[MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

I am skipping over a few years and going way way way back to 2005 for this MCC.

For those of you not familiar with 2005, the name of the game was Triple Play. You can find the historical rules and documents back here.

I am bringing this one up as it hase beena few years since we had a "unique" playing piece. Other than its weight, I felt the Tetra was an excellent playing piece.

The basic rules of the game were there were 9 pyramid shaped goals about 6 feet tall. Points were given for placing Tetras in the base (1), or on the top of the goal (3). Whichever color was on the very top of the stack at the end of the match owned that goal. Own 3 goals in a row, and you get bonus points (10). Also if all 3 robots were behind the starting zone, you get an additional 10 points.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

Was there a bonus for autonomous scoring/vision tetras?

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

There was, I can only recall one team ever doing it though...

My MCC would be a 2WD tank-steer chassis with a hook on a single pivoting 'shoulder' joint. The robot would be human-player loaded and score one tetra at a time.

Scoring tetras underneath the goals was virtually useless in 2005 (1pt vs 3pt, and no "goal ownership") so a robot following this concept would not be competitive at all.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

2005 MCC is difficult because all the end game required was a drivebase and as James said, scoring low was useless in a majority of matches.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

I guess it would probably be 330's robot. How can you get simpler than a single degree of freedom PVC arm?

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

Oh, about the end-game, either you could have all three of your alliance's robots in the end-zone, or have them all out scoring a tetra, earning 9 or 19 points (adding a row). Even scoring a single tetra to break one of the opposing alliance's rows was a 13-point swing (you earn 3, and break a row of theirs, -10) so the endgame was not very important. If you could complete a row for your alliance and break a row for the other alliance you got a 23 point swing by scoring 1 tetra.

For example, we played some matches defensively with one tetra on board. Near the of the match we would drop that one tetra on the far-corner goal, typically breaking the other alliance's home row and completing a side-row for our alliance. Sometimes we either scored a diagonal or broke a diagonal row also, so this one tetra was almost always a 13-pt swing at a minimum, sometimes a 23-pt swing, and at best a 33pt swing. During the main time of the match it was pretty easy to trap or slow down other robots because the goals divided the field into controllable segments, so the opposing alliance's scoring ability was reduced.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

I love how your suggestion for MCC is one of the most elite robots of the year, and one of the World Champions. I also love that I really can't argue with you.

-John

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

In autonomous you could score by

1. grabbing a special vision tetra on the floor and scoring on a goal earned bonus tetras on corner goal(s), unfortunately not very much time to get this done, however, the vision tracking could actually be done before the match started.
2. grabbing or dropping starting tetras hanging under each of the corner goals. Very easy to do.
3. Scoring a tetra one robot on each alliance could start with.

Also, scoring under a goal did confer alliance owership, until a higher tetra was scored.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

Using the CMU2-cam in 2005 on the IFI board was a very difficult task, unlike using the web-cameras on the crio in recent years. One of the most challenging parts was that the lighting at every event was different, and the vision tetra could look white or green depending on how the light was hitting it and where your camera was positioned.

FIRST solved the problem in 2006/2007 by making the targets illuminated with cold cathods, but in my opinion anything that was "minimally competitive" had no use for the camera.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

This is a difficult one. While there were a handful of exceptions, there really was only one useful task in this game (scoring on top of goals). Contact defense was highly risky with the 30-point loading zone penalties and the fact that the best "defense" was often breaking opposing rows via "offense" (capping). The end game only gave points if the entire alliance was in the home area, and the reward was often far less than the potential gain of continuing to score in key areas.

Scoring the vision tetras was difficult, but knocking off the corner tetras was incredibly simple and still conferred (often temporary) ownership of a corner goal. Simply put, there was no reason not to knock off the corner tetra, and doing so freed up a >MCC robots to focus on other tasks (vision tetras, loading from auto loaders like 233, or scoring the one pre-loaded tetra). Also, this was relatively early in the "autonomous era" (started in 2003), so there were plenty of teams who sat and did nothing in autonomous.

The auto loaders were surprisingly difficult for many teams to load from, but the human loaders were easy (albeit much more time consuming).

Many teams made cumbersome arms/elevators designed to score on high stacks (and the taller center goal), often resulting in all of their scoring taking much longer and being much less reliable. In most matches, stacks didn't even accumulate that high to begin with. Focusing on scoring on shorter stacks and leaving the center goal (beyond the first tetra or two) to alliance partners may enable a simpler and easier to operate design for teams with limited machining resources.

A tetra manipulator with some sort of stabilization (even as simple as the passive devices on 217/229, 330, and 254) greatly reduced the amount of time required to score and reduced the odds of dropping a tetra.

