Quote:
Originally Posted by EricLeifermann
I think everybody is over estimating climbing.
How many climbers did you think were needed last year on an winning alliance?
Who thought that a triple balance was needed in 2012 to win?
I think climbing is going to be important, but I don't think it's a must have on a robot. I get that this thread is about efficient scoring and the climb certainly is that, but it's also the most difficult climbing task I've ever seen.
Attaching to that rope is going to be much harder that everyone's prototypes are showing. Practice will help but you're not always going to have a clear line of site and your addrenalin is going to be pumping and it's going to take longer to acquire the rope that people are thinking.
How many teams climbed consistently last year? Not many and climbing last year was exponentially easier than this year as the object you had to grab didn't move it was rigid and always in the same place. You cannot count on that this year.
|
Honestly I disagree with almost all of this.
Last year, climbing was worth scoring two game pieces in teleop.
You basically DID need a triple balance in 2012 to win. I mean not for the strict definition of need, not to the detriment of the rest of your play, but at the highest, non-corrupted-by-hacking levels of play, it was essential. Even so, triple balancing could be beat by scoring seven balls in teleop - a fairly steep number but elite shooters like 1717 and 2826 (heh) could do it.
This year, making up a one climb deficit can be done by scoring 150 fuel in teleop, or by getting 1 more rotor turning plus 30 fuel. I think that is a lot more comparable to 2012 than 2016, and currently, it's essential.
I would compare the value of hanging this year to the value in 2004 - you need to be absolutely top tier at something else as an alliance to justify not doing it. I think every robot on a viable alliance at moderate to high level play will need to do it.
(I also have some opinions on the difficulty of climbing this year, but I'll hold those back for awhile)