Re: Team Update #18
 

I'm sorry but I don't get the feeling. I definitely think it's a lot better, it's certainly an improvement, but it's not ready for prime time yet in my opinion.

Matt

Re: Team Update #18
 

The definition of triggered includes "the act of pushing the bottom disk of the TARGET" as a necessary condition. <G20-B> sees to it that only the minibot does the pushing.

Re: Team Update #18
 

I'd like to see a really fast minibot that reverses direction when it returns to the BASE, and goes back up again to make sure the TARGET is TRIGGERED.

:rolleyes:

Re: Team Update #18
 

That would be neat: install some sort of ratcheting mechanism that is disengaged for the initial ascent. Once it hits the top, it switches output direction, and then winds up for a fixed number of revolutions of the wheels, and then switches direction again (so that it's headed for the top again). Repeat forever.

Re: Team Update #18
 

I'd like to offer another perspective on this....

We have a mediocre HOSTBOT that designed and built itself, without any effort on our part. It can play at the 90th percentile at an "easy" regional.

A couple of times during our matches, our HOSTBOT had a GAME PIECE right there ready to HANG, but the darn PEG dodged out of the way, and the GAME PIECE fell to the floor.

I wonder if we should have received points in that situation?

Re: Team Update #18
 

I think maybe FIRST is starting to make your brain go in to that oatmeal state.... :rolleyes:

Seriously though, I think Adam is right, regardless of how well the minibot sensors work, or not, they're a little overweighted in the competition. I've seen a single minibot beat an entire other alliance scoring for the whole game. Just the minibot score. It's kind of frustrating, but it's probably also a topic for another thread.

Matt

Re: Team Update #18
 

This isn't even close to a fair comparison.

The pegs work, and they are purely mechanical; there is no mystery magic involved.

The towers currently "work", and during week 3 regionals there are some good points of evidence that show they aren't perfect.

Re: Team Update #18
 

Analysis of the game scoring should have happened in week 1 of the build season (if not the 1st day).

... and if your alliance cannot score more than the points of 1 minibot then you'd best be able to stop your opponent from launching said minibot.

On topic: The rules state that it is the order of the sensors being triggered by minibots, not the order of minibots to the top of the pole. Lets focus on what triggers (or doesn't trigger) the sensors rather than blame the system when a minibot doesn't trigger the sensors. Does anyone have factual data on the triggering mechinism and its failure modes?

Re: Team Update #18
 

It sure would be nice if we new all the specifics of the towers, but as it stands, there is a rule that says it is triggered when the sensor trips, and not before then. Sure, the towers may have some degree of unreliability, but if the rules are built that way (and this team update suggests FIRST is standing by their towers), then we all have to play the game they designed, whether we like it or not.

I remember a rule in 2008 that caused large amounts of penalties and was seemingly overdone, but it was a rule, and we all followed it.

Re: Team Update #18
 

My gripe was with the distribution of the points, just because I'm voicing it now doesn't mean I didn't have a gripe with them in week 1 of build. I don't think it's a question of robot ability, I think it's a question of absurdity, one singular game action should not be able to offset the rest of the game so dramatically, to me that screams unbalanced.

I agree that the game should be played by the rules, even if I don't particularly like them. I think it's about time that FIRST gave us some concrete data to work with, if they're going to stand by the towers, we have a right to know what they're (the towers) expecting us to do exactly. I'm honestly getting a pretty sour impression from FIRST on this whole situation.

Matt

Re: Team Update #18
 

You wouldn't get any points, but I'm pretty sure the match would be replayed due to a field malfunction. In fact, that was one of Adam's suggestions.

Re: Team Update #18
 

In qualifications this seems to be true, but as far as Einstein (and many of the finals) goes, the robots will be much more important than the minibots. Teams will need minibots, don't get me wrong, but I don't think they will take home many banners. Minibots are worth at most 50 points, which can be offset by 3 ubertubes and 2 logos. I believe that the game is offset during qualification matches, but creates an incredible dynamic in finals matches.

Re: Team Update #18
 

The minibot score can't be offset at the high level of play, every competent alliance come champs will fill the top and middle rows along with some ubertubes. The sole decider in the win will be the minibots.

Re: Team Update #18
 

I would pick 148 or 1114 with no minibot over the fastest minibot any day.

Both robots put up over an average of 33 pts per match (only robots, excluding minibots)

Re: Team Update #18
 

Come champs, every competent alliance in eliminations will be scoring the entire top and middle row. Elite teams, great teams, or even just good teams, it will happen.