Scoring multiple tetras at a time was a beneficial feature, but ultimately not a particularly important one. No need for a MCC to focus on this.

So, to summarize:
A robot capable of knocking off the corner tetras, human loading, and scoring on short tetra stacks with some sort of stabilizing manipulator. Obviously the drive-base should be reliable, easy to control, and reasonably fast. And the driver should avoid penalties!!

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

Two teams did it that year. 237 was one of them. We did it in NJ.
Video here

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

Nice!

Do you remember who the other team was? I recall one team at Championships capping the center goal... but that was over 7 years ago!

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

Sorry I don't remember.

Here is another video giving a different field perspective.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

I believe 66 managed to cap a goal that year as well, though they did a very inventive method of using the camera to track.

An interesting thing about that year, there were 2 vision tetras, and 8 positions where they could be placed. Thus if they are randomly placed, there were 3/8 chances of getting one if you just drove forward and had a trigger let you know if you acquired one...

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

I would argue that there were at least 2 effective robots that were simpler.

In this picture, all three of 330's defensive wedges can be seen folded up. Yep, three of them. 2 retractable, 1 not.

I can't find any pictures on CD of the two robots I have in mind, so I'll try to describe them. Note that all three robots I'm talking about were on the winning alliance in L.A. 2005. All three were single-joint arms.

634, Van Nuys High School: Their tetra-stabilization device was a split claw that would do the same thing as 330's except by going around the far leg of the tetra.

69, HYPER: 4 wheels, single-joint arm. I don't remember the end of their claw.

Neither of those two teams had any sort of defensive wedge. I think I can think of a couple other teams with similar designs, but less success--I'd have to work at it, though.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

I agree. A MCC robot would typically be a third member of an alliance. The strategy for our championship alliance was to only focus on scoring on half the field. We split that half amongst our three alliance partners. With our third partner (503) scoring on the rear corner and middle goals. 503 wasn't really an MCC machine that year, since we had them as the 4th best machine in the division and picked them with the 9th pick (non-serpentine draft).

But, they essentially performed MCC type tasks in the elims. Reliable drive base, human load, passive manipilator, capable of scoring on shorter goals.

Maybe my expectations of a MCC type machine are a little high. But, with the penalty rules the way they were...there wasn't much else you could do in this game if you weren't scoring to help your alliance.

Good topic. Minimum level for this game was probably a little higher than any of the games since then.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

Were wedges still legal in 2005?

If so, I vote for box on wheels and flip down wedges..

Regards, Bryan

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

They were only allowed in a passive manner; you couldn't intentionally tip someone with them. However, if you were placing a tetra going about your business and someone rammed you and tipped themselves, it's their fault.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

Then I change my vote to Trapizoid with wheels.

Even without being able to activly tip people, I would pick one of these around the back half of the draft over most tetra-placing robots that would still around to be a third pick.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

Our (840's) robot that year was very simple and ended up being quite effective...

http://art.cim3.org/2004-2005_Files/...20%5BHQ%5D.JPG
http://art.cim3.org/2004-2005_Files/...ns/gripper.jpg

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

Legal, yes. Used to tip other robots over, red card. Which is, I think, why wedges have been illegal since 2006. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/21301 shows a tie match in Archimedes QFs; this was the only 0-0 eliminations match (and might still be). This particular one was caused by red cards for tipping, as I understand it. The offenders both either carried wedges or had them built into their robot.

I do remember at least one Box-on-Wheels with a flip-down wedge on one end. No eliminations for it, and I seem to recall a number of penalties.

330 used theirs to keep other robots from interfering with scoring. Usually it worked. Then there was the one robot that had to be dealt with in another way... by lifting the tetra that we were picking up (one of ours, of course) and they had their wheel in. They started coming along with it, we put it down, and they didn't bother us like that again.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

I loved our 2005 drive base, we went about our business without any issue :)


From a manipulator standpoint, the 217/229 giant cross is as simple and reliable as it got, IMO (or another post with stabilizer bar, just loved how big 217s was).

I LOVED how 179 played the game in 2005. Extremely fast, well driven, "roundish" style drive base which made it hard to get in their way. They focused on the lower goals, but could get a tetra on the center if they needed to. The "rake" style manipulator worked awesomely as it helped minimize the accuracy required by the driver to pick up a tetra. Loved that robot, and it was stupid simple.

-Brando

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

Ahhh 2005, what a great year. Probably my favorite in terms of design, I just had a lot of fun with it. In many ways it was a very even playing field.

Minimally Competitive Robots were used quite frequently in competitions, however I recall from many of the champions that strategy didn't quite pan out. However, this was a very weird era, it was the first year of a really good kit drive train. Prior to 2005, the KOP was a lot worse, the idea of having a reliable drivetrain was not feasible to many teams.

