Corner Climbing, The best strategy of 2013?

[Gregor]

217 never climbed past 10 (in a match), so I don't know why they keep being mentioned as a elite 30 point climber.

[ehfeinberg]

Originally Posted by Gregor

217 never climbed past 10 (in a match), so I don't know why they keep being mentioned as a elite 30 point climber.

They had the mechanism, but were never able to get it working. I haven't even seen them pull off a 10 point hang.

[nicholsjj]

Originally Posted by Gregor

217 never climbed past 10 (in a match), so I don't know why they keep being mentioned as a elite 30 point climber.

I was just point out the strategy not the execution per say. I believe they intended to climb for 30 but they had a rough season this year as far as it goes mechanically. I was just analyzing the Thunderchickens choice. Instead of looking at them as an elite 30 point climber. I was looking at them as an elite team who attempted to 30 pt. climb from the corner. They just were unable to pull it off (which is extremely rare due to 217 being such a great team). Sorry for the confusion.

[Bwalker]

Although it may not have propelled us to the Einstein field, we, team 1448, were content with our 34 second corner climber that dumped four colored discs. I don't think there was another robot at championships that used our rack and pinion system, which in my opinion was extremly reliable, as our robot never failed a climb given the time.

[Adam Freeman]

I wouldn't say that there was any one specific "best" strategy for this season, for either overall game play and/or climbing.

Outside of the Einstein winning strategy, there were a number of very successful strategies that could have been just as successful given slightly different circumstances. Cycling, FCS, Floor pickup, Corner climbing, Side climbing, etc... were all in play leading into and up to Einstein.

Specifically to corner climbing for us....we decided to persue this type of climbing to allow for room for an additional climber. It was also the first method of climbing that we were able to meet (barely) the original 54" cylinder rule. We not a fan of swinging while climbing, and didn't really have time/resources to proto-type any other methods of climbing. We didn't even prototype our corner climber method....we were all or nothing on getting it to work or fail trying.

By going after this method of climbing and the design we chose, it significantly impacted our ability to floor load. We tried to pursue a flip down floor loader for a while, but were unable to meet all the packaging requirements to do both.

Climbing the pyramid for 30pts was our #1 design priority. We significantly under-estimated the # of discs that could be scored, either through FCS or cycling. The ease at which good teams scored discs really de-valued the importance of climbing. Combine that with the importance of autonomous as a tie-breaker, and I would say that our design priorities were really out of whack this year.

But, even with that being said there was a place for climbing in this game. 254 and 1986 showed it was possible to do while still pulling off multi-disc autos and 1114 showed it was possible to overcome the auto disadvantage by cycling 3/4 times and climbing+dumping quickly.

IMO - Being able to score discs + Climbing and/or dumping = Inspiration.

In the end, we may have had more success going a different route....but, I think getting the climber working and seeing it corner climbing+dumping at the end of the division finals was one of the coolest ways to lose an FRC event.

[nicholsjj]

Adam,

Do you feel that 67 and 1918 should have climbed on opposite corners and if so do you think it would have turned the division elims had 1918 not fell?

I asking because as we all saw the pyrmaids were sometimes not very stable and I am wondering how shaky the co-corner climbers looked from behind the glass. Also a quick shout out for team 4814 for being an undefeated captain, winning 2 rookie awards, and forming such a great divison finals alliance on Curie.

[Bstep]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

I think it is the best because it is the most risky way to climb. If you slip off a rung you probably will flip over and on to the ground. It is also the least stable because you only can hold on to one rung at a time. so the body of you robot can twist.

Climbing on the corner gives you three points of contact. Two hooks on the corner rungs or gusset and the lower portion of the robot resting on the corner post. I saw many more robots fall from the face of the pyramid this year than from the corner. That being said, the higher number of robots falling from the face is probably because more teams tried climbing on the face than the corner.

[Chris is me]

In my opinion, if you played the 2013 game competitively and still think there was a single "best" strategy for all teams, you really don't understand the game. The game featured multiple robot archetypes that all could have won the Championship with the right execution, alliance partners, and luck. The best robot for your team depends on what you could accomplish as a team. If autonomous is your strong suit, seven disc floor pickup. Mechanical wizards run your team? Climber-cycler. Are you the Cheesy Poofs? Do it all.

I believe corner climbing had less value at the mid to upper tiers of play, but at the Einstein level of play (what we'll see at IRI) it can be absolutely essential. To put it simply - this game, at its most competitive, results in both alliances being out of discs before the thirty second mark. Any "extra" points you can get (climbing, floor pickup, autonomous advantage) as well as shot accuracy will determine the outcome of the match. A cycler with a thirty point climber is far more versatile and useful than a ten point cycler for this reason.

The difference maker at IRI is going to be either these extra points, or whichever alliance makes the fewest mistakes. It'll be fun to watch.

