[MCC] Minimum Comptetivie Concept 2011

[IKE]

Building off of the 2012 thread, I would like to do a MCC discussion for 2011. Remeber Logomotion? You know the game where you made logos out of inflatable tubes, and then had the minibot drag race at the end...
Coopertition wasn't a bridge, but was allowing one of your team's minibots to ride with a different team.

Remember the rules of MCC:
I would like this thread to focus on the "Minimum Competitive Concept" for a robot for 20XX. It is often easy to identify all the possible tasks you could have a robot do. Prioritizing those tasks, and realizing it in the form of a competitive robot is in my opinion much more impressive.

If you haven't read the Simbotics Strategy Presentation, please do before responding to this thread. Especially review the "Golden Rules 1&2".

Assumptions are that one of the priamry goals of the MCC is to play in elims (not necessarily win on Einstein), and you team has mid-pack to lower fabrication resources.
Please list your assumptions, strategy to seed high, estimate of a winning score, and what robot design elements would achieve this score.
**************************************
2011 could have a couple very interesting MCC directions. I look forward to the ideas everyone brings to the table.

[Steven Donow]

Hrmm. This one is a toughie. In early regionals, a robot could easily reach elims with no tube-hanging if they had a quick minibot deployment mechanism, as well as (what would be considered in late season) a moderately fast minibot.

But if you look at the game in the end of the season, with the development of tube-starving strategies, tube grabbing was a must, at the least so that a robot could not necessarily hang, but bring tubes across the field...


I'll have to think about what an overall MCC would look like today...

[Aidan S.]

First things first for this team, they should pursue the simplest, most effective, and easiest to build drive train possible, and build a kitbot on steroids. Any team can toss together a kitbot on steroids, and this is a very solid drive for any team with mid-pack to lower fabrication resources. Also, with a single speed drive that is geared fast enough (say around 10 fps), they would be quick enough to effectively play the game without the added complexity of shifting gearboxes.

If you wanted a robot to seed high in Logomotion, tube hanging becomes more of a necessity. The least complicated tube haning mechanism should be sought after to achieve this task. A simple rear-mounted single jointed arm could be realitively easy for this team to build and design, but I think they should make one sacrifice with the arm: don't have a floor pick-up ability, get your tubes exclusively from the feeder slot. This would allow the arm to be able to score on the high racks without any kind of extending mechanism or second joint.

Team 1503's 2011 robot is definately compelling proof that choosing not to pick up off the floor can produce one of the strongest robots in all of FIRST. Their two regional wins and trip to einstein speak volumes for the effectiveness of this machine.

So this concept robot, with its simple single jointed arm could hypothetically score one ubertube and five to six tubes on the high rack per match. Even without a minibot, this would win a majority of matches at the regional level and even allow this robot to seed high enough to be an alliance captain (but I bet that with scoring rate of 5 to 6 tubes per match, they would probably be a first pick to one of the top four alliance captains, even without a minibot). Now if this team can come up with some kind of simple minibot and deployment system, this team could win regionals and be picked at the championship.

[mikemat]

Originally Posted by stevend1994

Hrmm. This one is a toughie. In early regionals, a robot could easily reach elims with no tube-hanging if they had a quick minibot deployment mechanism, as well as (what would be considered in late season) a moderately fast minibot.

But if you look at the game in the end of the season, with the development of tube-starving strategies, tube grabbing was a must, at the least so that a robot could not necessarily hang, but bring tubes across the field...

This. In week one or two, the MCC was a kitbot with a simple minibot (Gearboxes and tetrix wheels). Later, the MCC needed a faster minibot and 2-stage deployer(loosing the big wheels and gearboxes around week 3). I don't think the MCC ever needed tube handling abilities. A simple drivebase could still push triangles away from opponents. However, a simple single-jointed arm and pinch-claw would be nice to have, as it gives abilities to be a feeder and a scorer (in one of the few games where all 3 bots could play offence at once) with an autonomous.
My list of features in order of importance:
1. Kit base: Because driving is nice.
2. Simple gearbox minibot: Lots of points early in the season.
3. Plaction wheels with roughtop tread: The CimpleBoxes were geared more for speed, so you won't be pushing. But, you
don't want to be pushed sideways across the (wide open) field trying to defend with kit wheels.
If possible, add:
1. Direct drive minibot w/ 2-stage deployment: Lower on the list because it can be built post-build season. Faster ones
guaranteed 30-40 pts per match.
2. Single-joint 1503-esque arm: It got them to Einstein, it should get the MCC picked at a regional. Adds posibility of
auton for more points and a better chance of getting picked because now you can score, feed, and defend.

[AdamHeard]

Solid Drivetrain and a really fast minibot.

[Chris is me]

2011 is a tough year for the MCC. And that is what we tried to go for on 2791 with a HIGHLY constrained build season. We did way too much though. It was mostly my fault for losing faith in "human load only" around Week 2.

The minibot was the obviously most vital part of the game. But it was quite, quite expensive to prototype and iterate your way to a direct drive minibot with a solid reliable deployer. Every time your prototype blew a motor, $30 down the drain. Yes, you could work on it after ship, but without a robot to look at and to figure out mounting, dimensions, etc., unprepared teams (I.e. those doing the MCC) had an uphill battle. Yet, at the early regional level, just having a semi reliable minibot made you an instantly decent robot. So I'm tempted to say the best "MCC" is a Kitbot on Steroids with a minibot on top of it.

If you do tube scoring and you have the drive practice you need to get to 5 tubes, there is no need to floor load. There is strategic value in moving tubes around though.

[IndySam]

How many teams could reliably place 5 tubes on the high rack during the game?

This is way to lofty of a goal for a MCC in 2011 in my opinion.

