Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseK
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. |
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.