View Full Version : Playing well with others while scaling the tower
I haven't seen this issue raised by anyone else, though I admit I haven't been monitoring CD this year as closely as I have in the past. It seems like teams are leaving their climbing mechanisms for development later in the season, and may not have noticed an issue which may affect your drive drain design.
I wanted to point out something important about geometric constraints when scaling the tower. If your robot exceeds 24 inches wide, including the bumpers, and you plan to scale with your bumpers sliding up the tower, there are a couple unpleasant consequences.
1) If you scale adjacent to the wall, the wall will push you off center. This means you might only be able to scale from the center face of the tower.
2) If you scale from the center face of the tower, and you overhang to the sides, you may interfere with adjacent robots. If they get there first, you may be blocked from scaling. If you get there first, and you only scale to the minimum height, you may block your alliance members from scaling.
Possible solutions:
1) Have a very narrow robot.
2) If your robot is wide, scale first, and raise yourself 5" MINIMUM higher than necessary, to allow your neighbor to scale next to you.
3) Plan to be the only robot on your alliance to scale. This will limit your chances to be on a winning alliance.
4) Chamfer the side of your robot that contacts the tower such that you play nice with others. (see attached figure)
5) Use some other robot/scaling geometry that doesn't have this issue.
I'm publicizing this issue because we want to be on alliances with multiple climbing robots, and putting it out there makes it more likely this will happen.
Mike Schreiber
02-02-2016, 09:36
This would have been a great PSA in week one. Frames are likely done by now, we'll see how this plays out.
Ginger Power
02-02-2016, 09:40
This would have been a great PSA in week one. Frames are likely done by now, we'll see how this plays out.
+1, but climbing heights can still likely be adjusted.
2) If your robot is wide, scale first, and raise yourself 5" MINIMUM higher than necessary, to allow your neighbor to scale next to you.
I think this solution is the most viable at this point for teams that haven't realized this possible difficulty this late in build season. It's worth not waiting until the very last seconds to scale if it means your partner has room underneath you to scale as well.
This would have been a great PSA in week one.
Don't I know it. I love discovering these little traps the game design committee has laid for us when it's too late for most teams to do anything about it.
Raising yourself higher is a pretty viable option, though. As is pushing yourself away from the wall (after hooking in) so your bumpers stay on your side of the divider.
wendells
02-02-2016, 09:58
Todd.......you deserve a MEDAL......::safety::
JohnFogarty
02-02-2016, 10:22
This discussion has been brought up similarly at least twice.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/42647
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/42667
Still it's important to make sure everyone has considered it. I'm 100% sure any team could climb next to my team thanks to some design choices we made very early on.
orangemoore
02-02-2016, 10:27
I do want to point out there has been at least one of these threads already. The conversation didn't seem to go anywhere from what I recall. It didn't seem like people took an interest in it.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142180
I am glad to see this coming up again. Hopefully more teams see this and start thinking about how climbing will work for them.
EDIT: I took too long to post!
We are currently work on building our climber and brought this at a meeting the other night. We are planning for two different heights when we scale. Left and Right side when scaling will be right above the line we have to cross. If we go center will make sure where first to scale and go higher than we would on the left or right side. This is what our plan is as of now but it could always change.
EricLeifermann
02-02-2016, 10:37
The robot that can scale the highest on your alliance scales 1st and in the middle location. Then the 2 robots on the sides can scale anytime after. No issue.
This discussion has been brought up similarly at least twice.
Yep. I definitely should have been monitoring CD more closely.
laplacier
02-02-2016, 11:17
I think the key will be for the quickest scaler to be in the center, regardless of chassis size. The sooner the middle is out of the way the faster the rest can start their climb and there will be more than enough room on the left and right for their chassis (no middle robot to contact!)
I think the key will be for the quickest scaler to be in the center, regardless of chassis size. The sooner the middle is out of the way the faster the rest can start their climb and there will be more than enough room on the left and right for their chassis (no middle robot to contact!)
I recall the team member doing the motor calculations for the scaling winch saying he used a time of 15 seconds. It occurred to me the other day that a faster time so you can get out of your alliance mates way would be an advantage.
Bob Steele
02-02-2016, 14:00
I think it would be prudent for teams to really consider this.
I know our team has chosen to hang very high so that other teams can get underneath us if necessary. We have also added extra power to our climbing mechanism in order to lift in just 2-3 seconds so we can get up higher and faster to allow other robots to climb underneath us.
We were lucky enough to identify this Key Performance Parameter early in the design process.
We hope to design so that our alliance can be successful
We will also be able to hang at a lower height if necessary to help the group hang.