[Adam Freeman]

Originally Posted by nicholsjj

Adam,

Do you feel that 67 and 1918 should have climbed on opposite corners and if so do you think it would have turned the division elims had 1918 not fell?

I don't think the outcome of the division finals had anything to do with the fact that 1918 fell. They did a lot of work to get it back to being functional and it climbed in the last match. We probably would not have knocked them off if we were on opposite corners, but I don't think it changed any results.

The outcome of the Curie finals was decided when we were not able to get a clear full court shot in either F2 or F3. In F2 we completely fell apart trying to get anything done. In F3, 862 was holding their ground so well that we had to switch to cycling....at that point we were pretty much done for. Our entire strategy depended on the FCS keeping it close enough for the climbs to matter. It almost worked...

I'm sure there were more creative strategies that could have been employed given the outcome, but I haven't really explored it greatly.

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by Bstep

Climbing on the corner gives you three points of contact. Two hooks on the corner rungs or gusset and the lower portion of the robot resting on the corner post. I saw many more robots fall from the face of the pyramid this year than from the corner. That being said, the higher number of robots falling from the face is probably because more teams tried climbing on the face than the corner.

Interesting you bring that up; we were considering a corner climber but were deterred because you only have 3 points of contact that aren't in a favorable position relative to your center of mass. I was afraid it wouldn't take much to knock the robot sideways into an unstable position.

The face of the pyramid felt much safer, as it's easier to keep the robot in a stable position.

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by Bstep

Climbing on the corner gives you three points of contact. Two hooks on the corner rungs or gusset and the lower portion of the robot resting on the corner post. I saw many more robots fall from the face of the pyramid this year than from the corner. That being said, the higher number of robots falling from the face is probably because more teams tried climbing on the face than the corner.

With corner climbing you have to factor in that you have to go over the corner somehow. During that process the robots lose a lot of their stability. Also if a robot is not balanced weight wise it has a tendency to twist toward to the heavier side. I would guess that less damage would occur if a robot fell from the face of the pyramid rather than the corner because the corner climbing robot is going to catch on something which could cause it flip over.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

With corner climbing you have to factor in that you have to go over the corner somehow. During that process the robots lose a lot of their stability. Also if a robot is not balanced weight wise it has a tendency to twist toward to the heavier side. I would guess that less damage would occur if a robot fell from the face of the pyramid rather than the corner because the corner climbing robot is going to catch on something which could cause it flip over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...9C8KIHT#t=105s

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

With corner climbing you have to factor in that you have to go over the corner somehow. During that process the robots lose a lot of their stability. Also if a robot is not balanced weight wise it has a tendency to twist toward to the heavier side. I would guess that less damage would occur if a robot fell from the face of the pyramid rather than the corner because the corner climbing robot is going to catch on something which could cause it flip over.

Here is an example:
http://youtu.be/AiHcLvFYA1c?t=2m20s

[Jon Stratis]

Based on my team's experience (inside climber + 20pt dumper), climbing was definitely a great strategy... for getting into eliminations. Being able to climb to the top effectively was something everyone saw as extremely impressive, and it makes a team attractive to alliance members. However, with the "point cap" on climbing, it wasn't all that effective a strategy to win a competition (unless you could also shoot). When events are won by alliances with 150+ scores, even contributing 50 to the alliance with a climb+dump isn't in and of itself enough to win. I am surprised we didn't see more alliances at Champs with 2 good shooters and a climber as a third pick. That seems to be a natural combination to rack up a huge amount of points.

[Cash4587]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

In my opinion, if you played the 2013 game competitively and still think there was a single "best" strategy for all teams, you really don't understand the game. The game featured multiple robot archetypes that all could have won the Championship with the right execution, alliance partners, and luck. The best robot for your team depends on what you could accomplish as a team. If autonomous is your strong suit, seven disc floor pickup. Mechanical wizards run your team? Climber-cycler. Are you the Cheesy Poofs? Do it all.

I believe corner climbing had less value at the mid to upper tiers of play, but at the Einstein level of play (what we'll see at IRI) it can be absolutely essential. To put it simply - this game, at its most competitive, results in both alliances being out of discs before the thirty second mark. Any "extra" points you can get (climbing, floor pickup, autonomous advantage) as well as shot accuracy will determine the outcome of the match. A cycler with a thirty point climber is far more versatile and useful than a ten point cycler for this reason.

The difference maker at IRI is going to be either these extra points, or whichever alliance makes the fewest mistakes. It'll be fun to watch.

Sorry what I meant to emphasize was the best climbing strategy of 2013 not overall complete strategy. The only way that it could be considered for an elite strategy is if you had a shooter that could do 3-4 trips or a floor feed as well for auto mode. Sorry for the confusion.