A smaller 4 bar arm that could score in the center and floor load would be more of a goal for an MCC that was looking to be a scorer. Scoring an ubertube and making one logo on the center pegs would have won most matches and that same robot would be an invaluable feeder to a top seeded alliance.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by IndySam

How many teams could reliably place 5 tubes on the high rack during the game?

This is way to lofty of a goal for a MCC in 2011 in my opinion.

A smaller 4 bar arm that could score in the center and floor load would be more of a goal for an MCC that was looking to be a scorer. Scoring an ubertube and making one logo on the center pegs would have won most matches and that same robot would be an invaluable feeder to a top seeded alliance.

This is massively outweighed by the minibot value though.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

This is massively outweighed by the minibot value though.

Oh no doubt, I was just referring to those who said scoring 5 tubes up high was easy.

[Aidan S.]

Originally Posted by IndySam

Oh no doubt, I was just referring to those who said scoring 5 tubes up high was easy.

Scoring 5 tubes on the high rack is by no means an easy task, but with a robot that can pick up from the feeder slot and score on the high rack, It could be possible to achieve with enough driver practice.

Say that in order to score a minibot, the team needs 20 seconds of the match. That leaves 100 seconds to score, so a scoring cycle of 20 seconds per tube. If the robot is geared for 10 feet per seconds with a single speed transmission, the scoring cycle can be broken down like this:

0s to 6s: cross field to feeder slot
6s to 8s: line up and pick up tube from feeder slot
8s to 14s: cross back to scoring rack
14s to 20s: line up and score tube

This is an ambitious scoring cycle, but with enough practice this could be achieved. Even if the team was only able to score four tubes, they still get in a 24 point logo (assuming they scored an ubertube), a three point tube, and a minibot. This was enough to win the majority of the qualifying rounds at the regional level. With this kind of robot, it is really up to how effectively the driver can cross the field and score.

[Karthik]

Some stats for comparison:

At Pittsburgh, a week 2 event:
0/39 teams averaged more than 5 tubes per match
1/39 teams averaged between 5 and 6 tubes per match
0/39 teams averaged between 4 and 5 tubes per match
3/39 teams averaged between 3 and 4 tubes per match

At Waterloo, a week 4 event:
1/29 teams averaged more than 6 tubes per match
1/29 teams averaged between 5 and 6 tubes per match
2/29 teams averaged between 4 and 5 tubes per match,
1/29 teams averaged between 3 and 4 tubes per match

At GTR East, a week 5 event:
1/36 teams averaged more than 6 tubes per match
0/36 teams averaged between 5 and 6 tubes per match
1/36 teams averaged between 4 and 5 tubes per match
2/36 teams averaged between 3 and 4 tubes per match

At the Championship, Galileo Division:
3/88 teams averaged more than 6 tubes per match
5/88 teams averaged between 5 and 6 tubes per match
9/88 teams averaged between 4 and 5 tubes per match
13/88 teams averaged between 3 and 4 tubes per match

Even 1503, who was the poster child of simplicity, only averaged 3.3 and 4.3 tubes per match at their regionals.

What does this tell us?
- Even with the power of hindsight, people are underestimating the difficulty of scoring in a FIRST game
- If you could score a "mere" 3 tubes per match, you were going to be one of the top teams at your regional, and a strong contender to make the elimination rounds at Championship
- If you could score 5 tubes per match, you were going to be one of the top teams in FIRST

When considering the MCC, it's very important to remember what the 'M' stands for. Most teams fail at this; as they such attempt to bite of more than they can chew and more than is necessary.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Even with the power of hindsight, people are underestimating the difficulty of scoring in a FIRST game

People often confuse a team's potential top score for their average.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by Karthik

...What does this tell us?
- Even with the power of hindsight, people are underestimating the difficulty of scoring in a FIRST game
...

AMEN. For 2011, there was a flat continuous floor, so teams could play defense if they had an effective chassis that drove around well. This style of defense amounted to usually just slowing teams down.

If your goal is to play in elims, you get there 1 of 2 ways. Seeding high enough to be a captain, or getting picked. A solid drivetrain and good driver might get you picked, but it is not likely to help you win enough matches to stand a chance of being a captain. What feature could you add to a good driving platform that will have the highest scoring potential with minimal investment?

************************************************** **
1503 from 2011 is what I would call design elegance, not a MCC. Elegance can often be as much work as complexity. To be fair though and figure them out:
Assume an arm that cannot load from the floor, but does hit auton every time (this requires a robust arm and arm drivetrain with good controls). +6. If a logo gets made over the top of this, then essentially the logo is worth +18 and the Uber goes from +6 to +12. Thus a combined score of 30 points for 4 scoring actions. While not a bad strategy, few were able to achieve this strategy even with most teams attempting some sort of tube scoring strategy. The arm, the gripper, and the controls often proved too many things for the teams to execute well. Also, falling 1 tube short of the logo turns the 30 point series of plays into a 12 pt set of actions.

Are there other 12-30 point strategies that would have a higher success ratio if given the sme effort?

[IKE]

Remember, the goal is to play in Elims, not necessarily on Einstein. How many times in qualifying were both Minibot poles used on an alliance during quals? If you have 2 faster minibots than your 3rd... Aren't you likely to win that match anyway? Also, did it have to be your minibot?

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by IKE

Remember, the goal is to play in Elims, not necessarily on Einstein. How many times in qualifying were both Minibot poles used on an alliance during quals? If you have 2 faster minibots than your 3rd... Aren't you likely to win that match anyway? Also, did it have to be your minibot?

1) As the season progressed, yes.

2) More than likely, yes

3) I would say almost definitely, unless the team doing the MCC is closely linked with another team that they'd be competing with. I don't know for a fact, but I don't think minibot sharing was anywhere near as common as FIRST hoped it would be.