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.

[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.

[karomata]

I feel that if the magnetic wheel was more widely attempted and used (the one team that made it work to a degree of obvious general knowledge being 118), some teams would have found ways to make it much faster than the corner climbers that used hooks. Unfortunately, 118 found that it was more beneficial for them to shoot instead of climb to the 3rd level, so they never used their level 3 climber, and I believe they also took it off (don't quote me on that one). However, if the approach to climbing using a magnetic wheel was more used, I think it would have become the most popular method to be integrated into robots that wanted to level 3 climb mid competition season. But the again as we have all seen, there weren't even any level 3 climbs on Einstein, therefore climbing in any degree was proven to not be the best strategy for Ultimate Ascent. The highest climb there was on Einstein was 148's level 2 climb, which the additional 20 points, while greatly helping their score, was not too great in its value because of the extreme scoring abilities of some of the other robots on Einstein. I really would have liked to see the climbing point values upgraded/modified so that climbing to level 3 was worth doing. I find it rather depressing that the hardest challenge FIRST has ever presented was heavily under valued, to the point where in most divisional elimination matches, climbing was rather scarce.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by karomata

I feel that if the magnetic wheel was more widely attempted and used (the one team that made it work to a degree of obvious general knowledge being 118), some teams would have found ways to make it much faster than the corner climbers that used hooks. Unfortunately, 118 found that it was more beneficial for them to shoot instead of climb to the 3rd level, so they never used their level 3 climber, and I believe they also took it off (don't quote me on that one). However, if the approach to climbing using a magnetic wheel was more used, I think it would have become the most popular method to be integrated into robots that wanted to level 3 climb mid competition season. But the again as we have all seen, there weren't even any level 3 climbs on Einstein, therefore climbing in any degree was proven to not be the best strategy for Ultimate Ascent. The highest climb there was on Einstein was 148's level 2 climb, which the additional 20 points, while greatly helping their score, was not too great in its value because of the extreme scoring abilities of some of the other robots on Einstein. I really would have liked to see the climbing point values upgraded/modified so that climbing to level 3 was worth doing. I find it rather depressing that the hardest challenge FIRST has ever presented was heavily under valued, to the point where in most divisional elimination matches, climbing was rather scarce.

1640 was a 30 point climber.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by karomata

However, if the approach to climbing using a magnetic wheel was more used, I think it would have become the most popular method to be integrated into robots that wanted to level 3 climb mid competition season. But the again as we have all seen, there weren't even any level 3 climbs on Einstein, therefore climbing in any degree was proven to not be the best strategy for Ultimate Ascent. The highest climb there was on Einstein was 148's level 2 climb, which the additional 20 points, while greatly helping their score, was not too great in its value because of the extreme scoring abilities of some of the other robots on Einstein. I really would have liked to see the climbing point values upgraded/modified so that climbing to level 3 was worth doing. I find it rather depressing that the hardest challenge FIRST has ever presented was heavily under valued, to the point where in most divisional elimination matches, climbing was rather scarce.

What Andrew said. We did it on Einstein, and actually won our first semi first semi by less than 31 points (23, 199-176). Our alliance would not have won a match on Einstein without it, and the 20 we got the next match would've made it close if 303 hadn't broken (revised to 200-225).

Also realize that though we were the last standing, there were several greats in divisional elims. 1114 and 1986 and others didn't give up the climb, it just didn't quite go their way. Not a terrible surprise*, as you say it's the hardest challenge in the history of FIRST. While more teams attempting it would have increased the probability of more climbers advancing farther, you're already talking about some of the best teams in the league. It also would have meant fewer floor pickups (1986 notwithstanding), and I have to say, personally I'm much more awed by a 90 point autonomous than a couple 30 point climbs...thank you Michigan for giving me the opportunity to compare the two, though I may be biased by winning Newton and MAR by the arms of 3476 and 2590's pickups.

What I don't get - 118 took their climber off because it did not meet there time spec. (Ours didn't at Worlds either. It worked out, but Chestnut Hill was much better.) That's why it made more sense to shoot instead; we did the same for much of the season. I'm not sure I understand why you're evidencing a method that was attempted and discarded as unworkable/not worth it* by one of the best teams in FIRST as something more teams should have done, and would have done successfully. Of course, that spec would have changed if the climb was worth more...see above. I wouldn't have complained about more points, though I suspect the GDC underestimated disc scores rather than overestimated climbs.

*Absolutely zero offense meant. Our climb worked a grand total of 3 days this season (1 at Chestnut Hill). It just happened to be the right 3 days. 1114 and 1986 were much, much, much more reliable.

[BrendanB]

We actually score more in the last 20 seconds climbing than we do shooting frisbees.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

We actually score more in the last 20 seconds climbing than we do shooting frisbees.

I'm not sure I've seen anyone make 30 points in the last 20 seconds any other way. (Note the last 20 seconds, because if you're an FCS--or really anyone going that fast--you should be out of discs by now at that rate. ) We can run about a 20 second cycle at best, going direct with no offensive defense hits. Even clocking just under 30 seconds, the climb is worth it. Otherwise, we get away with longer than that because the alliance is/will run out of discs. (Thanks 303 and 3476.)

118 said the best they had was 30-45sec range. We'd pull it off too, particularly if we wanted the weight elsewhere.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Siri

I'm not sure I've seen anyone make 30 points in the last 20 seconds any other way. (Note the last 20 seconds, because if you're an FCS--or really anyone going that fast--you should be out of discs by now at that rate. ) We can run about a 20 second cycle at best, going direct with no offensive defense hits. Even clocking just under 30 seconds, the climb is worth it. Otherwise, we get away with longer than that because the alliance is/will run out of discs. (Thanks 303 and 3476.)

118 said the best they had was 30-45sec range. We'd pull it off too, particularly if we wanted the weight elsewhere.

Probably an FCS or an extremely fast cycler could come close but there are a lot of variables. Someone just barely getting in your way could ruin it.

This was one of our best matches of the season. 5 cycles and a climb. one missed disc and we only loaded 3 frisbees during the last cycle since we really wanted the climb! This climb is a little on the slow side for us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYRZM...7J7Q& index=2

[Woolly]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Probably an FCS or an extremely fast cycler could come close but there are a lot of variables. Someone just barely getting in your way could ruin it.

This was one of our best matches of the season. 5 cycles and a climb. one missed disc and we only loaded 3 frisbees during the last cycle since we really wanted the climb! This climb is a little on the slow side for us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYRZM...7J7Q& index=2

If left unblocked, our FCS can empty the feeder stations in about 40 seconds.
In several of our qualification matches we ran out of frisbees and had 60 seconds to load up with colored discs and go climb for our 20 climb + 20 dump.
However there have been instances that we were blocked well enough that we couldn't get anything to the goal until ~45 seconds to go, in which case we began shooting.

It really depends on how much quality defense is being played.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Woolly

If left unblocked, our FCS can empty the feeder stations in about 40 seconds.
In several of our qualification matches we ran out of frisbees and had 60 seconds to load up with colored discs and go climb for our 20 climb + 20 dump.
However there have been instances that we were blocked well enough that we couldn't get anything to the goal until ~45 seconds to go, in which case we began shooting.

It really depends on how much quality defense is being played.

We experienced something like this at Battlecry this past weekend. The #1 alliance was captained by team 195 The Cyberknights and the #2 alliance by 1519 Mechanical MAYHEM. Both of these teams are extremely accurate full court shooters.

During the finals, 1519 used their blocker to prevent 195 from scoring across the field and when 195 transitioned to cycling 1519 stayed hard on their tail. This is one of the reasons the BC finals were so tight was that even though both alliances could put up close to 200 points the defense played by one FCS to another took a lot of points out of the game.