Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH
Does it? Game objects, as I noted, may include such items as towers and mobile goals. Towers--hmm, like maybe 2010 and 2011?
The reason I specified game object (NOT game piece) is that there are often multiple objects that it is helpful to interact with by using a specialized mechanism. Say, the bridge or the towers mentioned. All game pieces are game objects, but not all game objects are game pieces.
I should also have mentioned that the #1, #2, and #3 designators can be shifted in priority--say, #3 comes first. (Though I don't suggest swapping #1 and #2; it's kind of hard to score a game object if you don't have one.)
In actuality, endgame work could be as high as #1 (iff it's done only with a drivetrain, like the 2006 ramps) or #5 (if it needs a manipulator to do).
|
Ok, I get the object vs piece distinction, but how can you indicate that #n is acquisition and #m is delivery? Are you referring to chronological steps in general (how do you deliver a bridge)?
Remember that {endgame} ⊂ #1 IFF endgame is done only with drivetrain functionality ⊂ standard movement. (The endgame may involve only the drivetrain, but well above and beyond standard movement.)
From the perspective of the OP, these questions are important. One of the worst mistakes you can make early in the design strategy process is mis-prioritize or used overly-constrained verbiage (thereby constraining minds). Look at the teams that ignored the minibot or constrained themselves to hanging on the horizontal bar in Breakaway [not that that didn't work for some also]. Given that Ryan's looking for ways to get kids minds going and inspire them to want to try it, such an open-ended "what's a good structure for determining the top priorities of a FIRST robot" question is actually a pretty valuable discussion of the day.