[A] does not preclude the triple balance, so I don't see why we wouldn't pick A. The ball manipulation is handy too, this is a very similar role to that which 2791 played at BAE.
I think [b] could potentially be a very good robot, but you'd have to stretch it a bit farther than the terms you have laid out. If it's at weight and a solid pusher, then that's a great second rounder for many regionals. If it had a ball mechanism (not necessarily a scorer, but something to move balls around with), then it's also a great assist robot. But if all it could do was get on the bridge and sit there... I don't think you'd be as reliable as you might wish with your triples.
A transparent strategy is a disadvantage, but not a very big one. I don't think you would need to worry so much about that. I also think a 15x15 robot could play limited defense, with enough weight and traction.
Quote:
|
Based on what I've seen so far I'd have to go with the first one. A good autonomous and a good teleop are more than enough to offset the 20 points gained by getting the third robot on the bridge.
|
I disagree. Say they are 60% accurate. That means six points (one of two balls) in auton, leaving 12 in teleop. If they were 100% accurate, they would need to score 4 balls to be as good as a "pure triple balancer" robot. Since they are 60% accurate, that number gets closer to 7 balls. That is a tall order for most robots and teams.