Quote:
Originally Posted by karomata
However, if the approach to climbing using a magnetic wheel was more used, I think it would have become the most popular method to be integrated into robots that wanted to level 3 climb mid competition season. But the again as we have all seen, there weren't even any level 3 climbs on Einstein, therefore climbing in any degree was proven to not be the best strategy for Ultimate Ascent. The highest climb there was on Einstein was 148's level 2 climb, which the additional 20 points, while greatly helping their score, was not too great in its value because of the extreme scoring abilities of some of the other robots on Einstein. I really would have liked to see the climbing point values upgraded/modified so that climbing to level 3 was worth doing. I find it rather depressing that the hardest challenge FIRST has ever presented was heavily under valued, to the point where in most divisional elimination matches, climbing was rather scarce.
|
What Andrew said. We did it on Einstein, and actually won our first semi
first semi by less than 31 points (23, 199-176). Our alliance would not have won a match on Einstein without it, and the 20 we got the next match would've made it close if 303 hadn't broken (revised to 200-225).
Also realize that though we were the last standing, there were several greats in divisional elims. 1114 and 1986 and others didn't give up the climb, it just didn't quite go their way. Not a terrible surprise*, as you say it's the hardest challenge in the history of FIRST. While more teams attempting it would have increased the probability of more climbers advancing farther, you're already talking about some of the best teams in the league. It also would have meant fewer floor pickups (1986 notwithstanding), and I have to say, personally I'm much more awed by a 90 point autonomous than a couple 30 point climbs
...thank you Michigan for giving me the opportunity to compare the two, though I may be biased by winning Newton and MAR by the arms of 3476 and 2590's pickups.
What I don't get - 118 took their climber off
because it did not meet there time spec. (Ours didn't at Worlds either. It worked out, but
Chestnut Hill was much better.) That's why it made more sense to shoot instead; we did the same for much of the season. I'm not sure I understand why you're evidencing a method that was attempted and discarded as unworkable/not worth it* by one of the best teams in FIRST as something more teams should have done, and would have done successfully. Of course, that spec would have changed if the climb was worth more...see above. I wouldn't have complained about more points, though I suspect the GDC underestimated disc scores rather than overestimated climbs.
*Absolutely zero offense meant. Our climb worked a grand total of 3 days this season (1 at Chestnut Hill). It just happened to be the right 3 days. 1114 and 1986 were much, much, much more reliable.