crazier of robot designs.

If we assume that a fixed percentage of all FRC students and mentors are active on CD, having a larger team will disproportionately give them more votes.

Well our robot is named after an Autobot so I guess we gave to be on the other alliance.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

yes, it will be a challenge and this is the fun part :)
much better than 2015, and even better than 2014 in my opinion, I like games that require good scouting and strategy.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

This is the problem that I am currently solving for my team. Three clear 'shelves' so we can see everything but still fit it in a small 7" by 10" by 6" high space.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

We are on Day 3 of wiring with a fabrication professional mentor solely dedicated to doing this, working with our Control systems mentor and 3 students.
As we wire, we find open spaces to put items and have to create a "shelve" to mount onto with standoffs and spacers.
This takes time to custom make on the spot in order to wire the next set of item(s).
27 hours and counting......back at it today.

We have used the entire inside of the robot and it's still very crowded. Definitely not a wiring job I'm very proud of looks wise but, we labeled the crap out of it and everything is connected with Power poles so troubleshooting should not be too much of an issue.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

This entire thing blows my mind, honestly. Based on the BBQ polls and general speculation about CD poll bias, a little less than half of the mid-to-high tier teams are trying to do basically everything. It's very surprising to me that this would happen, especially in one of the few games in recent years were the various specializations are so well defined. Personally, I think an alliance of do-it-alls would be absolutely insane as long as they were coordinated well, but there's little to set it apart from a specialist alliance with robots that are much simpler to build.

So, what terrifies Karthik? The answer seems pretty simple now. There is a huge number of teams going directly against the one paradigm that has held true in every FRC game for as long as I can remember (with the exception of RR, sort of). The jack of all trades is the master of nothing, and unless everyone has figured out some brilliant design, there's going to be a lot of nothings out there this season.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

So what was the specialist last year? What about 2014? If you want to compete in this FRC Game, you have to be able to do everything. If you can't effectively score alone you will not be in the elimination rounds, we don't plan on being a 2nd pick.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

I concede.


I think this hits the hail on the head. If the upper mid-level teams are all trying do-it-alls, with the typical success records, this is going to be a crazy year. Makes me really glad that my team decided NOT to try a do-it-all strategy!

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

The stereotypical specialist last year was the capper. Much like the capping robot, a specialist this season has huge points potential in the right situation. However, that "points floor" for a specialist is higher than last season. A dedicated capper could not score points if nobody could stack totes for them. A dedicated shooter can still go get balls to shoot with, even if nobody is moving balls into the courtyard for them. In this game, a specialist is extremely viable because the specialist roles are not entirely dependent on each other, unlike last season where one specialist without the other meant disaster for both.
I don't mean to rail on the hybrid robot design. A well-made hybrid robot should be able to dominate this year's game, because the difference in playstyle that may emerge between quals and elims lends itself well to a robot that is adaptable to these varied playstyles. (By this I am referring to the idea that breaching will be more popular than shooting in quals, because capturing requires greater precision in overall robot design, as well as coordination between alliance members that is atypical of qualifying matches) However, the hybrid carry is, as always, a high-risk, high-reward proposition. For most teams, this is too much of a risk to take.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

I see your point, but I don't remember a dedicated "capper" winning anything last year?

Maybe this thread should be titled what we think less experienced teams should avoid.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

http://www.thebluealliance.com/team/27/2015

Now, they might not have won any events, but being District finalists, Michigan State Finalists, and Galileo Finalists is nothing to laugh at.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

2015 was an exception to the rule in a lot of ways. But this has almost never been true! In nearly every FRC game, very competitive robots skipped "mandatory" parts of the game and still found success. The team that spends 0 hours on an objective they can't accomplish is going to be a lot more competitive than the team that spends 500 on the objective they can barely do, because they put more time and resources into being better at other tasks. If you design robots automatically trying to do everything, each year, unless you're among the best in FRC you're going to end up at best a jack-of-all-trades, master of none.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

Something that I think this might be missing is the evolution of design, or the cost of a higher scoring floor.

Our design/strategy was originally to be a breach/support bot.

