Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis
I would say this is actually a good thing. Forcing teams to choose which parts of the challenge they'll address leads to more diverse robots and a more interesting game on the field. Looking back over the past few years, having so many robots available that could do everything really did make match ups a little less interesting than this year.
|
I don't agree. For the most part, it doesn't force prioritizing or diversity, it forces many teams to build the same robot. More complicated drivetrains (swerve/mecanum) are a bigger pain to pull off, and many hundreds of teams built the exact same robot- 4/6wd human-fed linear shooter. The biggest variation was whether the team build a linear or curved shooter, but other than that, differences in functionality are minimal. The only really cool design difference, the height of the robot with regards to full-court shooting (60") or making it under the bar (<30") was not based on size, it was based on the field.
__________________
This is our Robot. There are many like it, but this one is ours.
Measure twice, cut once, curse, buy more, and cut again.
2014- Excellence in Engineering (UNH), District Chairman's Award (NU), #8 Quarterfinalist (NECMP), Winner (Mainely Spirit)
2013- Semifinalists (Battlecry@WPI) Winner (Mainely Spirit)
2012- Regional Chairman's (GSR), Finalists as the #11 Alliance Captain (Battlecry@WPI)
2011-Xerox Creativity Award (GSR), Semifinalists (GSR) Innovation in Control (Virginia)
2010-Champion (GSR), Undefeated (Chesapeake), Coopertition Award (Chesapeake), Quarterfinalists (Galileo) 8th AC (IRI)
2008-Undefeated (GSR), Xerox Creativity Award (GSR)