Quote:
Originally Posted by Garret
From this thread it seems apparent that some people here think that any team can build a great robot that is as good as their own and anything less is a design failure.
|
Great robots are rare. The discussion here is about a failure to account for a specific strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garret
I have been noticing a trend in FRC that I find quite disturbing, that trend is how competitive it has become, with teams focusing on how to hinder an opponent's robot (this is different than defense) rather than optimize their own. To me this whole idea seems contradictory to Gracious Professionalism, simply because the intent is to inhibit other teams from doing well, not by building a necessarily better robot but by using a "loophole" in the rules.
|
Competition, in and of itself, is niether good nor bad. It can sharpen peoples skills and inspire some to greatness. To not be competitive is to become stagnant.
You say hindering an opponent is different from playing defense, but both inhibit an opponents scoring. I'd like to understand what you consider acceptable actions that inhibit scoring and what actions you deem 'ungracious'.
The strategy proposed here is not a 'loophole' but rather an inevitability. There will eventually be tubes in the feederlane, what is wrong with planning for that (both happening to you and causing it to happen to your opponents?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garret
I am sad to see that people now see FIRST as a competition to WIN by any means necessary. I don't understand how people in FIRST, especially mentors, can be so focused on winning.
|
I have seen no 'win by any means' posts here.
This is a competition and the goal of a competition is to win. That said, it's how you go about attaining that goal that determines the measure of the person/team.
To not do my best shows dishonor to my opponent, thus I will do all I can (on the field) to best my opponent, and then help him overcome any difficulties off the field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garret
It doesn't matter for my team (our robot floor loads), but if if I were on a team with a robot that couldn't floorload I would be upset to have people here are calling something I worked hard on a flawed or inferior design or even a mistake. I am appalled by this "new" culture that has developed in FIRST.
|
I would be more upset losing matches because someone
DIDN'T TELL ME my robot had a flaw. Knowing that my robot has a flaw allows me to start looking into creating a 'fix' for that 'flaw'.
I'm appalled that you wouldn't tell a team if you saw a flaw in their robot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garret
Maybe I am wrong for thinking so highly of FIRST's values and the people involved with FIRST. In my opinion such a tactic shouldn't even be considered, again that's my opinion
|
The tactic will happen. Discussing it puts it in the public spotlight so that teams can prepare for dealing with said tactic.
One last thing, Why should a tactic that is not barred by the rules not be considered? Had the GDC not wanted this tactic they would have disallowed it in the rules (or in the updates).