Low Bar Poll, part 2

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by maxnz

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.

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.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by maxnz

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.

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.

[evanperryg]

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.

[Fusion_Clint]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

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.

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.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

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.

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!

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint

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.

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.

[Fusion_Clint]

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.

[Anthony Galea]

Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint

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.

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.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint

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.

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.

[eedoga]

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

[Boltman]

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.

[Boltman]

Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint

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.

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.

[Anthony Galea]

Originally Posted by Boltman

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.

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.

[Boltman]

Originally Posted by 3175student17

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.

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.

[GKrotkov]

Originally Posted by Boltman

There is nothing except for potential defense that a high bot offers when it comes to scoring

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.