Quote:
Originally Posted by DampRobot
Yes. There's this notion on CD that if you work really, really hard, and get as many sponsors as possible, you can be a "top team." As many lower tier teams can attest to, is simply isn't true.
In my experience, what makes the difference isn't really time or resources or whether or not a team makes a practice bot. It's the experience and intuition the real team leader has (it can be a mentor, or much more rarely a student) and their ability to cohesively lead the team. Combine that with ample amounts of time, machines and money, and an elite team is born.
|
Oh no this thread is back.
I definitely respect what you are both saying. I can only speak for my own team and what changes pushed us forward. So when I say we "worked really hard", I am saying that we pushed ourselves in every possible way to exceed our previous expectations. It was not meant to be a value judgement about other teams.
As I mentioned very early in this thread, I do not pretend to know how every team operates. I simply was tired of other teams and individuals making assumptions about how we operate and further making assumptions about what are value system was.
We all have a tendency to oversimplify situations in an attempt to understand or categorize them. The real answer to success for any team is always much more complex and very specific to each team's situation. For some it may be a matter of mentorship, for others hard work or simply having more funding.
None of these items are a negative. You just have to critically analyze your team's situation regularly and be objective, even when you are having success.