[OZ_341]

Someone asked me via private message for an example of a successful team that "misread" this years game. That is an easy answer....Team 341. We had a pretty good machine, but we at least partially misplaced our efforts.
We overestimated the value of hanging for 30 points and spent way too much design effort trying to cram a climbing device onto the back of our shooter arm.
We also decided to go with a long shooter arm because it had to double as a climber. The end result was that our large rotating arm was much less stable and accurate than we would have wanted. We also spent time working on climbing that could have been spent on shooter accuracy. The story of abandoned climbers is pretty common among veteran teams this year.
So why is this important in the perspective of Ivan's comments? Because I feel that this year's game design allowed many teams to break through. (2729, 3974 and 225 come to mind)
So why did this happen? I feel that many rising teams went for much simpler and more elegant designs. Many teams with a history of high level success (like 341) went for overcomplicated designs. I think we fell into the trap of trying to be a "Swiss Army Knife" to stay on top.
I don't know if the numbers are there to prove this idea, but I think we saw more success amongst rising teams than in any previous game. Just an observation that may be relevant to previous comments.