[MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

Isaac Rife "IKE" usually posts up a thread like this once a year or so. I think its a pretty interesting thought exercise.
MCC 2013
MCC 2012
MCC 2011

To borrow his words:
Each year I am amazed by what teams come up with to compete in FRC. Teams have a ton of wonderful ideas and some even see good execution of those ideas.
I would like this thread to focus on the "Minimum Competitive Concept" for a robot for 2014. It is often easy to identify all the possible tasks you could have a robot do. Prioritizing those tasks, and realizing it in the form of a competitive robot is in my opinion much more impressive.

If you haven't watched the Simbotics Strategy Presentation, please do before responding to this thread. Especially review the "Golden Rules 1&2".

Assumptions are that one of the primary goals of the MCC is to play in elims (not necessarily win on Einstein), and your team has mid-pack to lower fabrication resources.
Please list your assumptions, strategy to seed high, estimate of a winning score, and what robot design elements would achieve this score.

I'll toss my two cents in later.

Cheers, Bryan

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

It's been a few months since the thought of last season's MCC has come to mind, but it's definitely a slightly trickier one this year. At just about every event, the most desirable robots (at least, in my opinion/experience) were the best, simple, inbounders which, I'd say meet the goal of an MCC. A simple intake in/out that can be achieved by rookie teams and just about all teams. Two excellent examples in New England were rookie teams 4908 and 5112 (unfortunately I don't have a picture). Two simple, effective inbounders that were able to be competitive with 5112 captaining an alliance at RIDE.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

One team we had the opportunity to work with was 4909 the Billerica Bionics this past year. They were a small team for their first season but they really understood those "Golden Rule" concepts and really ran with a robot design of their own. A picture of their robot is here where they have a spring loaded claw that can move forward outside their frame perimeter to collect balls and bring them back inside their robot. They had a consistent autonomous from the start of the season that drove forward and spit into the low goal. During the match they assisted with their partners and were strongest at quickly picking up the ball and depositing it into the low goals. At the Granite State District they had the second highest assist points (rank 15 & first pick by the 7th seed) and at the WPI District they had the most assist points (rank 4 & captains of the 3rd alliance).

It was a very strong, consistent robot and well built for a team in their first season using minimal in house resources and readily available kit components.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

The MCC for this year in my mind should undoubtedly go to 5288 (after their modifications for elims). Solid driving and a system that can quickly catch the ball from a HP and pass it out is all any team needs to be an extremely helpful alliance partner in either quals or elims.

That being said though, I would probably never encourage a team to build a robot like this. For whatever reason, most alliance selectors tend to pick robots that are bad at doing the "primary" task over teams that do other tasks exceptionally well and don't do the "primary" task at all. I would therefore be extremely nervous about going all-in on a design like 5288's, since it could be difficult to show off in quals and we might not get picked because other teams do not realize our potential to be a beneficial partner.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

The assumptions: First, assuming that most robots have some form of functional shooter. Second, assuming most robots may have trouble with intakes or shooters from time to time, with some types needing more help than others. Third, assuming that 66% or more of the time this robot will be playing defense; the remaining 33% will be taking defensive hits. Fourth, assume that a reliable automode--or adaptability to partners' automode(s)--is important.

To seed high: Score one ball in auto, high or low. Reliably inbound the ball and immediately dump it to a partner that can shoot accurately. Play shutdown defense. Wash, rinse, repeat. In absence of said accurate partner, dump to someone that can drop in the low goal quickly, and revert to defense.

MCC: Robot with a strong drivetrain, a quick-acting acquisition device, and a reasonable target for inbounding. For a slightly more advanced MCC, add a shooter capable of making it into the high goal. (I would not necessarily rate a shooter as a requirement--the assists are more important--but if you run into a pair of BLT robots on your alliance, it's nice to get 10 points as opposed to one as your base.)


