Terrifying Karthik

[evanperryg]

Taking a strategic design standpoint, my assumption would be that he's astounded by the fact that so many teams, even high-level teams, are willing to sacrifice tons of space in the name of scoring 10 easy points that could be easily scored by lower-level alliance partner. Teams with high-level abilities ought to focus on the hard tasks (cough cough shooting) while low level teams complete simpler tasks reliably (low bar).

From a match strategy standpoint, I think the concern about low bar meta is, as Kevin Sevcik explained quite nicely, 3 teams relying on the low bar to traverse between the primary gamepiece entry point and the goal scoring point just screams "choke point." Cyclers will have to be well coordinated in their movement to make effective cycles. Good alliances will realize that having a courtyard defender is less effective than having a defender to simply block off the low bar, especially against alliances that rely on the low bar to complete cycles effectively.

So, from this, it'd be easy to feel that low bar meta is going to be extremely problematic for those teams that subscribe to it. However, it will have some huge benefits for the best low bar meta teams. When in a situation where there is no defender blocking the low bar, these robots have a massive advantage in their ability to complete fast cycles. Short robots will also be more likely to have a low center of gravity, meaning they can cross defenses with less risk of falling. The few low bar teams who have consistent high-elevation shooters will be ridiculously strong against poorly coordinated alliances.

Personally, I see scaling as being a cover for the biggest red herring of the season- the low bar. Everyone will be able to do it, yet the sacrifices you must make for the few points you gain will cause many teams to struggle significantly. It's low risk, with equally low reward, but the sacrifices that must be made could create disaster.

[DohertyBilly]

Maybe it's not even about the pile ups that are bound to happen. With so many ways to score this year, there are many more ways to be a strong robot than being a quick low bar shooter. Robots with high shooters are harder to block, and they have less vertical distance to reach, which may allow for a much more effective shooter than you could fit on a low robot. If such a high percentage of teams have a low bar design, there may be too many of one robot archetype. This year of all years, that would be a real shame.

[ratdude747]

*Note- I only read the first page, these are my personal thoughts. Also, as I am not currently affiliated with a team, I am probably not a good candidate to send MTN Dew to*

I see it as a couple of simple yet deep factors.

First, the issue is that out of five classes of defenses (9 total), that 90% of teams voted to focus on the one that is the most limiting in terms of resultant design constraints (more on that below) indicates that at least, perhaps, 65% of teams didn't weigh design choices well. I will say this here and say it again, the low bar IS the tunnel from 2010. So, I'll make a call to my experience as a student that year to illustrate. Many of the best robots that year were unable to fit in the tunnel. Robots like say 1114, 148/217, 177, 111, etc. come to mind. Significantly fewer of the best could. Of those, the only three that come to mind are 1625, 294, and (Indiana bias showing ) 1501. However, in the actual field of robots that year, based on my memories of scouting matches, most robots (just over half?) overall did fit in the tunnel, to include the robots built by both teams I have student experience with (and both robots I did eventually work on at one point or another). The point here is that while a robot could both fit in the tunnel and perform well, it wasn't the case most of the time; that is, most good robots skipped the tunnel and hopped bumps instead. This year, like 2010, the bar/tunnel isn't the only way to cross the field (nor is it required to BREACH, as only 4 of the 5 defenses need DAMAGED).

The other factor here is the limitations presented by making a bot slim enough to fit under the bar (or in 2010, through the tunnel). First, I'll mention another famous bot from 2010 that couldn't fully fit under the tunnel, 469. The redirector design they made was, obviously, a disqualifier to using the tunnel to cross the field. In fact, they didn't even need to cross the field! Sure, with a few exceptions (say 51 and to a lesser degree 1024), nobody else chose that strategy, but to say "must use tunnel" would have pretty much precluded such an innovative strategy. Even if one didn't opt for such a "game breaking" strategy, there still were major issues faced by opting for a slim design. Kickers had to be very compact. Hanging mechanisms, something obviously not required that year for success (although it did tend to separate the absolute best from the pretty good), were in most cases impossible, although the "vertical pole" hanger could be made to fit (1625 comes to mind here). Even harder was making a robot that could also cross bumps AND go through the tunnel. My team at the time, 1747, tried and succeeded at that, but nothing more. Our kicker had issues (oh the poor AM gearboxes we trashed trying to make that work ) and our ball suction devices never took off (although the roller never had a fair chance as it was destroyed in the pits due to a kicker cable failure). Those could have worked had we figured things out sooner, and sure, some teams are so good they can make almost any design work (especially with a good drive team). However, the packaging constraints were indeed quite tight; as a result our winch for an attempt at a hanger never did work (the rube goldburg gearbox had binding issues and couldn't even lift a bucket of scrap steel) and the means of making the hook reach never took off (pun intended?). This year is even worse, as there are so many different ways to score and function (it's like FLL in that way). Trying to get those to work in a slim bot was bad. Trying to have a shooter and feeder (which is almost guaranteed to be bulkier than a 2010 kicker), a hanger (which is subject to more strict rules this year, the result of which is likely added bulk), and one or more mechanisms to deal with the other defenses. An average team would be hard pressed to make all of that fit in a slim bot, with a good drivetrain (for the low defenses), and make them work well. However, eliminate the slim limitation and those become that much easier to work well; one can design mechanisms to work well out of the box, rather than fit a tiny space and be tweaked to sorta work well (if the stars line up and the groundhog misses his shadow, that is). The point here is that in terms of "Karthik points", the tradeoff of fitting under the bar is a net loss of points, and as that goes contrary to Karthik's teachings, he would indeed be terrified to see so many Chief Delphi aware teams (presumably) get it wrong.

