View Single Post
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-02-2012, 10:30
Andrew Lawrence
 
Posts: n/a
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber View Post
They were perfectly clear. Twice. The bridge was defined as everything in a certain drawing. The rule says supported. To me balanced and supported do not mean on top of. As an engineer my job is to be clear in unambiguous in the language I use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wireties View Post
I don't know what to say Andrew, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

For all of the future engineers reading this thread - you give me an answer like that quoted above in an interview and I will NOT hire you. Time is money and I will assume you are likely to waste both.
Honestly, I don't think it really matters. It is clear that you're supposed to be ON the bridge, not under it. I understand the rules are open for this sort of manipulation, however do you really think that the GDC would allow a game strategy not intended for use that breaks rules? I think a robot between the lexan and the bridge can "assist in balancing", which is illegal.

Furthermore, for those arguing it takes away "innovativeness", look at 179's robot. Perfectly legal, and is one of the most innovative robots I've seen in my life. I'm not saying you shouldn't go innovative and stick to the plain rules, but going as far as to say it's unfair you can't drive onto the lexan and call it balancing is just going too far.

Don't get me wrong, I want to make an innovative design and robot as much as the next guy, and like everyone else I spend my time reading through the rules, trying to find any possible loophole that will be viable for my team's advantage. However, one does not simply drive onto lexan and call it balanced.

These are just my views, and I understand others have their own views on these things, and I respect that.

-Andrew