I actually have a robot in mind for MCC, believe it or not. And it's a rookie team that's been in FTC for a few years now, with a couple of members off of the team I currently mentor. FRC5124 sported a 2-wheel-over-fork pickup device that could function as an output, an accurate 1-ball automode, and a shooter with enough power and accuracy to score... but dat surgical tubing do. They also played killer defense. Take off the shooter and you've got a low-goal assist specialist.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

The absolute minimum would be a kit bot with a surgical tubing trampoline on top of it. This robot, which could have been built in a weekend, should be picked at eliminations at most regionals and likely all districts.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

Or a lawn chair. 687 was the 9th pick at LA this year with a kit bot drive train COTS drivetrain and a lawn chair strapped to the top for inbounding.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

In many cases, teams could effectively get assists by merely trapping the ball against the wall. In that case, MCC becomes the bare minimum for a desirable drivetrain, combined with reliability, and intelligent drivers capable of heavy yet penalty-free defense.

In fact, at the Missouri State Fair (a 2v2 event with a shorter field, mind you), our practice bot broke both it's shooter and collector just before Finals 3. Neither us nor 2164 shot a ball in autonomous, and Teleop amounted to us playing defense while 2164 shot trusses and scored 1s. That was until the last 10 seconds where we broke off of defense to push a ball into the low goal for the winning score.

Now let's be honest, 8 Wheel 6CIM dual speed drivetrains may be a bit out of the price range of many teams. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see well-geared single speed 6CIM or 4CIM kitbots or drive-in-a-day bots with good drivers capable of smart, penalty-free defense be incredibly high picks at a regional. So long as they can trap or push for assists, and shut down some high powered offensive bots, they're a huge credit to their alliance.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

5136's robot was very minimal, yet made it onto alliances at CVR, Newton (1678/1114/1640's 3rd pick), and Chezy Champs. They used a kitbot drive base and had a simple intake and blocker pole. They played really smart and knew what to do during matches. Their simplicity was a strong point that made them a very reliable robot.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

Their drive was a 6-cim 2 speed milled WCD on vexpro traction wheels IIRC. About as COTs as 254's, except for the gearboxes.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

I thought that the frame was COTS too but honestly it doesn't matter. A kit bot drive train with their driver would have done just as good. Their decision to remove the top part of the bot that wasn't working at LA was an example of great outside of the box thinking and a gutsy call. They showed that the minimum design to be a competitive team this year involved more match strategy and quick thinking rather than robot design (and they were a finalist at Las Vegas after they got the top half working).

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

And lots of ballast!

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

Bingo. Even pre-goalie pole, they were the perfect compliment to a finishing robot, and were our next choice after 973 at CVR. A reliable COTS drive, simple but effective intake, ability to easily human load without fumbling the ball, and well practiced drive team made for a great #2 or 3 at any Regional or district, and a solid #3 or 4 at Champs.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

Not quite, may want to check that seeding order.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

Thanks for the kind words. I'm very proud of what our team was able to accomplish given the circumstances, though frankly it was pretty shocking finding all this out from the other side of the state. (Alumni problems, I suppose. :p)
To set the record straight regarding our drive train: It was supposed to be a COTS VersaChassis WCD (much like Team Copioli's), but due to extended shipping delays we had to machine the tubing ourselves and lathe out some spacers to use #35 sprockets/chain instead of belts/pulleys.

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.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

I would argue the minimum competitive concept did not even need floor pickup. The ability to receive a ball from a human player and kiss pass it / spit the ball out is the minimum that was really needed to be competitive. Alternatively, a robot that was only capable of receiving the ball and then giving it back to the human player was a good robot.

We definitely would have had a better season if we built 5136's robot than what we fielded. 5254 had a very similar robot and was very competitive at its events this year.

Hmmm, reminds me of something......

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

I strongly disagree. By adding the floor pickup the MCC also becomes a reasonable contender for being the middle bot in a 3 bot no truss cycle. Still worth a fair number of points. It's a tactical flexibility that is simple enough to add to be worth it.

