Originally Posted by waialua359 (Post 603187)

This whole thread is just soooo odd. I though designing a robot last year was soooo much harder. We actually had our easiest build season for a couple of good reasons.
1. Building a ramp and arm doesn't take a genius to do it. If you use the KISS method.......
2. Unlike triple play, your robot isn't picking up something as heavy as a tetra.
3. The entire playing field is level other than going up a possible ramp, lifter, etc.
4. You dont have to score on the top rack since all points are worth the same on the rack, individually.
5. The game provided outs for teams who just wanted to focus on defense and bonus point scoring.

The scoring may not be as high this year, including autonomous, because the target moves also, unlike triple play. BUT, that doesn't mean it was a tough build season.

We are not trying to be arrogant, we are just saying that last year was the toughest for us, yet we saw so many teams with unreal, great designs. It seems like everyone had a great design out there last year....:D

When we started the poll on being "realistic" about scoring ringers in a round, we chose 6. We found out in competition, we could do 7 or 8 three times, including practice. However, the polls had so many teams choosing more than 6. Yet, when you watch competition play, many could not do that even by themselves on the field.

I personally still am amazed at how fun "aim high" was and how great the hundreds of designs we saw and watched last year.

Originally Posted by catsylve (Post 603212)

Team 1985 is a rookie team and chose to build a hybrid, but why should that automatically mean that this is a bad robot? We all understand the concept of being great at one thing, but we chose to be versatile. We have been able to score consistently at all three levels during matches where our alliance needed us. In other matches, we have chosen to stop scoring early and drop our ramps, providing that our alliance robots could continue to score. We have actually been double teamed occasionally which allowed our alliance partners more room to score.
I agree that not every team should be a hybrid. But just because you are a rookie and a hybrid, doesn't mean everyone should assume you have a bad robot. We have managed to finish in the quarter finals at St. Louis and in the semi-finals at Boilermaker. In some matches we put up 4 or 5 ringers. In others we lifted two robots at the end. Personally, I was thrilled that we finished our robot on time, made weight and are competing and learning from all of these great teams. Please don't judge our robots until you have seen them. :)

Originally Posted by Koko Ed (Post 604488)

I...This game was much tougher to design for than first aniticipated.

Originally Posted by Jack Jones (Post 604517)

But who would have anticipated the need for an extra 30 points, and then built a drive that could go up a modest ramp? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl (Post 601531)

Another reason why i think teams dont do well is they make the most complex robots i have ever seen K.I.S.S. I know there are a few good hybred robots out there. But there few and far between. I would love to see teams next year tackle one task first and then add another when the first one is finshed.

Originally Posted by InfernoX14 (Post 604783)

Also...

some of the problems may come from mistakes in the KOP.

Carrier plates: Same story, just with a different name.