Go to Post Fun is not where you find it but where you make it. - Foster [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 5 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #16   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-11-2014, 08:33
Lil' Lavery Lil' Lavery is offline
TSIMFD
AKA: Sean Lavery
FRC #1712 (DAWGMA)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,634
Lil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Lil' Lavery
Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014

In all honestly, the MCC for most events in 2014 would simply be great drivers and the ability to receive from the human player.

When 1712 prioritized our design, the ability to pass significantly outranked the ability to truss (which outranked the ability to score in the high goal). During our subsequent design and brainstorming processes, we didn't arrive at a shooter/intake geometry that would allow us to have the level of passing ability we desired before our downselect, so we opted not to shoot. In the end, that ended up generally working in our favor. We arrived at a single-intake design with a significant area to catch the ball (particularly useful for inbounding, but occasionally for catching trusses as well) driven by a 6-CIM 6WD with versa wheels. We were selected at all three of our events, including MAR Championship. Being able to score easily in the 1-pt goal was definitely a benefit as well (we quite often were the finisher on our alliances, including in two of our elimination alliances), and a consistent 16 point autonomous was quite useful.

Last edited by Lil' Lavery : 20-11-2014 at 08:42.
Reply With Quote
  #17   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-11-2014, 08:47
RunawayEngineer RunawayEngineer is offline
Master Commander of All Things Tech
AKA: Ches
FRC #0801 (Horsepower)
Team Role: Tactician
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Merritt Island
Posts: 66
RunawayEngineer is a splendid one to beholdRunawayEngineer is a splendid one to beholdRunawayEngineer is a splendid one to beholdRunawayEngineer is a splendid one to beholdRunawayEngineer is a splendid one to beholdRunawayEngineer is a splendid one to beholdRunawayEngineer is a splendid one to behold
Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkling16 View Post
That being said though, I would probably never encourage a team to build a robot like this. For whatever reason, most alliance selectors tend to pick robots that are bad at doing the "primary" task over teams that do other tasks exceptionally well and don't do the "primary" task at all. I would therefore be extremely nervous about going all-in on a design like 5288's, since it could be difficult to show off in quals and we might not get picked because other teams do not realize our potential to be a beneficial partner.
The "whatever reason" is poor scouting. In my experience, any team that significantly contributes will be noticed by the teams with solid scouting and good match strategy. I think making a robot that forgoes "primary" tasks and does other tasks well is a great build strategy. You will probably be ignored by the captains with poor scouting (whom you generally don't want to partner with anyway) and you can be noticed by the ones that scout and pick strategically.
And you can always make sure you are noticed by talking to the teams that will be in a position to pick. I have been on a high seeded team a number of times - never once did I have a team come to me to discuss their value as a 3rd partner. Any team that would commit to working with our strategy and could demonstrate their ability to do it would leap up my pick list.

Last edited by RunawayEngineer : 20-11-2014 at 08:49. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote
  #18   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-11-2014, 09:01
Andrew Schreiber Andrew Schreiber is offline
Joining the 900 Meme Team
FRC #0079
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Misplaced Michigander
Posts: 4,064
Andrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014

Bryan,

MCC 2014 - kitbot, pneumatic actuated roller bar intake that allows spitting out.

Robot could gain mobility bonus in auton and score in low goal.

Robot could also be valuable inbounder and then harry the other alliance as they attempt to score.

With clever play this robot could have seeded quite high due to the importance of assist points. As such I've prioritized driver practice over any sort of trussing capability. However, it will be hampered by the serpentine at small events where it can't pick up a solid trusser as a third.
__________________




.
Reply With Quote
  #19   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-11-2014, 10:10
Jared Russell's Avatar
Jared Russell Jared Russell is offline
Taking a year (mostly) off
FRC #0254 (The Cheesy Poofs), FRC #0341 (Miss Daisy)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,078
Jared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber View Post
Bryan,

MCC 2014 - kitbot, pneumatic actuated roller bar intake that allows spitting out.

Robot could gain mobility bonus in auton and score in low goal.

Robot could also be valuable inbounder and then harry the other alliance as they attempt to score.