Also, I'll sum this up to a final point: It seems many teams didn't remember 2010. Those who forget history are destined to repeat it.

[Collin Fultz]

Karthik is clearly thinking with his MC hat on. He's terrified that with so many low bots, he's bound to trip over one as he moves from the Red side of the field to the Blue.

Wait...what?

Originally Posted by DesignComp

Karthik is afraid of the day he can't agasabapathy.

Winner. Shut it down.

[Taylor]

You're forgetting that Karthik was born in Ohio. You know, the state that's round on the ends and hi in the middle? Which is great for defeating the Portcullis, but not very helpful with the low bar.

The part that terrifies me is the combination of the perceived narrow positions around the batter and the low height of robots. If teams build an army of narrow, short robots, we'll see lots of tortugaing, but not on the Outerworks.
Hopefully teams will remember the lessons of 2010 and not get stuffed in the low goals.

[pfreivald]

Where did the term "Tortuga" come from (in this context)?

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Where did the term "Tortuga" come from (in this context)?

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hlight=Tortuga

This is the first place I saw it.

[Sperkowsky]

My team originally decided on a tall high goal shooter. After a day of CAD we realized it was easier for us to build a low goal shooter aw we could combine an intake with a shooter. We successfully finished a high goal/low goal shooter week 3 and we have been able to spend time tweaking it to perfection and building a climber. We have also done stuff like improve our drive train.

For context we used to be a low resource team. This year we changed a lot and I would consider us a middle of the road team now but, this is crazy for us. In 2013 we had a drive train with a net in 2014 we had a drive train and in 2015 we had a non working stacker. The task of low bar while making nice sub systems is very accessible.

[Chris Endres]

I think Karthik is mad that being able to go under the low bar wouldn't mean your in the cool kids club, rather, the cool kids club would only be limitted to tall robots. It's like thinking you're cool when you have Jordan's, but really the cool kids are the ones with light-up Sketchers.

EDIT: I'll take regular Mt. Dew, or Mt. Frost from Aldi (mmmmmm, delicious)

[Andrew Schreiber]

Also, seeing this thread in my control panel keeps making me laugh.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Also, seeing this thread in my control panel keeps making me laugh.

This whole thread is awkward.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

This whole thread is awkward.

This whole thread terrifies Karthik.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

This whole thread terrifies Karthik.

Isn't that what started this? We're going to get Karthik meta-terrified... metafied?

[Taylor]

I'm so meta, even this acronym.

[Abc123454321]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

Enough time has passed. I think we can have a discussion about this now.

It is going to be a bit meta but I think we can handle it.

Background:

In the thread/poll Low Bar, 90% of teams said they planned on being able to go under the low bar. To which, the enigmatic Karthik said this "The results of this poll are terrifying."

When a deep strategist like Karthik speaks such things, there are a LOT of folks asking themselves questions

• What am I missing that I too am not terrified?
• Should I be terrified?
• Is this something that only scares folk whose footfalls are routine upon the Carpets of Einstein or do mere mortals have something to fear as well?
• Do these robots make me look fat?

As far as I know, Karthik has made no more public statements about his fears.

THIS CANNOT STAND!

What do YOU think Karthik is terrified of?

Tell us what you think in a reply to this thread

Best contributor to the thread (as of Wednesday at Midnight): 12 Cans of Mt. Dew coming your way to support you during the home stretch of the build season.

It is not just one response but the entire contribution from a CD user that is being judged. Of course, Karthik is not eligible**

Cheers,
Dr. Joe J.

*as judged by yours truly. I'm buying the Dew, I'm making the call.

**but he can feel free to help me sort the wheat from the chaff -- I won't turn him away. I still get final call on the winner.

My theory is that teams are trying to be as much self sufficient as possible. By being able to go under the low bar, you have a guaranteed scoring method and don't have to rely on others. This could also be influenced by last year, where heavy dependence on teammates in Recycle Rush, may have costed the match, especially for"can bots". I have seen many teams especially at Dallas who lost this way. One example is 2848( I believe they are the team Im thinking of), who had an excellent "canner" bot. But they were dependent on teammates to stack, and eventually did not do as well as stacker robots.( No offence to this team or any team of the same model, you guys still had an interesting strategy). I think many teams are basing their robot on defence maneuverability, because they have the most control over their destiny.