Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

In all honestly, the MCC for most events in 2014 would simply be great drivers and the ability to receive from the human player.

When 1712 prioritized our design, the ability to pass significantly outranked the ability to truss (which outranked the ability to score in the high goal). During our subsequent design and brainstorming processes, we didn't arrive at a shooter/intake geometry that would allow us to have the level of passing ability we desired before our downselect, so we opted not to shoot. In the end, that ended up generally working in our favor. We arrived at a single-intake design with a significant area to catch the ball (particularly useful for inbounding, but occasionally for catching trusses as well) driven by a 6-CIM 6WD with versa wheels. We were selected at all three of our events, including MAR Championship. Being able to score easily in the 1-pt goal was definitely a benefit as well (we quite often were the finisher on our alliances, including in two of our elimination alliances), and a consistent 16 point autonomous was quite useful.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

The "whatever reason" is poor scouting. In my experience, any team that significantly contributes will be noticed by the teams with solid scouting and good match strategy. I think making a robot that forgoes "primary" tasks and does other tasks well is a great build strategy. You will probably be ignored by the captains with poor scouting (whom you generally don't want to partner with anyway) and you can be noticed by the ones that scout and pick strategically.
And you can always make sure you are noticed by talking to the teams that will be in a position to pick. I have been on a high seeded team a number of times - never once did I have a team come to me to discuss their value as a 3rd partner. Any team that would commit to working with our strategy and could demonstrate their ability to do it would leap up my pick list.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

Bryan,

MCC 2014 - kitbot, pneumatic actuated roller bar intake that allows spitting out.

Robot could gain mobility bonus in auton and score in low goal.

Robot could also be valuable inbounder and then harry the other alliance as they attempt to score.

With clever play this robot could have seeded quite high due to the importance of assist points. As such I've prioritized driver practice over any sort of trussing capability. However, it will be hampered by the serpentine at small events where it can't pick up a solid trusser as a third.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

In other words...

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

I agree with these posts completely. It's amazing (although some people might use other words here...) to think that a team could assemble a kit bot drivetrain, stick a lawn chair on it, and have a robot that would be a contender for a blue banner at most local events, ahead of many teams who spent six weeks building active mechanisms.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

I would probably chalk up the "whatever" reason to be some combination of poor scouting, poor strategy, poor communication between drive team and scouting team, and the human tendency to judge things based on how they appear on the outside.

I think it tends to be a good strategy as well, however you have to hedge your bets. Teams like 5288 should have been snapped up for elims at every event, and they were by the 2-3 teams at every event that recognized their capabilities. Unfortunately though, there just aren't enough teams that make this decision out there, which means that lower-ability teams have to hedge their bets if they want a solid chance to make it into elims. I would have loved to have my team make a robot like 5288's, but I don't have enough faith in other teams' scouts to do this. So instead, we added in some other functionality to our robot. I guess the distinction that I am making here is that the MCC for elims would be 5288, but unfortunately you might not make it to elims with this design, so maybe the abilities of the MCC need to be a bit higher.

I would rather make the elims with a partner who I don't want than not make elims at all.

I've had a couple of cases where teams try to "sell themselves" to my team before the elims, but I agree that the prevalence is far lower than it should be.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

Yeah, the thread was over as soon as 5136 was brought up. The robot every rookie (and many veterans) should have built.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

I don't know that the MCC "build" discussion paints the entire picture of what happened in 2014 - at least not from a "what lessons can we carry forward" perspective. I'd like to point out it took quite a while for the GDC to admit that the definition of possession required refs to deduce intent. This means that if the teams with a spring or other such passive intake/passthrough did not actively go talk to the refs there was a very good chance the assist would not be counted. It also means that it is a terrible idea to design for such a concept during the build season given its subjectivity.

Additionally in 2014 there are inherent risks to an alliance associated with a passive device like a lawn chair - it is just as easy for the robot to get an opponent's ball accidentally, considering the lawn chair's inbounding zone is the same zone in which to catch the opponent's truss and/or HP scoring zone inbound.

I think 5136 and 4242 got MCC perfect this year. 4242 was even a captain in DC.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

Agreed. Looking back its extremely easy to see how a few strands of surgical tubing on a robot were a huge asset in the final rounds but I would not encourage a team to build a trampoline bot back in week 1 (which was a concept we penciled out day 1). If a kitbot with a basic structure and surgical tubing is what you can build might I suggest Vex or FTC which might better suit your team? Teams like 5136, 4908, 5112, and 4909 were extremely good at what they did with just intakes and practiced drivers.

Sadly when teams are successful at building a MCC you tend to get picked in tough positions (usually first/second round of the bottom four alliances) which is what happened to us in 2011.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

#8 Alliance for lyfe! :cool:

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

Both of them look like amazing robots, but I would probably give a slight advantage to 5136 (more on this below), because 4242 looks like they could get an accidental possession with their completely open inbounder.

5136 was one of my favorite robots this year, probably number 5 in my personal list (Admittedly there may be some bias from CVR). A pure inbounder, with good defense, AND a goalie pole?!?!? They were the part that really scared me about the Newton alliance, because that was their BACKUP, and with some shuffling, could have replaced any of those robots and still have a scary alliance.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

I was just giving another example of active MCC mechanisms that didn't merely copy the Ri3D/BB stuff for the inbound. 4242 never actually possessed the opponent's ball, iirc. They also had a tough time inbounding 'on the fly'.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

MCC is one concept that is defined in a certain way, but it brings a different question to mind.

For a team with median resources,
assuming that competitive success is prioritized over cool factor,
given what was known about the rules a few days into build season,
What is the smartest robot design to attempt?

This year, lots of teams prioritized shooting over acquisition and ended up not being able to participate effectively in assist cycles. It wasn't a secret that ball control would be hugely important for every robot. It was right there in the way the game and its scoring system were designed. Why did so many teams miss on that?

Should we have this thread nice and early next year? It will probably be possible to take a decent shot at MCC (or similar) in the first week of the season, and that might be useful to a lot of teams that would otherwise put their eggs in the wrong basket.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

The "bounce pass" possession was called very inconsistently (and oftentimes, not at all) before the World Championship.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

By all means, hedge your bets and try to get numbers on the board to get noticed.
I just worry that many teams think that the only way to win/get picked is the "primary" game, so they don't look for alternatives. Meanwhile, the captains of seeds 1-3 are digging through data to find any means to differentiate between the middle 12 robots.