With clever play this robot could have seeded quite high due to the importance of assist points. As such I've prioritized driver practice over any sort of trussing capability. However, it will be hampered by the serpentine at small events where it can't pick up a solid trusser as a third.
In other words...
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	10258708_665316866872507_4823080434167506590_o.jpg
Views:	227
Size:	256.6 KB
ID:	17490  
Reply With Quote
  #20   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-11-2014, 10:33
Unsung FIRST Hero
Karthik Karthik is offline
VEX Robotics GDC Chairman
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,346
Karthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014

Quote:
Originally Posted by XaulZan11 View Post
The absolute minimum would be a kit bot with a surgical tubing trampoline on top of it. This robot, which could have been built in a weekend, should be picked at eliminations at most regionals and likely all districts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Sheridan View Post
Or a lawn chair. 687 was the 9th pick at LA this year with a kit bot drive train COTS drivetrain and a lawn chair strapped to the top for inbounding.
I agree with these posts completely. It's amazing (although some people might use other words here...) to think that a team could assemble a kit bot drivetrain, stick a lawn chair on it, and have a robot that would be a contender for a blue banner at most local events, ahead of many teams who spent six weeks building active mechanisms.
__________________
:: Karthik Kanagasabapathy ::
"Enthusiasm is one of the most powerful engines of success. When you do a thing, do it with all your might. Put your whole soul into it. Stamp it with your own personality. Be active, be energetic, be enthusiastic and faithful and you will accomplish your object. Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm" -- R.W. Emerson
My TEDx Talk - The Subtle Secrets of Success
Full disclosure: I work for IFI and VEX Robotics, and am the Chairman of the VEX Robotics and VEX IQ Game Design Committees
.
Reply With Quote
  #21   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-11-2014, 10:37
Caleb Sykes's Avatar
Caleb Sykes Caleb Sykes is offline
Registered User
FRC #4536 (MinuteBots)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 1,059
Caleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunawayEngineer View Post
The "whatever reason" is poor scouting. In my experience, any team that significantly contributes will be noticed by the teams with solid scouting and good match strategy.
I would probably chalk up the "whatever" reason to be some combination of poor scouting, poor strategy, poor communication between drive team and scouting team, and the human tendency to judge things based on how they appear on the outside.

Quote:
I think making a robot that forgoes "primary" tasks and does other tasks well is a great build strategy.
I think it tends to be a good strategy as well, however you have to hedge your bets. Teams like 5288 should have been snapped up for elims at every event, and they were by the 2-3 teams at every event that recognized their capabilities. Unfortunately though, there just aren't enough teams that make this decision out there, which means that lower-ability teams have to hedge their bets if they want a solid chance to make it into elims. I would have loved to have my team make a robot like 5288's, but I don't have enough faith in other teams' scouts to do this. So instead, we added in some other functionality to our robot. I guess the distinction that I am making here is that the MCC for elims would be 5288, but unfortunately you might not make it to elims with this design, so maybe the abilities of the MCC need to be a bit higher.

Quote:
You will probably be ignored by the captains with poor scouting (whom you generally don't want to partner with anyway) and you can be noticed by the ones that scout and pick strategically.
I would rather make the elims with a partner who I don't want than not make elims at all.

Quote:
And you can always make sure you are noticed by talking to the teams that will be in a position to pick. I have been on a high seeded team a number of times - never once did I have a team come to me to discuss their value as a 3rd partner. Any team that would commit to working with our strategy and could demonstrate their ability to do it would leap up my pick list.
I've had a couple of cases where teams try to "sell themselves" to my team before the elims, but I agree that the prevalence is far lower than it should be.
Reply With Quote
  #22   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-11-2014, 10:57
Cory's Avatar
Cory Cory is offline
Registered User
AKA: Cory McBride
FRC #0254 (The Cheesy Poofs)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 6,812
Cory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Cory
Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared Russell View Post
In other words...
Yeah, the thread was over as soon as 5136 was brought up. The robot every rookie (and many veterans) should have built.
__________________
2001-2004: Team 100
2006-Present: Team 254
Reply With Quote
  #23   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-11-2014, 11:00
JesseK's Avatar
JesseK JesseK is offline
Expert Flybot Crasher
FRC #1885 (ILITE)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 3,685
JesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014

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.