Many teams seem to look at hanging as only a difference of 10 from sitting. I think the further we progress in the season, three hangers will be necessary.
From an alliance viewpoint... it is a 30 point swing.
good luck and see you on the field and at the tower!!
Jared Russell
02-02-2016, 14:28
How often did 3 robots on an alliance all hang in 2010?
That was a much simpler game (fewer things to do/less tradeoffs to make) and hanging/suspending was the single most valuable robot action, points wise. The rules on robot expansion were more lenient (84" diameter cylinder during the endgame), there were 4 sides/corners for teams to find space, and there were multiple options for hanging (vertical or horizontal bars).
I would love to see all 3 robots scale the tower regularly, but I think it will fall into the "there's a Chief Delphi post every time it happens" category of rarity.
glennword
02-02-2016, 15:11
How often did 3 robots on an alliance all hang in 2010?
That was a much simpler game (fewer things to do/less tradeoffs to make) and hanging/suspending was the single most valuable robot action, points wise. The rules on robot expansion were more lenient (84" diameter cylinder during the endgame), there were 4 sides/corners for teams to find space, and there were multiple options for hanging (vertical or horizontal bars).
I would love to see all 3 robots scale the tower regularly, but I think it will fall into the "there's a Chief Delphi post every time it happens" category of rarity.
In 2010, there weren't nearly as many teams as we have now, there were not nearly as many gearbox/motor/mechanism COTS options available, and there were not as many web based/otherwise easily accessible design and knowledge resources. FIRST is growing, and with it the average quality of teams. That's the nature, and arguably the goal, of any competition; improvement.
Citrus Dad
02-02-2016, 16:44
I have a different but related questions. With Rule G28, will offensive teams chase around defending bots in the Courtyard to get credit for scaling the castle?
PayneTrain
02-02-2016, 18:16
3) Plan to be the only robot on your alliance to scale. This will limit your chances to be on a winning alliance.
I'm publicizing this issue because we want to be on alliances with multiple climbing robots, and putting it out there makes it more likely this will happen.
I've been aware of this situation, but what leads you to believe this will be a huge and recurring issue for your team in particular? Curious to see when 2363 expects to have two alliance partners that will be climbing with them.
I have a different but related questions. With Rule G28, will offensive teams chase around defending bots in the Courtyard to get credit for scaling the castle?
If it's obvious that they're chasing, it's more likely to be a G11 than a G28. If the D-bot is in their way in the path to the tower and doesn't get out, however...
I suspect that D-bots will start diving for the Secret Passage or Group C defenses at some point around 25 seconds left in the match. Maybe the Low Bar.
How often did 3 robots on an alliance all hang in 2010?
That was a much simpler game (fewer things to do/less tradeoffs to make) and hanging/suspending was the single most valuable robot action, points wise. The rules on robot expansion were more lenient (84" diameter cylinder during the endgame), there were 4 sides/corners for teams to find space, and there were multiple options for hanging (vertical or horizontal bars).
I would love to see all 3 robots scale the tower regularly, but I think it will fall into the "there's a Chief Delphi post every time it happens" category of rarity.
All of these points are legit. This year will be more like 2013, the year that no one climbed above the first rung.
XaulZan11
03-02-2016, 00:09
All of these points are legit. This year will be more like 2013, the year that no one climbed above the first rung.
For what it's worth, of the final 8 alliances (division finalist and winners), half had a robot that climbed above the first rung (two alliances actually had two). There were a lot of really good robots that won a lot of events/matches by climbing in 2013. I actually think this year will be similar to 2013 in that there will be several viable strategies or alliance compositions that will win.
I've been aware of this situation, but what leads you to believe this will be a huge and recurring issue for your team in particular? Curious to see when 2363 expects to have two alliance partners that will be climbing with them.
Well, in a perfect world... :)
I've been advocating that the best robot design for the effort is one that 1) traverses defenses 2) herds balls into the low goal 3) hangs. Even for low resource teams, this is very doable, if they don't waste resources on a high goal shooter.
Do I really expect to be a part of alliance with 3 hangers? Realistically, probably not in districts. Maybe at district championships. Much higher chance at World Championships.
But, if we can help teams get there, so much the better.
It almost may be useful to have 2 robots that can scale and one that can not for each alliance. If an alliance had two that could scale, they could take the outer sides of tower, and the non-scaling robot could sit on the center. I know this thread isn't about strategy for the game (besides figuring out to hang) but my team actually believes we could get more points for shooting during those lasts 20 seconds than the 15 for scaling, then we could still sit on the base, helping the alliance get the extra points for conquering the tower. Removing the climbing mechanism will make the robot lighter, and allow us to spend more time working on other aspects of the robot.
Two words:
Stacked Scale
#701Odin2012
Nuttyman54
05-02-2016, 15:24
Two words:
Stacked Scale
#701Odin2012
You do realize that being in contact with a unique rung is a requirement for scaling? Supporting another robot in the same third of the tower does not get that robot SCALE points. If two robots are in contact with the same rung, neither robot gets SCALE points.
Jared Russell
05-02-2016, 15:25
Two words:
Stacked Scale
#701Odin2012
Two words:
unique RUNG
as in:
SCALE
an act performed by a ROBOT, such that at the conclusion of the MATCH, it is in
contact with a unique RUNG, and has all of its BUMPERS fully above the height of the
low GOALS.
You do realize that being in contact with a unique rung is a requirement for scaling? Supporting another robot in the same third of the tower does not get that robot SCALE points. If two robots are in contact with the same rung, neither robot gets SCALE points.
It's a joke, guys.
However, now I'm entertaining the thought of a stacked scale where the carried robot has an extension that touches the adjacent rung for the sake of the "contact" part of the definition while all the way up. I'll have to look closely at the manual again to check the legality of this. If anyone sees a problem with this, go a head and point it out.
For the record, stacked scaling is not part of our design and never has been.
Edit: I've looked through that section again, and it seems like having a robot stacked on a scaler while the carried robot contacts another unique rung may be a legal strategy. I can't think of any interpretation of the scaling definition to include being fully supported by the rung, and neither does a scaling robot have to stay in front of the tower face to which the rung is attached, as long as it contacts one rung and one rung only with the bumpers at scaling height. Another requirement is that the extension stays within the 15 inch perimeter limit.
I don't recall reading a rule with regards to allied robots breaking their respective frame perimeter planes for a stack configuration. If someone could cite that rule, that would be great. Maybe a stacked scale isn't all that impossible after all?
For what it's worth, of the final 8 alliances (division finalist and winners), half had a robot that climbed above the first rung (two alliances actually had two). There were a lot of really good robots that won a lot of events/matches by climbing in 2013. I actually think this year will be similar to 2013 in that there will be several viable strategies or alliance compositions that will win.
This was precisely the reason that 1114 initially shocked everyone in 2013 by not having a floor pickup in favour of having a 30pt climber.
They knew that:
a) They were Pre-Qualified as an Einstein team in 2012, and as such didn't need to win a regional to qualify
b) 7 disc autos were a thing that only one team on an alliance could do, and having 2 7disc autos on your alliance was of no benefit.
c) 7 disc autos would be fairly common among top seeded teams at CMP
d) Reliable, fast, 30pt climbers would be rare, and thus of high value to a 7disc auto alliance captain.
Their plan worked, too. They were the #1 alliance captain's first pick. They just ran into some bad luck between there and Einstein.
orangemoore
05-02-2016, 17:16
This was precisely the reason that 1114 initially shocked everyone in 2013 by not having a floor pickup in favour of having a 30pt climber.
They knew that:
a) They were Pre-Qualified as an Einstein team in 2012, and as such didn't need to win a regional to qualify
b) 7 disc autos were a thing that only one team on an alliance could do, and having 2 7disc autos on your alliance was of no benefit.
c) 7 disc autos would be fairly common among top seeded teams at CMP
d) Reliable, fast, 30pt climbers would be rare, and thus of high value to a 7disc auto alliance captain.
Their plan worked, too. They were the #1 alliance captain's first pick. They just ran into some bad luck between there and Einstein.
How do you know what 1114 was thinking? If you are going to make points like this I would really like to see a source for this information. Because I don't think you really know what they were actually thinking.
How do you know what 1114 was thinking? If you are going to make points like this I would really like to see a source for this information. Because I don't think you really know what they were actually thinking.
I know this because I personally spoke to several members of their team about their design decisions. A conversation I started because it struck me as odd at the time that they would choose to do something that would make it difficult for them to seed #1.
How often did 3 robots on an alliance all hang in 2010?
It was rare - to say in the least. As far as I remember, it never happened at a regional, and happened only 2-3 times at nationals. 2 robots hanging was much easier, but still not exactly commonplace.
I can certainly remember 1114, 2056, and 1547 all hanging multiple times during the elims at GTR on their way to the Champion title.
Link: https://youtu.be/N-Nf85hDx4Y
I can certainly remember 1114, 2056, and 1547 all hanging multiple times during the elims at GTR on their way to the Champion title.
Link: https://youtu.be/N-Nf85hDx4Y
My mistake. I thought the previous response was talking about three robots hanging FROM EACH OTHER, which would have been quite a feat. :eek:
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.