Typically floor pickups are considered a nice to have, but with only one game piece they become more important. Oh, HP inbounds bad, or robot is hit and misses getting the ball? Suddenly you're out an assist.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

"Simple enough" is the assumption I find debatable. Even if a team builds an intake that works, their driver has to be able to get to the ball. A whole other issue for many FRC drivers...

We modified many alliance partners to reach the MCC level, and they competed better not only in our match together, but many other matches after that point. Modifying alliance partners to reach MCC was critical to seeding first this year.

Pickup ability was never a goal of ours when working with alliance partners to modify their robot. HP intake was always a requirement.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

I think it is absolutely worth trying, as a failed mechanism could simply be fixed to the frame and made into what I described. However, I don't believe it's the minimum competitive concept.

I think the minimum competitive concept is a combination of a tank drive for defense and the simplest possible way to get an assist into a cycle. A "pass back" robot can kiss pass to another robot anywhere on the field, put it in the low goal, or pass back to any human player (remember, you don't have to pass back to the SAME player!). Floor pickup is nice, but not absolutely required to be a quality third-assist robot.

After spending weeks of build season on building the best intake we could, and designing the entire robot around the best pickup prototype (a claw design), I was shocked at just how little we picked up off the floor this year. At the end of one off-season, we lost the ability to actuate our arm downward to do floor pickup. We put up basically the same number of points we did otherwise. Perhaps the only role that really could use a floor pickup is the post-truss finisher (trusses miss sometimes), but you don't need to play every role to be the minimum competitive concept.

Any other robot on the alliance can just pass to an HP to give you another chance at assist 3. In my opinion this is easier than chasing the ball twice.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

Something to remember is that Aerial Assist was so different from previous games because the most basic robot that could play the game was one that just briefly possesses the ball either by supporting the ball (chairbot), herds the ball (kitbot), or launches the ball (passbackbot). Aerial Assist can be played at a bare miminum with the kibot.

Because this bare minimum is made by most teams on their first day or two of the season adding a floor intake (like 5136) when you see that you have six weeks left of build season is a smart idea. Turning an under performing team at an event into a passback/basic inbound possession bot is a wise idea when you are at or nearing the end of those six weeks.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

This. We tried to build the 'ultimate assist & catch' robot last year and we wound up getting picked first-round at both events, but by the lower-half of the grid. We then got knocked out in the quarter-finals at both of our events, it's a tough fight for seeds 5-8!

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

I am often amazed at what one might assume as boring that ends up being insightful. Thanks for reviving this one. The previous years, there are usually a few examples of a couple teams having success with an MCC type concept, but most not having success with a jack of all trades.

I specifically did not do one this year, as to me, it seemed very driver centric/referee centric on what an MCC would be for a particular event. Why I mention refs is, what costitues a possession this year ranged wildly between events (though it was usually pretty consistent at any one particular event). Because of that, I would prefer an MCC there was no room for interpretation, they "possessed" that ball. This year did remind me a lot of 2009 in that it was another year that driving wasn't only important, but often a game changer.

The neat thing is, there were a lot of great examples of it this year, and a lot of teams that did well with it.

I also noticed a trend (at least in my opinion) for the "almost any year MCC".

If you have a decent base chassis (4 cim minimum though I prefer 4 CIM with shifting to get a bit more speed/torque like the Kitbot on Steroids concept), and you have a roller collector to manipulate the game piece, and 1 face that is max competition height, I think you can play elims at most any district.

I added the 1 tall face as this was a very beneficial defense item in:
2014, 2013, 2012 (blocking inbound, not shooters), 2007, 2006, 2005... the rest is before my time.

This year, a tall wall on a well driven base often shut down shooters that weren't ready for defense. It also was used very well towards the end of season as a way to block inbounding students. IE, go ahead and truss shot to HP, I am going to put a 60" wall in your face so you have a hard time inbounding...

And an active roller collector to manipulate the game piece was great for:
2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010-ish, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006...

