Quote:
Originally Posted by MICHAELABICK
This is especially untrue at championships. While many of the powerhouse teams have relatively equal robots, the 3rd robot makes all the difference. Even at regionals a third robot can make much of the difference between winning and losing.
|
It's not even true pre-Championships, but the density of teams who realize it is lower.
The basic fallacy is that there's a single spectrum on which all teams should be ranked. Definitely/maybe/no way aren't bad classifications (higher resolution can be useful), but assigning them on a single-spectrum basis ignores the basic premise of elimination matches. I'll keep it basic, but what if you ended up with 3 shooters or 3 full-sized long bots? You can afford someone with a poorer autonomous if they can feed or you have the fastest guy to the bridge. You could skimp on the third 2011 minibot if necessary to nail an awesome feeder/defender or scorer. Do you need a low standard deviation feeder? A highly adaptable strategy-filler? Do you have triple balance compatibility (2012)? If there won't be reliable autonomous modes left on the second round, can you snag a double-tuber first (2011)? [This goes back through the years]