According to the poll Low Bar 90% of teams are planning on being able to go under the low bar.
I believe that 90% of teams are going to TRY to go under the low bar, I just don’t think that there will be that many that are effective at it. By which I mean that their robot can not only go under the low bar but can do something else that adds significant value to their alliance (e.g. cross many/most other defenses, score boulders into the high goal, scale the tower, block opponent shots/play defense effectively, …).
So… What percentage of teams do YOU thing will be effective Limbo Robots?
For the purposes of this survey, let’s not count weeks 0-3 of the season. Answer based on Week 4 and beyond.
Keep in mind that Chief Delphi polls disproportionately represent more experienced FRC teams. That 90% probably will not hold true once competitions start up.
That being said, I expect 100% of low bar bots to be able to either shoot low or cross many defenses.
I’d guess 40% of low bar bots will have mechanisms that shoot high, and 50% of those to work fairly well.
I would expect 20% of low bar bots to have hanging mechanisms, and 50% of those to work well.
I agree that the term effective should be defined a little bit better. Are you referring to robots that can not only go under low bar and do something meaningful with a boulder, are you talking about robots who can get under the low bar but the only other thing that their good at is getting over some of the obstacles what is your criteria?
Everybody seems to have low bar as a pretty firm requirement, and for good reason. Few teams making low goal scorers will have a problem getting under the low bar (unless they completely miss the geometry of the ramp and design 16" high and do not test). Most teams capable of scoring high consistently will engineer their way through it. I think that by week 4 more than 60% of teams will be able to traverse the low bar at least as efficiently as any other defense, so I checked 60-79%.
Wait for a partner to open the Group C Defense, or focus on defense in its own courtyard (or at one other point…). Could also play shuttle, dropping off boulders for partners in the Neutral Zone, but that’s a risky business.
If I had that bot, I would want to start in the spy position. That way, I could get 5 points for challenging, have access to boulders and goals, and be able to open drawbridges and sally ports.
Being a really good rebounder/shooter that can hang would seem to be an effective robot in many matches. Especially with the small upper goal I expect a lot of missed shots in qualifying matches. I think their value would decrease as Saturday goes on however.
I don’t know about 100%, because teams that just build a kitbot (with all the foibles that usually follow) are likely to fall into this category. Call it 70-80?
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 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.
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.
I think that most teams that try to get under the low bar will be able to. If you’re going to design your entire robot to fit under that bar, most teams are going to make sure they can.
I definitely think that the number of effective Limbo Robots will be greater after week 4 than before, in the early weeks. After teams try using their robots and strategies in a real match, they’ll find the flaws, and be able to fix them as the season goes on, whether on their second robot, in the programming, or whatever other method.
I also think that the best limbo bots need to shoot goals of some sort, they can’t just breach the defenses and be done. This is because, as mentioned earlier, the biggest benefit of being able to go under the low bar is the faster cycle time for getting boulders. But if you don’t design a robot that can take advantage of this, you’ll only be mediocre at best.
Its honestly not too hard to design a effective robot that can go under the low bar, but yes I agree with the fact that most rookie teams will not be on chief delphi, so all these percentages that we are seeing in the polls represent a good number of teams that already have experience with or have an idea on how to design how to do this.
Our robot will be able to cross every defence, and shoot in low and high goals. The only function im not a hundred percent sure will function is scaling the wall, but even that has a 90 percent chance of working (will find out later this week).
