[ToddF]

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.