Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV
I also like that even if you attempt something that you can't do, it's much easier to change strategies and still play a good game. If you built a shooter last year and couldn't aim, there wasn't much hope for contributing to your alliance, out side of balancing.
|
What do you mean by this? Balancing required "only" a working drive train and yet 60% of alliances did not balance the bridge. And balancing the bridge with two robots won 50%+ matches last year. If you build a shooter that doesn't work this year you can build a last minute dumper, but I don't think you can make the game winning point contributions you could last year with just a working drive train.
I definitely think this is one of the most interesting games in recent years. While I was really disappointed to have finished high school playing Lunacy, I'm psyched to get to come back as a full time mentor in Ultimate Ascent!
Throwing Frisbees is "easy" -- indexing them is hard. A 10 point hang is "easy" -- a 30 point hang is HARD. Loading from the human is "easy" -- loading from the floor is hard.
The only potential issue is that there is a real possibility for blowouts in quals because there is such an emphasis on autonomous and the endgame. and historically the bottom half of the field is not very good at either of those. I don't think it will change the W-L-T that much from previous years, but the margins of victory will probably be even more lopsided. But, that is a price I am willing to pay for what will hopefully be a killer elimination tournament.
I'm also excited that there is a ground swell of support for simple robots, at least on CD. Hopefully the CD group-think is linked up with what the rest of teams are thinking. One can hope!