What 2005 brought though was the first ever reliable KOP drivetrain that was designed with FRC in mind. It wasn't until that happened that teams were able to focus on manipulator designs extensively.

So I think the explanation is it was kind of stuck from an old era, and a possibly a test by the GDC to see if it would make the field more competitive overall.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

Thats a good point. The first year of 3 team alliances and the first kit bot probably led to a lot of angst for the GDC that year.

THIS IS WHY WE TRY NEW THINGS :D

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

Also, interesting note, this might explain why we had such a unique game piece.... GDC was trying to encourage innovative manipulators.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

Box on wheels with zip ties touching the ground.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

I forgot about the zipties to touch the "triangle of doom". We installed paint brushes.

So as many have realized I picked this year as it was not an easy year to build a super simple robot. That being said, the next level up was not actually that complex, and could be incredily effective. I am very glad that 330 got the early shout out as they are a team that often builds "elegant" designs that are are amazingly effective.

We on 33 started that year with a different MCC (Most Complicated Contraption). It was a double jointed arm, Swerve drive, had the ability to store a bonus tetra, and a super gripper that had like 3 motions... The first event did not go well. We spent eliminations rebuilding the drive train to a 4x4 and benchmarking good manipulators.

While the robot may not be a good MCC, the end effectors that were effective that year were super simple in appearance, but often highly optimized.
Stick and a string, pitch fork, cross with a ball on the end.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

There was really no place for that robot in 2005. It would have been almost completely worthless. Due to how hard it was to play effective defense and how big the risk was for getting penalized, defensive bots were almost useless.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/38155?

Above is FRC Team 1319's submission for the 2005 year. This was our second year as a team. We built a simpe 6WD chassis that had two arms for picking up Tetras front or back. The end manipulator was a simple shape made from PVC and PVC fittings tha evolved into different ones until we found what worked best. The arms did not telescope to go higher however because we had two arms we could cap quickly or deliver to a partner that wanted to cap as well. We also had a PVC roller painted with bright pink stripes that rolled on the ground and gave a clear indicator that we were legal to be taking a tetra from the human player. Although it is not our most successfull robot by award status it performed the challenge well and so far is the simplest we have built.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

2005 had a great game! It was great to play with an unusual field piece.

If I recall correctly, there were two teams that capped the side goals in autonomous, with 66 definitely being one of the two. One team had an award out for the first team that capped the center goal in autonomous - it had the largest point value that year. That never happened in competition that year.



Above is a picture of the closest anyone ever got to that goal (Lone Star Regional - Team 624). I can't seem to find the video, but it was placed in the position shown and the robot backed off during the 15 seconds. However, it didn't count as the tetra was caught on a zip-tie that held the vision panels on. Using the vision system at championships became particularly impractical due to the lighting of the Georgia Dome that tended to cast shadows everywhere.

624 had a good minimal design that year - 1 arm that rotated at the "shoulder" and was powered through a beast of a 24" long piston (with variable control), plus a 6WD drive train. The hand folded up to start the competition, but unfolded for the entire match. This was definitely one of my favorite games to design for.



As for fantastic design concepts, 118 put out a relatively simple design (for them). Swerve drive + rotating elevator turret + dual arms with 1 controlled degree of motion each once the arms unfolded (piston that extended a PVC tube from the "elbows" of the arms). Dual arms allowed them something many teams did not consider - moving more than one piece at a time. Added to a swerve drive and rotating turret, they dominated. They only lost one qualifying match at LSR that year, and it was one in which they were facing a strong alliance with 2 no-show/dead partners. They went on to have a strong showing in Atlanta.


(Chainzilla: arms unfolded, pistons retracted)

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

The giant cross is one of my all time favorite manipulators for how simple and effective it was! I loved watching 121 and 1305 make scoring look so easy with such a simple mechanism.

1305's robot is one I will never forget and goes down as one of my all time favorite robots. Their 2005 record was 33-8 with two regional wins (Waterloo and Greater Toronto).

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

I agree that a MCC robot would need to be able to score tetras, however I feel that a single jointed arm is probably overly complicated and that auto loading is in no way necessary for MCC. 1097 comes to mind with what I believe was a human loaded, pneumatically actuated arm.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2005
 

Outside of lower tier regionals, it still really wouldn't be worth it. Even second round picks could still place 2-3 tetras a match at many regionals. Given that penalties for hitting a robot in a loading zone were 30 points (and various other penalties as well), the risk of having a defensive bot was outstandingly large. There were very few regionals where defense was a large part of the game (pretty much only New England events). Scoring was the way to go.

I'd like to see an arm with less than a single joint. :rolleyes: