0 voters
Strictly by definition:
Minimum:
of a minimum amount, quantity, or degree; negligible.
Competitive:
as good as or better than others of a comparable nature.
Concept:
an abstract idea; a general notion
Therefore:
the least degree - that is as good as - general notion. So on average I believe the MCC should be an average robot in an FRC season. Keeping in mind there is a lot more to being at least average than just the robot.
Considering “an average robot” is not on the poll list as of writing I did not vote.
3/7 of the poll options are down to “schedule luck”^ anyway, compounded by the use of the word “potential” and “capable”
^sorry Caleb, most succinct way I could put it
Im curious as to what people consider the difference between Potential to be top 24 at reg/dist and play in playoffs and Having competitive scoring tasks for an entire match is, particularly what level of play the event has that the bot is competing at when you make your decisions. Are we talking a worlds division, or an average district event? To me, to get picked you already need to be competitive, which makes “being competitive” redundant unless the event is moderately stacked (higher performing regionals, DCMP, CMP).
I voted for “Having competitive scoring tasks for an entire match” but I’m considering it in the context of recent game designs where the endgame task has been necessary to compete - in a game like 2016 where even alliances on Einstein didn’t have 3 climbing bots this would be different.
I also consider effective defense to be an essential component of MCC. Even this year 
Honestly what ever will get you a second pick over all the other robots. If the goal is to be competitive then that means you want to make it to playoffs. YES you could just be a drive base and play defense but that doesn’t really require a concept like “MCC”.
This really depends on the game. All of them have Move and Get game piece so I am not going to repeat those since I don’t really care how you get your game piece as long as you get it.
In order of importance
2016: Get over 3/5 of the defenses, park on tower, score low goals (No Auto, Climbing, or high goals)
2017: Climb, Score Gears (No Auto, or Fuel)
2018: Move in Auto, Score in switches, Get up Ramp (No climbing, or Scale)
2019: Get off and on Hab Level 1, Score Hatches or Cargo Low (No Auto, Middle or High Rocket, or Hab 2 or 3 climb, or scoring both pieces)
2022: Low Bar Climb, Low Goal scoring (No auto, high goal scoring or Mid, High or Traversal Climbing)
I don’t have an opinion on 2020 because I never got to compete and I feel we did not have enough matches to see what was actually MCC.
Basically the MCC needs to actively be able to help or at least not be a detriment during quals to get the RP(s) that are feasible. This is why the only time I feel auto is required was 2018, and end game tasks are only the minimum required where it is unfair points wise (2017) or where an RP is in the balance.
I do think this year it is:
Score cubes or cones in at least 1 node level, the ability to get on the charging station in neutral and tipped towards you positions. (No auto, no multilevel scoring, no scoring both pieces)
Now that I’ve voted and seen the results, I feel kind of bad about my choice 
Kind of hedging to say “potential” to be top 24.
This is how I’d break it down: A great robot with a bad driver will not do well, but a good driver can only do so much if the robot is inconsistent in its operations, unreliable between matches, or outright unable to do the necessary tasks. That robot also has to get built with enough time for the driver to practice with it. In short, an MCC doesn’t hold a good driver back from making a positive impact on the field.
I confidently believe nobody has released an MCC for 2023 yet.
And that’s okay, nobody has claimed to, and not everything needs to be.
+1
This REALLY seems to be lost on people this year. Everybot is not claiming to be MCC. It is offering a platform for teams to build on that is useful, maintainable, well documented and relatively easy. Just because the last few games have leaned towards MCC and Everybot converging does not mean 2023 does.
Again, thank-you Everybot team.
Yup. Although that being said, I can think of plenty of teams who I wouldn’t point to any of the released robot resources so far who likely would be served by a real MCC, but that’s beside the point.
Students and I were talking today - we came to the conclusion that a bot that could quickly fill all of the floor nodes, play defense, and then balance on the charge station at the end could actually fare quite well in this game.
If were using “Minimally Competitive” in it’s most strict form, I’d say being able to do at least one scoring task per game phase. Anything less isn’t really competitive, and anything more is no longer minimal.
If we remove “Minimal” and just use “Competitive”, then I’d say having a scoring task to do all game would make a robot competitive, because those points start to add up if you’re constantly doing them. Consistently cycling game pieces this year not only just builds points, because of the links. You get each pt/piece, as well as the bonus for linking them, then hopefully the sustainability RP.
–PS I was drawn to the topic because the title had MCC, which to my inner halo fan means Master Chief Collection
There were Einstein-winning 1st picks that did just this… even a “minimal competitive concept” that is well executed, well driven, and consistently performing can earn you the ultimate blue banner.
To me MCC is the floor with built with minimum resources. The Rev bot is close, but the ION tubing makes it expensive. If I was doing this game with no budget. I would concentrate on scoring the game piece in Autonomous, getting the move points. quickly harvesting the game pieces from the center of the field then shuttling game pieces for other to score… Small robot to allow room for triple balance end game. Then I would focus on driver practice, driving without drawing penalties and understanding how best to play the game from the alliance perspective.The last 3 you can do with no budget. As they say somewhere: It is better to drive a bad robot goodly than a good robot badly.
Ok but it is weird that out of about 12 robot designs released so far none of them make a good MCC except maybe REV, and that at a pretty steep price tag. Not everything needs to be but I would have been happy to have one.
All it would have taken is a slightly modified 2018 or 2019 Everybot capable of scoring cubes and cones Hybrid and maybe shooting cubes to Mid. Or a single DoF arm with a clamp to pick up game pieces and score Hybrid and Mid. Or a sketchy telescope with some big constant force springs.
There was a wealth of “MCC” type robots in 2016-2022 with all of the Ri3D teams, WCP MCC, and of course Everybot. It’s sad to see the trend of a rising upper-middle tier reach these resources. Next year I might pursue my own, if only because designing an MCC is really hard for low resource teams, and I’d like to have something to point them towards now that the old sources have dried up.
So how about this: Take a KOP chassis. Make and arm that traps the game piece between the bumper and the chassis to drag it where you want it. Robot in one day with time for corn dogs. You could get teams to donate cims and PWM motors controllers. Maybe power it with Jags? Aside from bumpers, almost a zero dollar robot.
MCC to me is none of those answers. It completely comes down to resource requirements
MCC is the BEST robot you can build with minimal resources imo. Min resources may be different for each team. For us it’s ~$1,000 cost to us as that is typically how much funding we have beyond the KOP. We recently got an Omio, but otherwise we’re also limited to hand tools.
This year’s EB fit’s pretty well in my opinion. ~$1k depending on what you have on the shelf already. Simple programming. Mostly COTS parts with a few that can be cut with a jigsaw.
I don’t see any reason to “handicap” a design if it meets my above requirements.
In the end this is true. You always want to build the best robot your resources allow. The problem is that definition does not lend itself to a global definition of MCC
I’m in agreement here. You can do something during the whole game. So, for this year, that’s:
auton: get a cube/cone out of your bot into a low goal (by push, drop, however) OR get the the MOBILITY points OR be able to back up onto the teeter-totter
teleop: get a cube/cone from somewhere and get it (possibly by pushing) into a scoring position
auton: drive onto the teeter-totter OR get PARK points
It could be as few as 4 points, but you did something during the whole game – you were a net positive to your alliance (assuming you didn’t foul). Anything more is no longer “minimum”.