Quote:
Originally Posted by GBK
In Michigan we saw teams that did not even have a shooter on their robot seed in the top 5 and were in a picking position.
In the real world if someone comes to you and says I need you to design something that will do X and if it can also do Y and you do not even attempt to do X but do Y very well, will you get the contract???
If you attempt to do something, and do it to the best of your abilities, what ever your result, is one thing. But when you don't even attempt it that is quite another.
|
It's entirely possible to win that contract, my company has. We just finished re-scoping a 2-year contract we won because our proposal caused the awarder to re-focus what was important to them based on slight suggestions in our proposal.
I agree with the sentiment that the primary objective is to build a robot that plays the
game well, not necessarily every challenge or task contained within the game.
Good example being Zone Zeal. We made a robot that was arguably one of the best ball collectors/scorers that year, but we had goals full of balls stripped from us routinely. We completed the flashiest, and ostensibly the 'main challenge' of the game VERY well. The robot was not very successful in elimination matches because the outcome of the Game rested on holding those goals in your scoring zone, which we couldn't do.