[KrazyCarl92]

It's most useful to think of this in terms of what the top teams were looking to select for partners, since ultimately it was their decision as to who made elims.

My MCC robot based on this idea:
-All wheels driven in drivetrain, 4 CIMs, and preference to robots with all traction wheels. Let's be honest...in this day and age when this describes the kit bot drivetrain with 2 extra CIMs (in gearboxes set up to accept them no less), the fact that there were plenty of teams with undriven wheels or casters is disappointing. Crossed many a team off of our lists for this reason this year.
-Score somewhat effectively, somehow, in auto. Shoot 3 in the high goal, 2 in the high goal, 3 in the middle goal, 2 in the middle goal, or even 3 in the low goal. I don't care as long as there are points on the board. If it's more on average than the next best option, your number gets called.
-Active 10 pt hang. I personally think a hook on the end of a pneumatic cylinder is simpler to construct than a passive climber based on prototyping from this season. Plus, some teams struggled with the first rung of the pyramid being lower than anticipated, so that negatively affects passive climbers while only affecting those active climbers who were cutting it close as is.
-Ability to add a full court shot blocker to go to >80". Preference given to teams that already have a FCS blocker...I trust a demonstrated robot trait above my ability to ad hoc something any day.

That's it. A 16-28 pt per match robot depending on how it scores in auto and what kind of consistency it can achieve. No human loading, since if anything this robot would take disc scoring opportunities away from better teleop disc scoring partners. The robot could just play D for the entirety of teleop until it decides to go hang.