Ignore fancy arms, and shooters and catapults and.... If you had something that could collect, move around the field, and release a game piece... I would likely want you within the top 24 at most events in any of those years.
This year, that skill was lethal as you were essentially worth 20 points for being the 3rd inbounder. Also, dumping to the 1pt. with a bunch of "passes" under your belt woften defeated good two team combos in elims (not the majority, but there were a lot of "upsets" this year).

My personal favorite MCC this year though was "Fridgebot". They actually picked a poor strategy (catching only), but executed it so well that they had a good deal of success throughout the season.
http://www.thebluealliance.com/team/5084/2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgza-vzG2Fs

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

We built a robot that could inbound, and pass back to the human player and a goalie pole. Much different approach than 5136, we didn't have a pick-up, and could only get a ball by means of a human player. We also had a goalie pole, and would probably have been much more competitive had we heard of Cheesy Vision before championships.

The unfortunate problem for us was the parts for our inbound mechanism didn't come in until before championship.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

Cough... Cough....

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014
 

I made this post before reading the others in the thread, because I want to put down some unbiased thoughts. I'll make my comments using my frame of reference right now, because there were some assumptions our team was making early in the season that turned out to be not true.

Initial Assumptions from a mid-tier team point of view:
1. It's unlikely I'll be one of the top 4-5 robots at a given event.
2. Those top robots will be excel at the primary game focus.
3. There are secondary attributes to the game that are crucial to a playoff team.
4. If I can excel at those, I will have a competitive robot that might slip into the top 8, but will definitely be picked.

A 'top' robot will almost always be the finisher - the robot that does the actual scoring. So defining the support roles that need to be played is crucial.

Support roles (in no particular order):
1. Receive the inbound pass securely with little chance of a miss.
2. Perform a quick hand-off, or a quick return to the human player.
3. Be able to pick up quickly from the ground.
4. Have a strong enough shot to be able to truss from most places in the middle zone.
5. Be able to hit your ball in auton every time.
6. Be able to play good defense - some height is helpful.
7. Have a fast/quick drivetrain (not necessarily powerful).
8. Durability

When we were doing our scouting list this year, these were our priorities. Things we saw that made us shy away from teams:

Inbounding: Some teams routinely had the ball bounce out or through their robot. In some cases, if an opponent got between the human player and the inbound robot, the ball couldn't be thrown in. We avoided these.

Hand-off: We put a high priority on robots that could accept the ball and hand it off without turning. It was common for defense to be pounding the inbound robot, and we didn't want a robot that was stuck with a ball because they had to face their intake/output toward the human player up against the wall.

Ground Pick up: We put a low priority on this, because we never wanted to see our ball on the ground. A talented defensive driver could shut down a team once a ball ended up there. Look at what team 27 Rush did to our alliance in the State Championships. However, the team did HAVE to be able to pick up from the ground.

Trussing: Getting the ball over easily with a nice arc from pretty much everywhere was quite important. Almost all our strategies centered on the human player catching the ball. A high arc was a plus. A high-er release point or the event to throw while being defended was very important. We also stayed away from teams that had to lower an intake - they could be defended just by not allowing them to lower that intake.

Auto: You know that by the time you're in the final elim rounds or at champs, missing an auto score is often signing your death warrant. The robot has to nail those shots.

Defense: Defense was a matter of positioning, and that came down to drivetrain speed. Power wasn't all that important - you just had to be quick enough to get between your opponent and where they wanted to be. Many robots weren't able to accurately change their shooting locations, and that meant a defender could shut them down just by parking in the right spot, or by driving back and forth just inside the white line.

That split things up a bit for us: our ideal 2nd robot (inbound and truss) wasn't necessarily our ideal 3rd (inbound and defense). However, if I'm designing a bot I want to be able to truss, so I'm going to design our '2nd' bot.

So, if we were doing a decision matrix for that robot, I think it would look like the one attached, and my "MCC" would be a robot designed around the '3rd pick' column priorities.