Creating the perfect robot

[Kevin Leonard]

469 with their fabled 30-point climber. Done.

EDIT: Or, if you want to improve even further (not by much), you could have a wildly modified 1538.

[pmangels17]

What about just 67 with a floor pickup? They have a 30 pt climb, FCS ability, and extra 20 pt pyramid goal dump ability. Add a floor pickup with 7 disc auton, and they would probably win everything.

[SoftwareBug2.0]

I'm surprised that I've never seen anybody mention this, but how about a robot that does full court shots from a high starting point, but can also lower to go under the pyramid?

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by SoftwareBug2.0

I'm surprised that I've never seen anybody mention this, but how about a robot that does full court shots from a high starting point, but can also lower to go under the pyramid?

Originally Posted by inkling16

The perfect robot would also be able to adjust the height of their shooter, much like 1718 did. When the robot is shooting full couurt, the shooter would be as close as possible to 60", thus making defense difficult. When the shooter is down, the entire robot height, including the shooter, should be <30" for driving under the pyramid.

Adjustable height was a pretty rare feature this year, but the perfect robot would definitely have it.

233.
But with a 50-pt climb somehow. I'm not exactly sure.
But if you took 233, removed their consistency issues, you'd have a 7-disc auto robot with a tall full-court shot. I'm not sure how to put a climb on it, though.

[evanperryg]

• 118's ground collector because it is robust and doesn't extend out of the robot.
• 67's shooter.
• 1114's climber will take up whatever space there is between the top of the collector and the bottom of the shooter.
• If we want the raising shooter(which I really see no reason for, as we all know that cycling is generally better than full court) Then use 1477's design.

[Michael Hill]

I wonder if it would have been possible to make an accurate full court shooter that shot frisbees upside down so you could fire them at a higher, unblockable angle.

From videos I've seen upside down frisbees don't get the lift that right side up frisbees get.

Or even throw them "hammer" style at a higher angle.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

Or even throw them "hammer" style at a higher angle.

I really wanted someone to do that and succeed, but alas, no team I know of did it.

[AdamHeard]

I think it's interesting that everyone seems to be assuming the ideal robot must have every single capability in this game.

Curious to hear what people's definitions of ideal are.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I think it's interesting that everyone seems to be assuming the ideal robot must have every single capability in this game.

Curious to hear what people's definitions of ideal are.

Then what would your definition of the "Perfect Robot" be?
My definition would be a robot that excels at every aspect of the game.
Do I think that a robot without all these functionalities can excel at UA?
Obviously.


In order for this theoretical robot to excel at every aspect of Ultimate Ascent, it should have:

7-Disc Auto

Ability to cycle very effectively- meaning fast drivetrain/strong drivetrain and ability to drive under the pyramid and avoid defense, fast shooting

Ability to play a floor game very effectively- Roller-floor pickup, front/back of the pyramid shooting positions, ability to pick up discs and shoot discs in both orientations

Ability to full-court shoot very accurately and limit the level of defense to be played on them- High release point, accuracy, fast lineup (either by code or a hard stop)

Have a consistent and fast 50-point climb (including line-up time)- meaning all 4 colored discs need to consistently go into the pyramid goal

[MichaelBick]

Originally Posted by Thunder910

Ability to full-court shoot very accurately and limit the level of defense to be played on them- High release point, accuracy, fast lineup (either by code or a hard stop)

Honestly I don't see why a perfect robot needs to have an FCS. At the top levels of play the field is going to be deep enough to run a 3 cycler alliance(which as we well know, can pretty reliably clear out the feeder station). In a shallow field you can beat strong alliances regardless of FCS. If you still decide to run an FCS, there should be no reason why it has to be tall. If you are only FCSing you will promote defense. A much better style is a run and gun style similar to that of 469.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by MICHAELABICK

Honestly I don't see why a perfect robot needs to have an FCS. At the top levels of play the field is going to be deep enough to run a 3 cycler alliance(which as we well know, can pretty reliably clear out the feeder station). In a shallow field you can beat strong alliances regardless of FCS. If you still decide to run an FCS, there should be no reason why it has to be tall. If you are only FCSing you will promote defense. A much better style is a run and gun style similar to that of 469.

What if you get picked by a good floor-pickup like 33 whose cycling isn't all that great?
What if you're completely outgunned in a cycling battle in a qualification match?
Full-court shooting is a game-changer. It forces your opponents to alter their game strategy to deal with your full-court shot, and if they can't block you, they likely lose, especially if you can then pick up your own misses and shoot those. Even 2-point full-court shooting is deadly provided those discs aren't going to be scored otherwise.

Ex1: If you DON'T block 67, you lose. They can score over 200 points on their own.

Ex2: 2169 in Galileo is arguably the best dedicated full-court shooter in the world. Their FCS game is so #solid that they were the only teleop threat (that was leveraged) on their divisional finalist alliance. Their FCS shot was also difficult to block because of it's high release point.

[evanperryg]

What if you get picked by a good floor-pickup like 33 whose cycling isn't all that great?

We are talking about an all-around, god-tier robot. That robot would be the one picking, if anything.

Anyway, I would like to inform all of you that I am now CADing the ultimate ultimate ascent robot. Might post pics if I can finish it.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

We are talking about an all-around, god-tier robot. That robot would be the one picking, if anything.

Anyway, I would like to inform all of you that I am now CADing the ultimate ultimate ascent robot. Might post pics if I can finish it.

I'd like to point out that the three best robots in Archimedes got picked, they didn't captain their own alliances (i.e. 254, 469, 987).

If this robot couldn't stand up to a match against three good cyclers with limited to zero help (i.e. being able to FCS, as that's they only way they would stand a chance), then they wouldn't sit at the top of the rankings, as they would lose that match.

And I totally want to see this CAD. It'd be epic.

[brennonbrimhall]

Originally Posted by MICHAELABICK

Honestly I don't see why a perfect robot needs to have an FCS...a 3 cycler alliance...can pretty reliably clear out the feeder station.

Originally Posted by Thunder910

What if you get picked by a good floor-pickup like 33 whose cycling isn't all that great?
What if you're completely outgunned in a cycling battle in a qualification match?

I think the current set of ideas gravitate towards the best robot -- and not the best alliance. This is a complete hypothetical that won't ever be considered, because it can't be, because one must pause and consider the other 66% of your alliance.

I think the question of the perfect alliance is a completely different question, and deserves a completely different answer.

And while a robot can't do everything, I think there were lots of robots (469, 987, 118 etc.) that were diversified enough that they opened up lots of strategic options for their alliances. And they could almost do everything -- and do it well. But the fact remains: no one robot was capable of performing every single role in Ultimate Ascent well (of which FCS was one); that robot is what I'm trying to theorize about, and mentally construct.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

Or even throw them "hammer" style at a higher angle.

We prototyped a hammer throwing FCS, but couldn't get the right combination of forward speed and spin with our prototype. It's probably possible, but would have taken more resources then we had during the build season.