Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Matteson
It's not that hard to come up with the game breaking strategies. You just need some experience at approaching the game from the right perspective.
-snip-
|
I suppose this kind of comes down to your definition of "game breaking." I've always considered "game breaking" to imply that, if a given team can do something, there's nothing the others can do to stop them from winning. An example of that sort of "game breaking" would be 71's Flopbot in 2002, or just in general that game, where you won defacto if you controlled all three goals. By that definition, I wouldn't classify 469 as "game breaking" because there was something the opposing alliance could do, it just required them to spend almost all their efforts to thwart that particular robot.
It's more just the distinction between "excellent design/strategy" and "game breaking." "Game breaking" implies just that-- that it breaks the game. If you play good defense, there's still something the other team can do-- play better offense. A "game breaker" totally controls the game. While some of these strategies could potentially work on a qualification or practice match, I sincerely doubt that they would be equally successful in eliminations or at the Championships, which, in terms of matches, are where they actually matter.
In short, I agree that it isn't incredibly difficult to come up with a good
strategy, or a good
robot design if you approach the game from the right angle, but a truly
game breaking design is incredibly difficult to pull off-- which is why they're called "game breakers."
My 3.14159 cents.