We decided we would work on defenses, while bringing balls to a more competent shooter.

That made the decision to go for the low bar almost a low brainer.

Our reach goal was to be able to score in the low goal in case we were on an alliance where the other two robots weren't able to do as much.

This was followed by being able to score high if necessary from a fixed location so that we might be of some value if chosen for finals.

Our mega reach goal is a climb, but we may find that challenging the tower is enough depending, and climbing is really low on our list of priorities.

In this sense our bot isn't a jack of all trades, but more of a specialist that can also do some other stuff...

I am sure we will see other teams that made better choices, we almost always do, but I am not sure this choice was as bad as a poll on chief Delphi makes it seam.

Edoga

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

I think the poll is legit.

Low bar capability is a no brainer , as there is little to be gained by a high bot.

As for it be a traffic jam at the low bar , I doubt it as I'm sure most any team that chose a low/limbo bot did so knowing they can handle the rest of the game too including scaling.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

We did well with our hybrid-capper (semifinal.quarter final) but we could also do two 5 stacks if needed, this time though we want to do it all, learned the lesson we need to score like anyone and not over specialize.

The main difference form last two seasons is last two seasons we relied on partners to win each match, this time we will not rely on partners at all. It is too much of an expectation to get paired with the bots you need unless you yourself can keep the ranking points up so you can select the partners that help.

Our last two bots were specialist and jack of all trade this robot is designed to do it all at a high level and score every match on its own... hope so.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

Honestly, its not a no-brainer. And there is a non-zero amount gained from being a non-low bar robot. Unless you have a robot that shoots with a high release point and collapses down to get under the low bar, your shots can be blocked very easily by a tall robot, and due to the higher vertical distance the boulders need to go to make it into the goal, there is a smaller window for shot variability. Also, having a non-low bar bot gives electronics team members an easier time when building, and diagnostics will be easier. Also, not going under the low bar makes a hard task (scaling) a little bit easier to design for.

I'm not saying that low bar bots are worthless.There are definite advantages to using the low bar. I'm just saying that there are significant drawbacks that a team should consider instead of thinking the low bar is a no-brainer. To add onto that, if it was a no-brainer, you wouldn't see powerhouse teams answer 'no' to the original poll.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

We've taken into account all the game rules and are confident that being low is an asset and not a liability. Lets just say we are not highly concerned by high bot blockers. Guess we will see who wins Einstein...

I'll bet super fast and accurate low bots will represent as captains this year versus high bots.

There is nothing except for potential defense that a high bot offers when it comes to scoring .... if its playing defense its not helping their alliance score or get RP. We have been a defensive bot, it works sometime if in the perfect location.

Last year high was the most effective design (Stack 6 from HP) there is no such design mandate this year except the lesser point value low bar , all we know is a traditional high bot cannot go under a low bar thus a liability there.

Will be interesting to see what actually happens.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

Really? I'd say that a higher release point would result in a more accurate shooter, easier scaling, and most likely an easier cross through the category C defenses (solo, that is.) If you're not shooting from the batter, it also means that you're not going to be blocked by 54'' walls.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

As we have seen over and over low bots can be highly accurate and height is not a requirement to shoot and I believe many low bots will be able to shoot from anywhere in the courtyard.

As for Scaling.... have to remember the scale mechanism can be separate from the reaching mechanism.

As for Cat C solo you can find bots online that prove that is able to be done.

Like i said I see no limitation to achieving all other goals being low.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

If previous games are indicative of the majority of success rates of shooting anywhere, I doubt low bots will be able to shoot from anywhere in the courtyard a high % in the high goal if not in the safe zone. Its hard enough as it is from safe zone areas.
I also think that low goal scoring isnt as easy as people think. In 2010, the two goals were across the field from each other. Made it harder with 1 defender to watch both goals. This year they are both towards the center and the orientation makes it harder for a team whose being blocked, to traverse to the other side without the defender being able to defend that side also.

As noted by many, breaching will score the majority of points in early regionals in less competitive regions. Its just that much easier than scoring boulders and scaling.

Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
 

This year it's hard enough to find a functional safe zone, much less shoot from it