I think 5136 and 4242 got MCC perfect this year. 4242 was even a captain in DC.
Reply With Quote
  #24   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-11-2014, 11:12
BrendanB BrendanB is offline
Registered User
AKA: Brendan Browne
FRC #1058 (PVC Pirates)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Londonderry, NH
Posts: 3,103
BrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseK View Post
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.
__________________
1519 Mechanical M.A.Y.H.E.M. 2008 - 2010
3467 Windham Windup 2011 - 2015
1058 PVC Pirates 2016 - xxxx
Reply With Quote
  #25   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-11-2014, 11:25
Lil' Lavery Lil' Lavery is offline
TSIMFD
AKA: Sean Lavery
FRC #1712 (DAWGMA)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,634
Lil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Lil' Lavery
Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendanB View Post
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.
#8 Alliance for lyfe!
Reply With Quote
  #26   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-11-2014, 11:34
artK artK is offline
Just Another Person
AKA: Art Kalb
no team (No Team)
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 119
artK has a reputation beyond reputeartK has a reputation beyond reputeartK has a reputation beyond reputeartK has a reputation beyond reputeartK has a reputation beyond reputeartK has a reputation beyond reputeartK has a reputation beyond reputeartK has a reputation beyond reputeartK has a reputation beyond reputeartK has a reputation beyond reputeartK has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseK View Post
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.

I think 5136 and 4242 got MCC perfect this year. 4242 was even a captain in DC.
Both of them look like amazing robots, but I would probably give a slight advantage to 5136 (more on this below), because 4242 looks like they could get an accidental possession with their completely open inbounder.

5136 was one of my favorite robots this year, probably number 5 in my personal list (Admittedly there may be some bias from CVR). A pure inbounder, with good defense, AND a goalie pole?!?!? They were the part that really scared me about the Newton alliance, because that was their BACKUP, and with some shuffling, could have replaced any of those robots and still have a scary alliance.
__________________
Art Kalb
Team 254 (2011-2014): Head Scout, Programmer
2011, 2014 World Champions
Reply With Quote
  #27   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-11-2014, 11:37
JesseK's Avatar
JesseK JesseK is offline
Expert Flybot Crasher
FRC #1885 (ILITE)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 3,685
JesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014

Quote:
Originally Posted by artK View Post
Both of them look like amazing robots, but I would probably give a slight advantage to 5136 (more on this below), because 4242 looks like they could get an accidental possession with their completely open inbounder.
I was just giving another example of active MCC mechanisms that didn't merely copy the Ri3D/BB stuff for the inbound. 4242 never actually possessed the opponent's ball, iirc. They also had a tough time inbounding 'on the fly'.
Reply With Quote
  #28   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-11-2014, 11:43
Nemo's Avatar
Nemo Nemo is offline
Team 967 Mentor
AKA: Dan Niemitalo
FRC #0967 (Iron Lions)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 803
Nemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014

MCC is one concept that is defined in a certain way, but it brings a different question to mind.

For a team with median resources,
assuming that competitive success is prioritized over cool factor,
given what was known about the rules a few days into build season,
What is the smartest robot design to attempt?

This year, lots of teams prioritized shooting over acquisition and ended up not being able to participate effectively in assist cycles. It wasn't a secret that ball control would be hugely important for every robot. It was right there in the way the game and its scoring system were designed. Why did so many teams miss on that?

Should we have this thread nice and early next year? It will probably be possible to take a decent shot at MCC (or similar) in the first week of the season, and that might be useful to a lot of teams that would otherwise put their eggs in the wrong basket.
Reply With Quote
  #29   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-11-2014, 11:43
Jared Russell's Avatar
Jared Russell Jared Russell is offline
Taking a year (mostly) off
FRC #0254 (The Cheesy Poofs), FRC #0341 (Miss Daisy)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,078
Jared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014

Quote:
Originally Posted by XaulZan11 View Post
The absolute minimum would be a kit bot with a surgical tubing trampoline on top of it. This robot, which could have been built in a weekend, should be picked at eliminations at most regionals and likely all districts.
The "bounce pass" possession was called very inconsistently (and oftentimes, not at all) before the World Championship.
Reply With Quote
  #30   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-11-2014, 12:46
RunawayEngineer RunawayEngineer is offline
Master Commander of All Things Tech
AKA: Ches
FRC #0801 (Horsepower)
Team Role: Tactician
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Merritt Island
Posts: 66
RunawayEngineer is a splendid one to beholdRunawayEngineer is a splendid one to beholdRunawayEngineer is a splendid one to beholdRunawayEngineer is a splendid one to beholdRunawayEngineer is a splendid one to beholdRunawayEngineer is a splendid one to beholdRunawayEngineer is a splendid one to behold
Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2014

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkling16 View Post
I think it tends to be a good strategy as well, however you have to hedge your bets.

I would rather make the elims with a partner who I don't want than not make elims at all.
By all means, hedge your bets and try to get numbers on the board to get noticed.
I just worry that many teams think that the only way to win/get picked is the "primary" game, so they don't look for alternatives. Meanwhile, the captains of seeds 1-3 are digging through data to find any means to differentiate between the middle 12 robots.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:35.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi