Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots

[Andrew Schreiber]

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.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

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.

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

[New Lightning]

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.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man already.

Welcome to the club.

[JesseK]

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?

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by JesseK

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?

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

[IronicDeadBird]

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.

[MrJohnston]

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.

[dirtbikerxz]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

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.

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.