Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday
We haven't decided yet, but my opinion is that your feeding mechanism should be your plan B if your scoring isn't working out. You can always feed if you have a method of shooting balls. If your feeding system doesn't work out, you have nothing.
|
That is what the other side's argument is, but IMHO. To have a shooter, we would be investing so much time and weight into it. For a feeder, the only actuation you need of the shooter is the yaw. But for the actual shooter, you need both the yaw and pitch. Is that extra weight worth it if we will just go feed? Is the extra time getting the imaging system and everything worth it if the shooter is only that accurate? I would rather have spent my time perfecting the balance (and apparently, the robot does NOT need to be fully supported, will have to ask GDC about that) and have 3 robots balance. Also, because of the simplicity, the feeder mechanism will not break as much as a fully actuated shooter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MohammadAdib
My team (not necessarily me) is thinking of a robot that is purely defensive. They assumed that most of the robots are going to be offenders and hence went with a design where the balls are caught in a net and then somehow are thrown back to our alliance robots...definitely not the best idea, i agree  |
Keep in mind that your strategy opens you up to a lot of penalties. The opposing robot only needs to TOUCH its safezone and touch you. There is a penalty right there. But eventually, the opposing team might get DQ for intentionally doing that.