Re: Playing well with others while scaling the tower
 

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.

Re: Playing well with others while scaling the tower
 

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?

Re: Playing well with others while scaling the tower
 

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.

Re: Playing well with others while scaling the tower
 

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.

Re: Playing well with others while scaling the tower
 

All of these points are legit. This year will be more like 2013, the year that no one climbed above the first rung.

Re: Playing well with others while scaling the tower
 

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.

Re: Playing well with others while scaling the tower
 

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.

Re: Playing well with others while scaling the tower
 

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.

Re: Playing well with others while scaling the tower
 

Two words:

Stacked Scale

#701Odin2012

Re: Playing well with others while scaling the tower
 

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.

Re: Playing well with others while scaling the tower
 

Two words:

unique RUNG

as in:

Re: Playing well with others while scaling the tower
 

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?

Re: Playing well with others while scaling the tower
 

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.

Re: Playing well with others while scaling the tower
 

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.

Re: Playing well with others while scaling the tower
 

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.